04.10.13 OSBT Tag memo and attacments
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEESAGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE:April10, 2013
AGENDA TITLE
Consideration of a motion regarding program enhancements to the Voice
and Sight Tag Program.
PRESENTER/S
Michael D. Patton, Director,Open Space and Mountain Parks
Mark D. Gershman, Environmental Planning Supervisor
Stephen B. Armstead, Environmental Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Voice and Sight Tag (Tag)Program was included in the Visitor Master Plan (VMP) as a
trialprogram.The purpose of the Tag Program was to increasedog guardians’ awareness of the
requirements of voice and sight control and proper dog management.
Staff evaluated enhancement options for the Tag Program for several reasons:
Monitoringconcluded that compliance with the requirement of the Tag Program was
lower than standards set in the VMP.
City Council identified the Tag Program among a number of overarching issues for
review.
The Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) has recommended that staff examine
potential enhancements to the Tag Program.
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)held two open houses anddiscussedthe Tag Program
during three study sessions with the OSBT.At these meetingsstaff discussed potential program
enhancementsand gathered community and OSBT feedback.On Oct.10, 2012the Board
unanimously recommended a set of Tag Program enhancements. These were subsequently
discussedwith City Councilat a study sessionin November 2012. Council members were in
support of the general content and direction of the program enhancements and recommended
additional work to clarifydetails on revocation, reinstatement, program fees, and monitoring.
Staff and the OSBTheld a study session on Jan.31, 2013 to discuss theseprogram details. The
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 1
Board and staff discussed waysto implement the education and outreach enhancements during
theFeb.13, 2013OSBTmeeting.
This memorandum containsinformation that addressesprogram enhancement details regarding:
1) revocation and reinstatement of privileges, 2) program cost estimates and 3) recommended
program fees andpresents the completepackage of program enhancements.The adaptive
management and monitoring program will be discussed with OSBT at a future meeting once the
monitoring program review is complete.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes that the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend to the Boulder City
Council that:
The Voice and Sight Tag Program be modified with the program enhancementslisted in
Attachment A.
An additional $235,000 to be authorized as a supplementalbudget appropriation for costs
in 2013 associated with implementing program changes.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
Economic–Overall economic impacts on the business community are unknown. Businesses
and organizations providing dog training services may benefit from dog guardians seeking
training services to increase skills beneficial to voice and sight control.
Environmental–The Tag Program was identified inthe VMPas a way to reduce adverse
effects to OSMP ecological and agricultural resources by increasing the level of compliance
with voice and sight requirements.Compliance with the Tag Program requirements has
likely contributed to some environmental protection such as more dogs being kept on leash.
The recommendedenhancements to the Tag Program are specifically intended to change
behaviors to benefit environmental sustainability of the city’s open space resources.
Social–Neighboring open space and park managers require dogs to be leashed almost
everywhere dogs are allowed(except in dog parks).The trails and areas on city lands for off-
leash voice and sight control opportunities is highly valued as the only option availablefor
many dog guardians.The Tag Program initially reduced dog-related conflicts;however,the
reduction was not sustained. Enhancements to the Tag Program are intended to both support
enduring changes that will sustain a high-quality visitor experience retaining valued voice
and sight control opportunities and reducing behaviors that contribute to visitor conflict.
OTHER IMPACTS
Fiscal –Nonpersonnel program costs are estimated at $169,000 for the first two years and
then $21,000 annually thereafter. Increased registration fees coupled with a requirement for
periodic renewal are likely to generate program revenues to cover program costs. For details
please see the Analysis section.
Staff time –While much of the work associated with the proposed program enhancements
will be accomplished with existing staff and contracted services, OSMP proposes hiring
additional seasonal staffing for education and monitoring. A total of 8.4full time equivalents
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 2
(FTE)($532,000) will be needed over the first two years duringimplementation of which 4.5
seasonal employee FTEs($196,000)are new positions. Thereafter,1.8FTEs (ca.$110,000)
will be needed which includes 1.0 FTE of seasonal employees.The Analysis section
provides greater detail about how OSMP proposes to staff the program.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
OSMP has received nearly 300responses to provided feedback about the Tag Program. These
include bothgeneralcomments and comments specificallyabout program enhancement options
1
whenthe Tag Program Evaluation Report was distributed in May2012.OSMP held two open
houses (May 24 and 30, 2012)for community members to discuss the evaluation and
enhancement options with staff. Additionally, staff sent emails to program participants, posted
information on the OSMP Website, and distributed media releases as part of the communication
strategy for the Tag Program evaluation.
During study sessions in January, March and July of 2012the OSBT provided staff with
feedback on potential Tag Program enhancements. The OSBT held a public hearing on Oct. 10,
2012 and unanimously recommended a number of program enhancements which are summarized
in Attachment B.OSMP staff and OSBT members discussed the Tag Program evaluation with
City Council at a study session on Nov. 13, 2012. Council members supportedthe content and
direction of the program enhancementsand suggested additional work to determine the details of
the enhancements. Staff and the OSBT discussed these program details at astudy session on Jan.
31, 2013.
This item is being heard as part of apublic meeting advertised in the Daily Cameraon Sunday,
April 7, 2013.
BACKGROUND
The Tag Program was included in the VMPas a trialprogram,the purpose of which was to
increasedog guardians’ awareness of the requirements of voice and sight control and proper dog
management etiquette. The VMP predicted that an increased awareness of requirements would
improve compliance,thereby reducing conflicts and resource impacts as well as the likelihood
that such problems would increase in the future.
The Tag Program was initiated in 2006 and has remained largely unchanged.The program
offers virtually the only suchprivilege andis greatly valued by participants.In response to City
Council and OSBT direction, along withmonitoring results showing voice and sight compliance
below standards set in the VMP, OSMP staff has worked with community members including
the OSBT and City Council to evaluate enhancements tothe Tag Program.
Staff evaluated potential enhancement options and prepared a reportfor public review and
2
comment. The report includes background about the Tag Program and guidance from relevant
1
The compendium of comments is lengthy (191pp.) and was not included in the packet. It is available on the
OSMP Website at http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_VMP/overarching/12-
1113_Council_Study_Session_Compendium.pdf.
2
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_VMP/overarching/Revised_Tag_Program_
Evaluation_1-25-13.pdf
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 3
plans.It also discussesif and how program objectives weremetand analyzespotential
enhancement options and associated strategies.
Several information needs were identified by City Councilmembers at the Nov.13, 2012 study
session. Council members requested additional information about:
1)Violations thatwouldresultin revocation of privileges, fines and reinstatement of
privileges,
2)Program cost estimates and feesfor program registration and renewal.
During a study sessionon Jan.31, 2013 the OSBT and staff discussed council’sfeedback,details
for revocation and differential fees,and the process for developing an adaptive management and
monitoring program to evaluate Tag Program success. Staff drafted a set of recommendations
based upon 1)the enhancements OSBTrecommended to City Council in Oct.2012,
2)information from the January OSBT study sessionand 3) feedback fromthe February OSBT
meeting regarding education strategies.
ANALYSIS
Fines,Revocationand Reinstatement
1.Fines
City Council was supportive of increasing finesfor not having a tag or failure to register in the
program from a maximumof $50, $100 to a maximumof $100, $200for firstand second
violations, and from a minimumof $200to a minimumof $300for three or moreviolations.
Discussions with the OSBT at the January study session also indicatedsupport for increasing the
fines for dogsat large or not under voice and sight control (B.R.C 6-1-16) by the same amounts.
Additionally, therewas general support for increasing the bond amount for dog-related City
Manager Rule violations to $100.
Staff is recommending an addition to the package of enhancements. Thisaddition is a significant
fine for guardians who are convicted of having a dog off leash while under a revoked program
status. Staff supports a minimum fine of $500 and a revocation period for at leasttwo years for
this violation. Staff considers such asubstantial fine and minimum revocation periodnecessary
to communicate the importance of the Tag Program and increase compliance with revocation and
reinstatement requirements.
2.Violations Causing Revocation of Voice and Sight Control Privileges
Currently, revocation of Tag Program privileges occurs with threeconvictions in the span of two
years for violations of the ordinance prohibiting“Dog Running at Large”on OSMP and on city
3
park lands.Dog Running at Large convictions include both off leash and voice and sight
control violations.
The OSBT and staffrecommended to council that the ordinance be modified so that voice and
4
sight privileges would be revoked upon tworather than three convictions.Council was
3
City of Boulder Revised Code 1981 (B.R.C.)6-1-16
4
Unless specially ordered by a judge, revocation of voice and sight privileges does not affect the privilege of
walking leashed dogs where allowed on OSMP.
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 4
supportive of this change.Council also supported the OSBT and staff recommendation that just
one
conviction of the city code for aggressive dogs ordogs chasing or injuring wildlife or
livestock should resultin the revocation of Tag Program privileges.
The OSBT and staff recommendation to City Council suggestedthatthere may also beother
dog-related offenses that should contribute to the revocation of privileges. At the study session,
councilaskedstaff and the OSBT to specify theother dog-related violationsthat could affect
revocation.
The dog-related offensescurrently not affecting revocation that wereconsidered for contributing
to loss of Tag Program privileges are:
1.Violations of seasonal or area-specific, on-leash or no-dog regulations,
City Manager’s Rules (B.R.C. 8-3-3);
2.Guardians not displaying a tag on off-leash dogs (B.R.C. 6-13-2); and,
3.Failure to remove excrement (B.R.C. 6-1-18).
Staff and the OSBT discussed these violations during the January 2013 study sessionwith
#3#2
general OSBT support for including both (failing to remove excrement)and (not
displaying a tag on an off-leash dog)as regulations that would result in revocation after two
#1
convictions (strikes) within two years. With respect to (dog-related violationsof City
Manager’s Rules), the OSBT indicated interest in includingviolations of dog-related rules
regardingwildlife protection as causingrevocation after oneconviction. All other dog-related
ruleviolations wouldbe subject to loss of privileges after twoconvictions in a two-year period.
not occurring on
3.Voice and Sight Control and Dog Off-Leash Violations OSMP Properties
The Tag Program is in effect beyond OSMPlands including some areas managed by the Parks
and Recreation Department around Boulder Reservoir. The Tag Program also affects dog
management in other areas under the city’s jurisdiction. City of Boulder animal control officers
repeatedly encounter dogs off leash in areas within the city limits where leash control is required.
The officers often hear that guardiansclaim tobelieve or assertthe off-leash privileges
associatedwith the Tag Programextendto other areas in the city (see Attachment D).
Staffs from OSMP, Parks and Recreation and the Police Department (where the city’s animal
control program resides) recommend that off leash or voice and sight control convictions should
apply to loss of Tag Program privileges regardless of where in the city’s jurisdictionthe
violations occur. This creates a consistent policy for dog controlthroughoutthe city’s
jurisdictionand encouragesTag Programparticipants to understand where voice and sight
privileges extend (and where they do not). It also provides a consistent approach for guardians
and dogs convicted of beingaggressive or endangering wildlife anywhere in the city.
4.Revocation and Reinstatement of Voice and SightControl Privileges
Revocation of voice and sight privileges does not mean that a guardian cannot bring a dog to
OSMP. Aguardian with revoked privileges may continue tovisit OSMP with his/herdog(s)
leashedunless otherwise restricted by court order.
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 5
During the January study session, the OSBT and staff discussed the existing reinstatement
processand potential changes.There was OSBT interest in considering two alternative
reinstatement paths. One would be used when avoice and sight evaluation testwould be
appropriate fordeterminingthe ability of a dog and guardian to meetprogramrequirements. The
other would be for situations when dog testing was not necessary(e.g., failure to pick up
excrement, or failure to possess a leash).Staff considered a range of options for reinstatement
and triggers that couldindicate the appropriatereinstatement process. Examples of reinstatement
options include:
Always require avoice and sight evaluation test for revoked guardians and dogs.
Require retaking the information session as well as avoice and sight evaluation test.
Require retaking just the information session.
Require a specializedreinstatementprocess customized to the nature of the violation(s).
Staff also considered different triggersto determine the reinstatement process:
Violations of significant concern;violations such as aggressive dog or failure to protect
wildlifewhere one convictioncausesrevocation—involvingboth guardian and dog
behavior.
Violations causing revocation that mainly involveguardian behavior including some single-
convictionviolationsand all two-convictionviolations.
The options and associated reinstatement triggers were assessedbased on feasibility of
implementation and how well the option fitthe nature of the violationscausing revocation.A
description of the proposed reinstatement processes and triggers is available in Attachment E.
Staff concluded that the best combination of reinstatement options and triggerswere:
1)to use two reinstatement paths,and
2)to determinethe path based upon the significance of the violation as well as guardian and
dog involvement in the violation.
Guardians wanting to go through the reinstatement process would be responsible for thecost of
attending information sessions, evaluation tests and reinstatement fees.
Anotherkey issue involving revocation is how rangers and animal control officers can
effectively distinguish revoked guardians from those in good standing. Thisis anissue because
tags indicatevalid program statusfor both guardian and dog.Additionally, atag can indicate
valid program status for several members of a household.
Revocation is easily enforced when the household consistsofone guardian and one dog.In
these instances, the tag must be forfeitedand the affected guardian and dog must go through
reinstatement to regain their privileges.However, households often include multiple guardians
and dogs. This complicatesenforcement of lost privilegesbecause of the effect on other
household members or other dogs in the household. Unless all tags are forfeited for all dogs in
the household,there is no effective way to enforce aguardian’s revoked status.
To addressthis enforcement issue, staff considered alternativesbased on how revocation applies
to various combinations of the guardian and dogsinvolved in violations and the corresponding
impacts to other guardians and dogsin that household.The most feasible and effective approach
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 6
to enforce and promote compliance with revocation is to require forfeiture of all tags in a
household untilthereinstatement process is successfully completed.
During the analysis of these factors, staff becameaware of the relevance of another question.
Shouldguardianswho are repeatedly revoked be restricted from continuing to have Tag Program
privileges?There was a concern that chronic offenders should not be able to indefinitelyregain
privileges. Staff recommends that after two revocations in three years or three revocations over
any periodof time, a guardian should no longer be eligible for participation in the Tag Program.
Program Cost Estimate and Fees
The OSBT and City Council have supporteda cost recovery model for theTag Program and a
new three-tiered fee structure based upon the following categories of residency:
City of Boulder,
Boulder County (outside the City of Boulder), and
Outside Boulder County
Staff used implementation cost estimates to model how programfees could be structured to
achievecost recovery.
1.Cost Estimates for the Tag Program Enhancements
Staff Time
Implementation of the Tag Program enhancements will occur over a two-year period(2013 -
2014). During 2013,staffwill develop systems to administer the new program features. The
first year of operating with the new program enhancementswill be2014. Substantial staff time
is required to plan, coordinate, and implement the recommended Tag Program changes.
Estimates of OSMP staff time necessary for implementing the program changes over the two-
year timeframeare approximately 8.4FTEsor $532,000 of standard andseasonal staff time.
This estimate includes approximately 4.4 FTEs ($295,000) to prepare program changesin 2013
and 4.0FTEs ($237,000) for first year administrationof the revised program. Staff will be
needed for:
Project coordination and management;
Planning and development of a new record management system;
Outreach and education strategies;
Development and staffing of information sessions;
Revisions to the voice and sight video;
Monitoring data collection and reporting;
Verifying rabies or city dog license information; and,
Processing new and renewing Tag Program participant information.
Implementation will be a high priority for the department. Consequently,existing staff will be
assignedto assist with the Tag Program. However, OSMP lacks the existing staff capacityto
accomplish all implementation tasks. Of the 8.4FTEs of staff timeneededduring 2013 and
2014, approximately 3.9FTEs($336,000)can be allocated from existing staff, mostly existing
standard staff positions.An additionaltwo (2) FTEs ($87,000) of seasonal positions will be
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 7
needed in 2013 and 2.5 FTEs ($109,000) will be needed in 2014 for a total of 4.5FTEs
($196,000)of new seasonal positions for implementation.
Nonpersonnel Expenses
Material and service costs are estimated to be $169,000 and include:
New online registration and record management system to track participation and links to the
city’s dog license program,
Revised voice and sight control video,
New information and regulation signs and program brochures, and
New tags, postage and mailing supplies.
In subsequent years, annual program costs are estimated at approximately $21,000 (materials and
supplies) and 1.8FTEs ($110,000) of staff time to manage the program. Ongoing personnel
expenses are for both standard staff time dedicated to administer the program andseasonal
positionsfor education.
The program costestimate does not include staff time for the types of services OSMP provides
on an on-going basis for successful implementation of all its programs (e.g., enforcement,
general outreach, sign maintenance, and responding to information requests).Table 1 lists the
cost estimate for implementing changes to the Tag Program. Additionalprogram cost estimate
details are available in Attachment F.
Table 1: Enhanced Tag Program Cost Estimate
Implementation
Ongoing
Cost20132014
StandardSeasonalStandardSeasonalStandardSeasonal
New Positions
$87,000$109,000$44,000
Existing
$207,000$128,000$66,000
Positions
Total Staff
$295,000$237,000$110,000
Time
Material &
$148,000$21,000$21,000
Services
Total Cost
$443,000$258,000$131,000
Implementation
$701,000
(2013-2014)
Ongoing
$131,000
Staff will be recommending to City Council that an additional $235,000 be authorized as a
supplemental budget appropriation for costs in 2013 associated with implementation of the Tag
Program enhancements. The $235,000 supplemental appropriationrequestconsists of $87,000
for new seasonal positions and $148,000 for materials and services. The 2014 budget will
include a request for $130,000 including $109,000 for seasonal positions and $21,000 for
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 8
material and services. Annual ongoing budget requests are expected to be for a total of $65,000
($44,000 for one seasonal position;$21,000 materials and services).
2.Recommended Program Fees
The Tag Program will require an annual renewal. The Board recommended to council that there
should be higher enrollment and renewal costs for those residing outside the City of Boulder.
Council members were supportive of this approach.
The proposed fees for the Tag Program include a household registration fee. This fee varies by
residency and includes one participant and one dog. There will be an additional $5fee for each
additional participant and a $10 fee for each additionaldog. For example, a three participant
household with twodogswouldhave to pay the household registration fee plus an additional fee
of $20 for the two extra participantsand one additional dog. Each participant must also pay the
cost of the requiredinformation session. A single annual renewal fee will cover all participants
and dogs in a household.
Staff modeled twofee structure options using three different estimatesof participation. Under the
low participant estimate, there would be 16,000 people participating in the program; medium
25,000 participants; and high would have 32,000. The “high” level represents the cumulative
number of Tag Program participantswho have enrolled in the program to date.The “medium”
and “low” estimates are basedon different levels of attrition and the assumptions that the new
program requirements will decrease the number of participants. The three participation levels
were used to estimate the number of potential households; and revenue estimates were then
calculated based on the proportion of households in the City of Boulder, Boulder County and
5
outside Boulder County and the proposed fee option.Table 2 lists the revenue estimates for two
registration and annual renewal fee options using the participation estimates(low, medium,
high).
5
OSMP staff reanalyzed household participation percentages using Tag Program registration information from the
start of the program through November of 2012. Household addresses were geocoded using a Geographic
Information System to determine residency. Tag Program household residency proportions used in estimates were
City of Boulder (41%), Boulder County (32%) and outside Boulder County (27%).
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 9
Table 2: Tag Program Revenue Estimates
Option 1Option 2
Registration Revenuesand Total Implementation Costs = $701,000
additional person and dog fees(2 years; 2013 and 2014)
Registration Fees
$5/ $20/ $50$10 / $30 / $75
(City of Boulder/Boulder County/ non-
Boulder County)
Low$284,000$391,000
Medium$444,000$611,000
High$575,000$791,000
Renewal and New Participant
Annual Ongoing Costs = $131,000
Registration Revenues
Annual Renewal Fee$5/ $20/ $30$5/ $20/ $30
Low$165,000$172,000
Medium$266,000$279,000
High$351,000$371,000
Years to Cost Recovery
Low13.38.6
Medium2.91.6
High1.61
Staff believes Option 2will provide the best opportunity for recovering implementation and
ongoing operational costs for the Tag Program. Staff does not believe that participation levels in
the Tag Program will equal the high (32,000) estimate. That estimate assumes that all
re
participants who have ever registered in the Tag Program since its inception will -register. It is
more likely that a number between the medium (25,000)and the low (16,000)participation
estimatesismore realistic. At the medium level of participation, program implementation costs
are likely to be recovered after one year. If participation is lower, costs will take longer to
recover.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Tag Program evaluation concluded that no single enhancement wouldimprove the program
so that it could meet its objectives. The evaluation reportrecommendeda combination of
enhancements that would:
Verify or increase the capability of guardians to reliably exercise voice and sight control
skills;
Leveragemeaningful sanctions to encourage compliance; and,
Ensure dogs on OSMPlands have current rabies vaccinations and support compliance with
City of Boulder dog licensing requirements.
In addition to these recommended approaches, the OSBT has encouraged the inclusion of
education strategies asprogram enhancements.
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 10
The following is a summary of key program recommendationsintegrating the many ideasfrom
community members, City Council, the OSBT and city staff.Attachment A contains the
complete package of recommended program enhancements. Attachment B is acomparison of
the OSBT’s recommendation tocouncil with the revised recommendation.
1.Information Session
RequireTag Program participants’attendance atan information session ensuring greater
awareness of the program requirements, goals and objectives. An information session can also
inform guardians about ways to and opportunitiesfor improving off-leash dog control skills.
2.Require proof of rabies vaccinations
Require current vaccination as a requirementfora dog’sparticipation in the Tag Programand
requiringCity of Boulder residents to provide a valid Boulder dog license as proof of vaccination
and compliance with the city’s license requirement.
3.Education and Outreach Strategies
The implementation of education and outreach strategies are important to inform and encourage
compliance with the program requirements and share information about how guardians can
successfully manage dogs under voice and sight control.
4.Consequences for Violations
a.Increasedfines for offenses dealing with failureto have a voice and sight tag on an off-leash
dog and for dog at large and voice and sight violations.
b.Specifying dog-related violations that contribute tothe loss of Tag Program privilegesand
reducing the number of convictionsnecessary for revocation. Include serious violationssuch
as aggressive dog and failure to protect wildlife as violations contributing to revocation.
c.Clarifying the process for reinstatement after privileges have been revoked.
5.Participant Registration and Renewal Fees
City Council and the OSBT support a cost recovery model with differential fees for those
residingoutside of the City of Boulderand Boulder County. This can be accomplished by a
three-tiered fee structure for City of Boulder residents, Boulder County residentsoutside the City
of Boulder, and non-Boulder County residents as shown in Table 3.
Table 3:Tag Program Fees Recommendation
Boulder County
City of Boulder Residents Outside
FeeResidents Outside
ResidentsBoulder County
the Cityof Boulder
Program Registration$10$30$75
Annual Renewal$0$15$20
Additional Guardian$5
Additional Dog$10
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 11
Submitted by:
__________________________
Michael D. Patton, Director
__________________________
Mark D. Gershman, Planning Supervisor
__________________________
Stephen B. Armstead, Environmental Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tag Program Enhancement Recommendations
B: OSBT Tag Program Recommendation and Proposed Revisions
C:Memorandumfrom City of Boulder Police Department Animal ControlSupervisor
D: Recommended Reinstatement Process
E: Enhanced Voice and Sight Tag Program Cost Estimate
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 12
ATTACHMENT A
Tag Program Enhancement Recommendations
#Enhancement Recommendation
Require all program participants attend an information session. New program participants must
attend a session before they can register in the program. During the first calendar year(2014),
1existing participants may remain active in the program and will have until Dec.31 of 2014to
complete the information session. The information session must be repeated every five years.
Require proof of current rabies vaccination for all dogs to be registered in the program. City of
Boulder residents are required to provide a valid City of Boulder dog license as proof of current
rabies vaccination.
2
Require that alldogs on OSMP landsdisplay a valid rabies vaccination tag.
Implement the following education and outreach strategies:
a)Increase outreach and education about training opportunities
b)Support stakeholder efforts
c)Revise and update the voice and sight video
d)Create refresher videos on requirements, etiquette or issues that will be phased in based on
time and cost
e)Use traditional and social media to provide instructive educational information to participants
f)Provide educational walks for dogs and dog guardians on a trial basis
g)Improve clarity and information on signs
h)Distribute palm cards explaining the Tag Program
3i)Increase outreach and education to visitors without dogs about voice and sight control and
what to expect
j)Consider under specific conditions and onwell-suited OSMP properties,opportunities for
special voice and sight control training events
k)Encourage dog guardians to become volunteer Trail Guides and provide additional training for
outreach with a dog
l)Participate in more dog-related outreach events; consider organizing another “Tag Wag” type
event
m)Promote information on dog-prohibited trails and add this information on the OSMP Website
n)Train all staff on the new regulations for informal educational opportunities
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 13
#Enhancement Recommendation
Increase fines for Voice and Sight Evidence Tag Required(B.R.C. 6-13-2)and Dog at Large
violations (B.R.C. 6-1-16) to $100 (maximum), $200 (maximum), and $300 (minimum) for first,
second and third or more convictionsrespectively. Provide mechanism for dismissal of tickets for
lawful participants who inadvertently failed to display tag.
The bond amount for dog-related City Manager’sRule violations(B.R.C. 8-3-3)will be increased to
4$100.
Encourage courts to order such additions to fines as watching the voice and sight video, attending the
voice and sight information session, dog training, and/or demonstration testing for egregious or repeat
dog-related violations consistent with the nature of the violation. Community service for dog waste
violations may be particularly appropriate.
one
Revocation of program privileges will occur afterconviction of the following violations
involving a dog:
Aggressive Animal Prohibited (B.R.C. 6-1-20),
Failure to Protect Wildlife (or livestock) (B.R.C. 8-3-5), and
Violations of City Manager’s Rule (B.R.C. 8-3-3) involving wildlife protection.
two
Revocation of program privileges will occur afterconvictions in two years by a single guardian
or after three convictions in two years by any combination of guardians in a single household. The
following violations involving a dog apply:
Dog at Large (B.R.C. 6-1-16)
Failure to remove excrement (B.R.C. 6-1-18)
Guardians not displaying a tag on off-leash dogs (B.R.C. 6-13-2)
Violations of City Manager’s Rule (B.R.C. 8-3-3) not involving wildlife protection.
5
Tag Program revocation-related violations on OSMP and other lands under the jurisdiction of the City
of Boulder will be consideredforrevocation.
Revocation will cause forfeiture of all household tags until the reinstatement process has been
successfully completed.
Aguardian with two revocations in threeyears or three revocations will permanently lose his/her
voice and sight privileges.
Require aminimumfine of $500 and a minimum two-year revocation period for a guardian with
revoked privileges having a dog off leash.
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 14
#Enhancement Recommendation
Program privileges may be reinstated after successful completion of a reinstatement process.
Reinstatement from revocation due to a conviction of aggressive dog or failure to protect wildlife
violations must include successful completion of the voice and sight evaluation test by the revoked
guardian and dog and the retaking of the information sessionby the revoked guardian. Reinstatement
6from all other revocations will at least include the retaking of the information session by the revoked
guardian; and at the discretion of the courts may require successful completion of the voice and sight
evaluation testor other actions. Reinstatement will include payment of fees for the information
session, the voice and sight evaluation test (if required) and payment of a reinstatement fee.
The program registration and annual renewal fees will include a graduated fee structure for residents
of the City of Boulder, residents of Boulder County outside the City of Boulder, and non-county
residents.
Program registration fees:
City of Boulder Residents ($10),
Boulder County residents outside the City of Boulder ($30),
Non-Boulder County residents ($75), and
The registration fee includes one guardian and one dog; the fee for each additional guardian in a
household is ($5) and the fee for each additional dog in a household is ($10).
7
Annual household renewal fee:
City of Boulder Residents ($5),
Boulder County residents outside the City of Boulder ($20), and
Non-Boulder County residents ($30).
Program participants will be responsible for any fees charged to attendthe information session. Such
costs, if any, will be separatefrom program registration and renewal fees.
The additional guardian and dog registration fees will be waived forCity of Boulderhouseholds who
meet incomecriteria consistent with the City of Boulder Food Tax Rebate Programor the Parks and
Recreation Reduced Rate Program.
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 15
ATTACHMENT C
Memorandumfrom City of Boulder Police Department Animal ControlSupervisor
City of Boulder
Police Department
180533SB,C80301303.441.3310
TREET OULDER OLORADO
RD
MEMO
TO:OSMP Staff
Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM:Janee’ Boswell, Animal Control Supervisor; Boulder Police Department
Cc: Curtis Johnson, Commander
Greg Testa, Deputy Chief
DATE:April 4, 2013
REFERENCE: Voice and Sight Control Tag Revocation Provisions
______________________________________________________________________________
Boulder Police Department, Animal Control Unit is responsible for the enforcement of all animal-related
ordinances within the City of Boulder. That includes all land within incorporated city limits; public and
private property, the Boulder Reservoir, Coot Lake, as well as the 62city parks. Animal Control Officers
are also charged with the responsibility to manage designated voice and sight control areas that fall within
incorporated Boulder such as Howard Heuston Park and the Reservoir.
That being said, the Animal Control unit has the opportunity to see the effects of the Voice & Sight
Control Tag Program throughout the entirety of Boulder. Officers contend with violations ranging from
aggressive animals, dogs harassing wildlife, to the frequent leash-law violation. On a daily basis,Animal
Control Officers encounter dogs off leash in areas within the city limits where leash control is required.
In an estimated 90% of the contacts that officers make for these off-leash violations,guardians or keepers
believe their off-leash privileges associated with the Tag Program extend to all areas within the city.
The effects and impacts of the tag program are not isolated to OSMP property, as such;the considerations
for implementation and revocation should be addressed as a citywide issue. Boulder has clear values and
principles for the protection of wildlife and personal safety of the community. It is essential that the city
maintain a consistent message that these values are imparted on allproperty, not just OSMP areas.
The Police Department recommends that off leash or voice and sight control convictions should apply to
loss of Tag Program privileges regardless of the location withinthe city’s jurisdiction where the violations
occur. This creates a consistent policy for dog control throughout the city’s jurisdiction and encourages
Tag Program participants to understand where voice and sight privileges extend (and where they do not).
It also provides a consistent approach for guardians and dogs convicted of being aggressive or
endangering wildlife anywhere in the city.
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 21
ATTACHMENT D
RecommendedReinstatement Process
Reinstatement ProcessOptions
1)Require retaking the information session as well as a voice and sight evaluation test
2)Require retaking just theinformation session
Reinstatement ProcessTriggers
Process TriggerReinstatement Process
Violations where one conviction causesloss Person and dog(s) must go through evaluation
of privileges including:test and guardian must attend the information
session
Aggressive dog(B.R.C. 6-1-20)
Failure to protect wildlife/livestock
(B.R.C 8-3-5)
Violations where one conviction causesloss Guardian must attend the information session
of privileges:
Requiring the evaluation test may be an option
City Manager’s Rule violations
at the discretion of the courts.
involving wildlife protection (B.R.C. 8-
3-3)
Violations where two convictions cause loss Guardian must attend the information session
of privileges
Requiring the evaluation test may be an option
at the discretion of the courts.
Key Considerations
Human and dog behaviorrelated one strike violations require evaluation test (dog and
guardian).
Wildlife protection 8-3-3s and two strike violations require guardiantoretakethe
information session.
All tags assigned to a household are forfeited with revocation and returned with completion
of reinstatement.
At the judge’s discretion, an evaluation test or other actionsmay be required.
Only need to track dog and tag information associated with aggressivedog or failure to
protect wildlife/livestockviolations.
AGENDA ITEM 6 PAGE 22