1
PUBLICSAFETYMEETING FEBRUARY 4,2014
Members Present: Council Member B. Cleland – Chair, Council Member B. LeGare – Vice Chair, Council Member B. Pierce
Others Present: T. Banks, M. Berzins, K. Best, M. Cain, A. Candlasmenos, T. Caoile, C. Conway, J.
Ehmann, N. Freed, M. Garcia, A. Hall, S. Hogan, S. Hudson, D. Hunter Holen, T. Joyce, D. Kim, D. Lathers, M. Lewis, C. Manton, L. Miller, K. Miner, S. Mounier, S. Noe, D. Oates, M. Odermatt, R. Peterson, C. Richardson, N. Sheffield, J. Torbet, W. Torbet, J. Turner, M. Wolfe, K. Works, G. Zierk
CONSENT ITEMS
There were no Consent Items.
Committee Chair Barb Cleland announced that agenda item #4 Proposed Ordinance Eliminating the Ban on Pit Bulls in Aurora will be presented first followed by #3 School Zone Speed Enforcement/Photo Radar Van by Xerox. She stated that there will be comment from staff and public comment is not allowed at Committee meetings.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ELIMINATING THE BAN ON PIT BULLS IN AURORA
Summary of Issues and Discussion
Council Member (CM) Barb Cleland introduced Nancy Sheffield, Director of Neighborhood Services. Ms. Sheffield stated that CM Peterson’s request that the ordinance regulating the unlawful keeping of pit bulls be repealed prompted staff to review the ordinance and determine if it remains effective. The ordinance was enacted in 2006, at the time when there were several horrific incidents and where it was not uncommon for pit bulls to be fought, chained in front of homes to intimidate people passing by, and where well over 50% of our animal shelters kennels were housing pit bulls either because of a violation of the animal code or because they were abandoned in fields or in neighborhoods without a known owner. Ms. Sheffield added that the ordinance was put into effect for public safety reasons. In 2011, the ordinance was revised to reduce the number of specific banned breeds and DNA testing was included as an additional means for an owner to determine if their dog was a pit bull. She said since 2006, when the ordinance went into effect, the number of service requests has gone down significantly and the number of issues stemming from pit bulls has decreased. In conclusion, she stated that the ordinance has been and continues to be effective from staff’s viewpoint. She then introduced Cheryl Conway, Public Relations Specialist, Animal Care Division, to give background on the issue.
Cheryl Conway stated that the Council that was seated at the time of the ban’s enactment had put several years into thought and consideration, research, and public meetings prior to the enactment of the ban. Before the passage of the ordinance, she reported that Council received many calls from citizens
2
expressing concern about the number of pit bulls in their neighborhoods and the nature of these animals. Staff also reported to Council at that time that pit bulls were problematic due to the large number of reported problems with both the dogs and their owners. The perception was that many of the pit bulls came from Denver, where the dogs had been banned since 1989, and concern that more would come to Aurora when Commerce City enacted a ban on these dogs. Ms. Conway added that at that time pit bulls were the dogs of choice for gang members and other less than responsible owners. Most of the kennels in the Aurora animal shelters were housing pit bulls as a result of ordinance violations or because they had no known owners.
Ms. Conway continued by saying that in response to these public safety concerns, prior to enacting the pit bull ban, Council first addressed Section 14-7 Keeping vicious, aggressive or dangerous animals and stiffened the penalty portion of that ordinance considerably, boosting both the fines for conviction of keeping a vicious animal, mandating that animals convicted of being vicious be micro-chipped so they could be tracked, and for a second conviction involving the same animal, the ordinance now mandated destruction of that animal. This ordinance is very strong and has been touted as a national model by the National Animal Control Association and the Humane Society of the United States. However, the ordinance tended to be reactive as it is typically applied after an incident has occurred. With some highly publicized attacks at the time in Aurora, in the metro area, and nationwide simultaneously, in an effort to be proactive, Council, in 2005 enacted Section 14-75 Unlawful keeping of pit bulls.
Ms. Conway stated that complaints about Aurora’s pit bull ban come primarily from people who don’t live in Aurora and most of the complaints received come from out of state. Conversely, when a dog that looks like a pit bull comes into a neighborhood, neighbors are typically very quick to call and report it. They indicate they don’t want to live next to pit bulls and they voice concern for their safety and the safety of their pets. In 2011, there were 191 cities across the nation that banned pit bulls and another 97 had breed restrictive language for a total of 288 cities. In December, 2013 staff conducted similar research and found that there were 512 cities, an increase of 78%, that banned pit bulls or had restrictive language. An additional 46 cities once had a ban but repealed it. Ms. Conway said the majority were repealed not because they were ineffective but because of state laws passed prohibiting restrictive language. In Colorado, there are eight cities that have a breed ban in place: Aurora, Denver, Commerce City, Lone Tree, Castle Rock, Ft. Lupton, Louisville, and La Junta. Two other cities had bans in place but had to repeal them when the Colorado State Legislature passed a bill that stated there could be no breed restrictive language and they were not home rule cities. Research presented to Council in 2011 also found consistencies between the findings of cities that banned pit bulls and the findings of the Colorado State Supreme Court. They determined that differential treatment for pit bulls is warranted because there are differences between breeds developed for fighting and the majority of other breeds.
Ms. Conway said staff would like to report that it considers the ban on pit bulls continues to be effective and is working as intended. Fewer pit bulls are impounded at the Aurora Animal Shelter. At the time of enactment, up to 70% of impounded animals were pit bulls. The number housed is down to 10-20% currently. Fewer are euthanized. In 2006, 636 pit bulls were euthanized. In 2013, only 48 were euthanized. More dogs were also released to their owners than were euthanized. The number released has remained relatively consistent and there was an increase in the number released in the last two years. Owners do have the ability to present a notarized statement to the court that the animal will be permanently relocated outside the city limits. She clarified that these are the animals referred to as releases as well as through DNA which may indicate less than 50% of the DNA make up is pit bull. The number of service requests from our constituency regarding pit bulls has also seen a dramatic decrease of more than 50%. In 2006, 496 calls were received regarding pit bulls. In 2013, there were 237 calls. Ms. Conway said the staff recommendation is to continue to prohibit pit bulls in Aurora and asked if the
3
Committee supports keeping Section 14-75 Unlawful keeping of pit bulls in effect.
CM Brad Pierce said that this issue has had a lot of interest and a lot of publicity lately and that he thinks the full Council should decide on this question. He said the question could be debated here today but that the question will end up going to full Council anyway so possibly the question should be if we support forwarding the item to Study Session.
CM Bob LeGare agreed with CM Pierce. He added that he has done a lot of research and has received a lot of emails from people who say that pit bulls are wonderful pets if cared for properly and has received dozens and dozens of emails from people that say they are killer dogs. He then asked staff if there are any scientific studies regarding this breed of dog. Cheryl Conway said she remembered a study done by the ASPCA some years ago and could try and find that data. CM LeGare said he would not consider that organization to be unbiased and is looking for some type of university report or consumer report that is documented as to the research. Nancy Sheffield said her staff will be happy to look into it and forward information to the Committee. CM Cleland commented that she is unsure where the votes are for this ordinance. She said that if the ordinance to repeal the ban goes through, she would like to keep the rules that were originally set to grandfather pit bulls already in Aurora when the ban was implemented for all pit bulls, such as requiring insurance, requiring the dogs to be muzzled and on a leash if taken out in public. For a future agenda, she said she would like to look at the vicious dog ordinance and the requirement of a second offense before euthanizing a dog that commits a vicious attack on a first offense.
Outcome
The Committee recommended the item go to Council in the next available study session. CM Pierce added that the public is welcome to attend the Study Session to hear the debate at that time.
Follow-Up Action
Staff to move the item forward to the first Study Session in March
SCHOOL ZONE SPEED ENFORCEMENT/PHOTO RADAR VAN BY XEROX
Summary of Issues and Discussion
CM Cleland clarified that this item deals with the possibility of a pilot program putting a photo speed enforcement van in school zones.
City Attorney Charlie Richardson introduced Kathryn Works. Ms. Works introduced Xerox representative, Lew Miller, Vice-President of Operations for Xerox, and standing in for Brad Taylor, program manager for Aurora’s Photo Red Light Program. Mr. Miller introduced Kirk Best, Xerox program manager for the Photo Red Light and speeding enforcement programs for the city of Sheridan, who is here to answer any operational questions from the Committee. Mr. Miller said he will give a short presentation on radar-based photo speed enforcement limited to school zones. The reason they are here today, he said, is to see if the City and/or the police department is interested in gathering data on speeding issues in school zones at no charge to the City and then to bring back to the Committee to analyze and see if the Committee wants to go forward with a pilot program, a warning program, or an actual ticketing program. He then asked Kirk Best to walk the Committee through the PowerPoint presentation included in the packets. Important points of the presentation are:
4 State statutes limit radar speed enforcement to school zones, work zones, adjacent to city parks,
and residential neighborhoods.
State statutes require a city employee to operate the equipment resulting in impacts on staffing and funding for personnel.
Speed enforcement is operated during school zone hours only.
Typically tickets are issued only for speeds over 10 mph. For violations of 5-10 mph, state statute requires the issuance of a warning for a first offense.
About safety and using as a deterrent - proper warning signage must be posted in advance of the van’s position, vans are well marked.
Mr. Miller stated that he is proposing today that Xerox work over the next few weeks, with personnel designated by the City, to gather some data to show the incidence of speeding in school zones.
CM Pierce asked about the cost of the tickets issued. Mr. Miller explained that under the Colorado legislation, the base fine for an automated speeding ticket is $40.00; however, in school zones and work zones it is doubled to $80.00. CM Pierce asked for confirmation that no points are assigned to the driver’s record. Mr. Miller confirmed there are no points assessed as well as no notifications to insurance providers. CM Pierce asked if data collection would include those drivers whose speeds were 5-10 mph over the limit. Mr. Miller answered that the data collection would record the speed of every vehicle passing and that no photos would be taken. The data could be filtered for the desired specifics.
CM LeGare asked for clarification regarding the requirement for City personnel to be on site and if there is a different state law regulating the Photo Red Light program. Mr. Miller answered that they are both regulated by the same statute but that there are different regulations for photo red light versus speed enforcement. CM LeGare asked how long the program in Bowie, Maryland has been in effect and what specific reductions in speed have been gained from that program. Mr. Miller said it had been in effect for about four years and that the incidence of tickets issued had reduced significantly since the beginning of the program with incidence of speeding 12 mph and more over the limit down from 3% to ½%. CM LeGare asked if after the data collection the City decided to move forward, would there be a contract. Mr. Lewis confirmed that to move forward with a pilot program or ticketing program, there would be a contractual agreement where ticket revenue would go to the City and the vendor would invoice the City for a prescribed fee. CM Cleland asked the amount of Xerox’s fee per ticket. Mr. Miller replied that they are not allowed to charge a fee per ticket but that Xerox’s fees would be determined based on results of the data gathering. He added that only for the purpose of giving an idea of the fees, that a very rough estimate would be approximately 25% of the ticket value. CM Cleland asked if the photos taken would include a photo of the driver. Mr. Lewis responded that a driver photo is required by state statute and that a second photo is taken of the rear of the vehicle as it passes recording the license plate number. The rear photo would only be used if the front photo does not have a readable license plate image.
CM Cleland asked Mary Lewis, Aurora Public Schools Board Member, if she had any comments. Ms. Lewis said she is interested to learn more about the program and the most important thing to her is a change in behavior. She said she is concerned about unsafe behaviors in school zones in addition to speeding, such as illegal turns and crossing the street in front of traffic.
City Manager Skip Noe mentioned that currently $29 of each citation goes to surcharges. CM Cleland said that because it is a school that she would think Council could change that. Chief Oates said an officer will still have to issue the tickets and there will have to be staffing at each of four locations for eight hours a day. Mr. Lewis noted the program would operate similarly to the Photo Red Light program in that the data would come back into the vendor back office system, be processed and the registered owner information obtained, and the relevant information put forth to the police department for review prior to
5
the issuance of a citation. CM LeGare said he finds it hard to accepting the idea of having cameras in the school zones. The red light program makes sense for monitoring a busy intersection but why not just have a police vehicle sitting in the school zone and issue tickets for violators. Chief Oates agreed that it would be easier to monitor a school zone with a police officer than to monitor all directions of a busy intersection. He added that the level of complaints and accidents at the busy intersections is higher than in front of schools. CM Cleland said she does get complaints about the safety of school zones. Mr. Miller said the data gathering can be done in such a way that no images would be recorded. City Manager Noe said since there is no cost involved in the data gathering process and no commitment is being made, there is no requirement to involve Council in the decision. If the data gathered was such that the Committee wanted to proceed with a pilot program, the Committee would then need to go to Council. CM LeGare said he didn’t see it as a procedural question but as a political decision and that regardless of how the data comes back he would be against it. CM Pierce said the first step is to gather the data, then bring it back to the Committee, then make a decision whether it is feasible and whether we want to go forward with it. Chief Oates said he would volunteer Lieutenant Jeff Turner of the Traffic Section to assist in assuring the City’s interests are represented in deciding how the data is gathered. CM Holen wanted to clarify whether the data gathering process requires the van and/or the camera. Mr. Miller said they would go along with whatever parameters the City decides but that the van is not used; it is actually a tripod with a box. The camera can be disabled. CM Berzins asked if the data will be time stamped. Mr. Miller answered that every vehicle that passes is an event and that each event is time stamped. CM Mounier said she would want to make sure that the day the data was recorded would be a good weather day. Mr. Miller said the data would be gathered over a period of time so that multiple days of data over multiple school zones would be captured so that a variety of conditions would be monitored. Chief Oates said he would suggest monitoring both with warning signs posted and without warning signs. CM Mounier asked if the data would be gathered just for Aurora Public Schools or for Cherry Creek also. CM Cleland said she would assume both school districts would be involved.
Outcome
The Committee approved of going forward with the data gathering program. Follow-Up Action
Staff to work out parameters for data gathering and Xerox will implement the data gathering program and report back to the Committee.
PROPOSED IGA ON THE COPLINK PROGRAM
Summary of Issues and Discussion
Chief of Police, Daniel Oates, reminded the Committee that in 2006, Council funded Aurora’s share of the building of the network known as Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC). Aurora was one of eight large metro agencies that formed the “core partners” group that negotiated the enterprise license for this system for the entire state. Linking the records management systems of over 90 law enforcement agencies in Colorado, eight years later the CISC is one of the strongest and most robust data sharing systems in the country. Chief Oates said that at the time the network was originally funded, it was done on the strength of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which is not really an enforceable legal
6 opportunities for grants to sustain the CISC long term and to purchase new system capabilities as software and technology advance, it is the collective wisdom of the member police chiefs and sheriffs, as well as their city and county attorneys, that it is time to create a formal governmental authority for the CISC via an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The Aurora City Attorney’s Office supports this proposal as well. Detectives, police officers, and crime analysts all over the state are using this system hundreds of times a day and it has proved to be remarkably efficient in helping law enforcement prevent and solve crime. For the long term health of the Consortium and its data analysis system, the CISC member police chiefs and sheriffs are united in their belief that the CISC must become a formal governmental authority. Staff therefore requests that the Committee move this (IGA) forward to Council for approval of an implementing ordinance in support of the proposed IGA.
CM Cleland asked about the ongoing costs associated with the program. Chief Oates said there is an ongoing cost every year for the data system’s upkeep, which is around $10 per officer per year. These modest costs are built into the annual general fund budget. New equipment costs, such as a future facial recognition product, would require the Consortium to find funding. Aurora’s share of any such purchase would have to come back to Council for approval. However, with the CISC formed as a legal authority, it could pursue grant opportunities to pay for new products, which it cannot do now.
CM Pierce agreed it was time to go forward with a formal agreement. CM Cleland asked if this includes facial recognition. Chief Oates said it does not but that someday the hope is to be able to have the system work with the facial recognition software that would match a suspect’s photo from a crime scene to mug shots in the Colorado database. Should such technology be developed, the Consortium would have to find a way to fund its purchase.
Outcome
The Committee approved of moving the item forward. Follow-Up Action
Staff to move item forward to Study Session
POLICE MONITOR PROPOSAL UPDATE
Summary of Issues and Discussion
City Manager Skip Noe began by giving a brief history of the item which began with discussion on the issue at the August 2013 Public Safety Committee meeting as a proposal to create a police monitor. He said that the Committee asked staff to do some research on civilian oversight systems in communities across the country. This was done over a period of time and a detailed background was produced of all the cities with a population over 250,000 in terms of what they did or did not do, what it was based on, etc. After analysis of those systems, four different models were selected based on how cities did this. At the October 2013 presentation to the Committee, outlines of those four models were presented and the Committee asked that staff analyze those models and come up with one that was agreeable to all parties. City Manager Noe said a team was put together with representatives from the Aurora Police Association (APA), the City Attorney’s Office, Human Resources, Police, and himself. A number of ideas were studied and the one selected will be presented today. The idea is to create an IRB or Independent Review
7 Board that is generally modeled after the systems currently in use in Phoenix and El Paso. City Manager Noe stated that this system goes substantially farther than the DRB (Discipline Review Board) which was used here for a number of years and then discontinued several years ago.
City Manager Noe continued with a list of the kinds of cases that would be reviewed with the result being in the form of recommendations to the Chief from the IRB.
Any form of sustained discipline
Dissatisfaction with the discipline the Chief has proposed
High profile cases that may not fit into any one model based on review by the Chief, City Manager and consultation with the City Attorney
The composition of the board would be eight members and one facilitator. The uniformed members would be selected at random with the result consisting of one member from command, one lieutenant, and two peers. Three random names would be produced from each category. The APA would strike one name, the Chief would strike one name, and the remaining name would be the representative from that category. Council would select a pool of 20 civilian individuals who would receive training. Four persons from the group would be chosen for each case. Currently the department has a mediator or facilitator who works to mediate issues between officers and civilians and would be assigned as the facilitator of the board. This person would facilitate the discussion and only be involved in decision making in the case of a deadlock between the two groups. City Manager Noe stressed that it is important that this be managed outside the police department, separate and apart from the Internal Affairs process and run by a contract employee, possibly from Human Resources. The process should allow for and facilitate open discussion and allow all members to share their thoughts and opinions freely, separate from any potential lobbying. Once the panel has been selected, there should be no contact between any of the parties with the members of the panel while the case is being discussed to avoid accusations of lobbying or undue influence.
City Manager Noe said the outline presented is pretty broad with a lot of details yet to be developed, whether in the form of a policy, an ordinance, or some other form of implementation. There is still a lot of work to be done amongst the parties. Before moving forward, he asked for the Committee’s feedback. He referred to a detailed administrative policy in the packet which was adopted by the city of Phoenix and said that would be one place to begin. Whatever legal form this IRB takes, an administrative policy is needed to know definitively how this will work. The next step is to sit down with all the parties and work through how to draft that administrative policy. There are some important details that need to be
discussed, such as confidentiality and the assurance this does not become the subject of a Civil Service testimony in the future. He added there is work to do with Civil Service to amend their rules so that this does not become admissible in these discipline cases as that is what destroyed the idea of citizen input in the last system. City Manager offered to answer any questions the Committee may have.
CM Cleland asked Matt Cain, Civil Service Administrator, how Civil Service would deal with these issues. Mr. Cain answered that Civil Service was approached with this proposal and asked what their thoughts would be about testimony from the IRB. At that time they said they would consider such a proposal once the composition and role of the board was determined. CM LeGare asked if Mr. Cain could explain what he meant by composition of the board. Mr. Cain said he was referring to the new
Commissioners that would soon be added. CM Pierce asked City Manager Noe to confirm that in the new IRB the board could recommend a course of discipline to the Chief. City Manager Noe said that was correct and that the board would make recommendations after the investigative phase and before the Chief decided on the discipline. Anything coming out of the IRB would be taken extremely seriously as that is what the process is for. The Chief would have to explain his decision if he did not accept the
8 board would review. City Manager Noe explained that the system is set up to review cases that represent serious concerns as opposed to every disciplinary case that comes through.
CM Cleland asked if Mayor Hogan would like to comment. Mayor Hogan said he is appreciative that the item is moving forward and would encourage the Committee and staff to move it even more quickly since it has already been six months. He added that in counting votes he is pretty confident that the original proposal would not go forward so the idea of a compromise such as this has value; however, he said there a few comments he would like to make. He said he was not certain that the only people who understand what a high profile case would be are the Chief or the City Manager and he encouraged staff to expand on that concept. He questioned the decision to use the attorney selected as the mediator by the police
department as the facilitator and ninth member of the board. The Mayor said he was not sure that brings about the independence we are looking for and wondered why it could not be another of the citizens from the pool so that it is a citizen that is serving as chair of this committee. He agreed there are additional issues to be worked out and some discussion to be held with the Commission and the City Attorney’s Office, the staff and others, but in the end would like to see the Council adopt the position that they should not ask Civil Service what they want, but decide what the city of Aurora needs and put it in place. There could certainly be discussion back and forth but it is the Council that makes the policy decisions for the City in this regard, not the Civil Service Commission. The Mayor concluded by saying he is glad the APA and others were involved and he urged staff to keep the item moving forward.
CM Cleland asked if it could be used in a court case and could we make it happen by ordinance. City Attorney Charlie Richardson said you could try but the Commission takes very seriously its Charter mandated independence. He said if we can get to the point the Mayor would like, that the Commission sees the wisdom of adopting a rule that bars IRB evidence, we’ve come around third base and we’re at home. CM Cleland said she would like the opportunity to at least have the new Commissioners have information on this and hopefully see that it is a great idea and get it to Council in March. City Manager Noe said a draft of the enabling documentation and policy could certainly be brought back to the
Committee in March. CM Cleland expressed a desire that the item be on the Study Session in March. Chief Oates said it all ends up being in the department policy and knowing what it is like to go through drafting a sensitive policy with full buy-in of the labor association he believes that might be a little too aggressive a timeline. It will require quite a bit of work to draft the policy. CM LeGare said he is
uncomfortable in trying to rush this to early March, and would like to move forward but thinks that is too aggressive a timeline. Mayor Hogan said he understands the process and if it turns out to be April, that is better than May or June. CM Cleland said she wants to keep going with this, and depending what happens with Civil Service, can at least get it to the Commission and make them aware that this is what Council’s tentative wishes are. Matt Cain said the Commission will have a meeting on the second Tuesday in March where it could first consider this proposal. If it is ready for presentation at that time, he said the
Commission would welcome it for that meeting’s agenda. He said if necessary he could ask them to have a special meeting before that if it proved waiting would be an impediment to the timeline. CM Cleland said that might be a good idea. Chief Oates said he did not want to be the one to slow anything down and it might be they could have a draft in March but it may not be finalized. CM Cleland said she would like to be as aggressive as possible to bring this forward.
Outcome
The Committee asked staff involve all parties and draft an administrative policy for the IRB. Follow-Up Action
