Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2022 Study Session Agenda PacketVIRTUAL STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO February 7, 2022 6:30 p.m. This meeting will be conducted as a VIRTUAL MEETING ONLY. No members of the Council or City staff will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways: 1. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on February 7, 2022) 2. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone: • Click here to join and provide public comment • Or call +1-669-900-6833 with Access Code: 819 0421 1434 Passcode: 260112 3. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at https://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/view Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Contact the Public Information Officer at 303-235-2877 or wrpio@ci.wheatridge.co.us with as much notice as possible if you are interested in participating in a meeting and need inclusion assistance. Public Comment on Agenda Items 1. Disorderly House Ordinance 2. Street Racing 3. Staff Report(s) 4. Elected Officials’ Report(s) ADJOURNMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager Christopher Murtha, Chief of Police FROM: Jonathan Pickett, Patrol Commander DATE: January 14, 2022 (for February 7th study session) SUBJECT: Municipal Ordinance 15-26 (Disorderly House) ISSUE From time to time, a house or apartment will become the center of discontent in a neighborhood or apartment complex. Criminal activity and code violations will affect the quality of life in the surrounding community. Some of the calls for service that we see are assaults, narcotic violations, weapons violations, stolen vehicles, vehicle break-ins, excessive trash, weeds and unkept property. Police and Code Enforcement officers have limited ability to address individual complaints and violations. Due to multiple tenants, subletors and associated people, we are often unable to determine the suspect in the violation. We need the tools to address the underlying issues. The underlying issues are often related to property owners and/or tenants that are disengaged from the community. One group of tenants will leave and, another will come in and, the problems will begin again. More often than not, these homes have multiple, unrelated people living in them. BACKGROUND The current ordinance we use to address the core issue of such residences is 15-26 Disorderly House. The ordinance addresses problems such as maximum occupancy, disproportionate calls compared to other residences in the area, and code violations. Maximum occupancy is an issue that is difficult to impossible to prove. Residences such as these are transient, to begin with, and owners/renters are allowed to have visitors. People come and go on a regular basis. Renters often sublet rooms and space without going through proper channels or contacting the landlord. When we look at disproportionate calls to a residence, there are several things that can occur. One is that police inadvertently cause disproportionate calls by focusing on the house due to seeing how it affects the neighborhood. As officers make traffic stops and contacts with people at the problem house, calls for service are generated. The opposite effect can also occur. Neighbors are unwilling to make complaints because of fear of retribution. The neighborhood observes issues and live with it on a daily basis, and then when they do finally call in, they are at their witts end and wonder Staff Report: Disorderly House February 7, 2022 Page 2 why the Police "don't do anything," even though this is the first we know of the issue. Area residents also become frustrated when they see situations that they feel or suspect are illegal, but officers are unable to obtain probable cause to ticket or arrest any of the individuals. This gives the public the impression that we don't care or understand what they are living with. RECOMMENDATIONS The City Attorney is researching other jurisdictions' ordinances and how successful they have been with addressing problem properties. Staff recommends that the City Attorney and Police department continue this research and prepare options to add to or replace current Ordinances that would assist in addressing property owners that are unwilling to assist with keeping or creating a safe community. ATTACHMENT 1. Memo from City Attorney’s Office, dated January 28, 2022 710 Kipling Street, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Main 303.493.6670 Fax 303.945.7960 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM To: Hon. Mayor Starker and Members of the City Council Cc: Patrick Goff, City Manager Christopher Murtha, Chief of Police Through: Carmen Beery From: Nicholas Klein Date: January 28, 2022 Re: Municipal Ordinance 15-26 (Disorderly Houses) Background Several years ago, the City Council enacted Section 15-26 of the Wheat Ridge Code (the “Code”) to attempt to deal with properties where a number of individual nuisance conditions, not significant individually, cumulatively resulted in major issues for neighbors and area residents. This section of the Code draws its inspiration from the powers granted by C.R.S. § 31-15-401(g), permitting governing bodies of municipalities to suppress disorderly houses. We were recently asked about the possibility of strengthening the provisions of Code Section 15-26. See Commander Pickett’s Staff Report on this topic for his articulation of the law enforcement perspective on these properties. Our office has researched how other municipalities, both in Colorado and nationwide, have dealt with such “problem properties.” We have identified a few options for your consideration and direction, as set forth below. Innovations in local laws – the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance (“CNO”). Function of CNOs – Common Elements Over the last fifteen years, municipalities across the United States have enacted Chronic Nuisance Ordinances (CNOs) to deal with properties that have an excessive amount of criminal conduct occurring on or near the property or an excessive number of 911 calls. Municipalities utilize CNOs to encourage—or outright require—landlords to abate the nuisance by evicting tenants. Generally, a CNO requires a certain threshold number of 911 calls or nuisance incidents for a property to be labeled a chronic nuisance. Once this threshold is reached, municipalities are able to fine offending properties an increasing amount for each subsequent nuisance incident. Typical characteristics of a CNO include: • The definition of what a nuisance is; o The types of calls cited in a CNO may include: disorderly conduct, gambling, theft, prostitution, trespassing, arson, weapons, noise, animal, alcohol, controlled substance, or other code violations • The threshold for chronic or excessive activities; Disorderly Houses Memo January 28, 2022 • The type of properties that the ordinance will govern (e.g. rental, residential, and/or commercial); • The governmental unit that is responsible for tracking and responding to violators; o Boston, MA created a Problem Properties Task Force which reported directly to the Mayor’s office which convenes once a month to discuss the enforcement of the city’s CNO. • The expectation of property owners or managers responsible for the property in violation of the ordinance; • The penalties for failures to comply; • The notice requirements to property owners; • The procedure for the creation of an abatement plan between the enforcement officer and owner of the offending property. The City could look towards any one of the 2,000 CNOs that exist across the country for the structure and language of the ordinance. Further considerations to make include, but are not limited to: • Distinguishing between frivolous, excessive 911 calls and valid, excessive 911 calls; • Whether fines levied will be against property owners, tenants, or both; and • The existence of penalties outside of fines. The City could choose to structure their CNO after that of Loveland, CO. Excerpts from that CNO are attached to this memo as Exhibit A. As you can see, Loveland’s version of a CNO contains the following sections: • The definition of a violation; • The criteria for determining what property presents a chronic nuisance; • The notice requirements for the owner of the property; • The abatement plan procedure; • The enforcement of the ordinance; and • The appeals process for property owners. Loveland’s Code illustrates the possibilities of what a CNO may include, but it is not limited to these sections alone. The City is free to make their CNO as expansive or as narrow as it prefers, as long as the minimum constitutional requirements are within the CNO’s language. Constitutional Considerations To implement a proper CNO, we must ensure that the ordinance provides proper notice to both tenants and landowners so that neither party is deprived of their right to due process. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542 (1971); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 347 (1976). This is particularly true if the City wishes to include an eviction process as a part of its CNO. An additional Constitutional consideration is the containment of unbridled discretion. The majority of CNO jurisdictions provide the chief of police with the sole right to determine when a property should be considered a chronic nuisance. To avoid challenges to the delegation of this sole discretion, the Disorderly Houses Memo January 28, 2022 inclusion of a provision such as this is useful: “The Chief of Police's determination as to a property's nuisance status, or conduct that is later determined to have violated this chapter, is reviewable by the Municipal Court at the time of initial hearing on the citation.” Other Policy Considerations – At-Risk Populations Another policy consideration when enacting a CNO includes its potential effect on vulnerable members of the population – in particular, domestic violence victims, the disabled, the elderly, and those with substance abuse disorders. These populations may have a greater need to call 911 and legitimate reasons for a higher volume of calls for service than their neighbors. The City would not want to deter individuals in need from calling for public safety help when needed. While in the end it is up to the discretion of the responding officer to potentially pursue a property as a chronic nuisance, it is important that the City does not discourage needed 911 calls. This concern could be communicated in a policy statement within the ordinance itself and be a part of officer training for those enforcing the CNO. Options To more vigorously pursue chronic problem properties, we have identified the following options: 1. Authorize the preparation of a draft CNO. We would work with the PD to craft a draft Ordinance that the PD believes is well-tailored to Wheat Ridge’s needs, goals and PD staffing. That ordinance would be presented to you for review at a future meeting. 2. Authorize an ordinance amending existing Code Section 15-26 to potentially strengthen its terms. Merely for example, such an ordinance could expand the scope of relevant crimes beyond nuisance and zoning violations or quantify a threshold number of calls for service that shall be “excessive.” 3. Maintain current Code Section 15-26 and undertake a robust and concentrated community education effort in City areas traditionally impacted by problem properties. This community education effort could inform residents and neighbors of the valuable role they can play in enforcing Code Section 15-26, from gathering evidence such as photographs and recordings to testifying in court, if needed. You may consider current Code to be adequate while improvements could be made in community outreach or enforcement. We look forward to your discussion and further direction on these issues. Disorderly Houses Memo January 28, 2022 EXHIBIT A Excerpts from the Loveland Municipal Code - CNO provisions (adopted 2020) Definitions Section: “Chronic nuisance property” means: (a) a property for which enforcement officers have issued a Notice and Order to Abate on two or more occasions during any sixty day period or on five or more occasions during any twelve month period; or (b) any abandoned property where nuisance activity exists. CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTIES 16.40.010 Chronic nuisance properties. A. Violation. Any owner of property within the City which is determined by the City to be a chronic nuisance property is in violation of this Title and subject to its remedies. B. Determination of chronic nuisance property. An enforcement officer may determine that a property is a chronic nuisance property as defined in this Title. In making this determination, the enforcement officer shall review official documentation such as reports, witness statements, Notices and Orders to Abate, and case files to determine if there are sufficient facts and circumstances to support a determination that the property is a chronic nuisance property. C. Notice. 1. After making a determination that a property is a chronic nuisance property, the enforcement officer will notify the owner of such property in writing that the property is being declared a chronic nuisance property. 2. The notice shall include the following: i. The street address or a legal description sufficient for identification of the property; ii. A concise description of the nuisance activities that exist or that have occurred on the property and whether the property is abandoned; iii. A statement that the owner of the property may be subject to penalties as set forth in this chapter; iv. A demand that the owner of such property respond to the enforcement officer within ten calendar days of service of the notice to create a plan for abatement; and v. A statement explaining that if the owner of the property does not respond to the enforcement officer, or if the matter is not voluntarily corrected to the satisfaction of the enforcement officer, the City may file an action to abate the property as a Disorderly Houses Memo January 28, 2022 chronic nuisance property pursuant to this chapter and/or take other action against the property or owner, including the issuance of a summons and complaint into the Loveland Municipal Court. 3. The notice shall be served by mailing a copy of the notice to the owner and person in charge at his/her last known address, certified mail, return receipt requested and by either: i. Personal service on the owner and person in charge, or ii. By posting a copy of the notice conspicuously upon the property. D. Abatement plan. 1. An owner and person in charge who receives notice pursuant to this section must, within ten calendar days, contact the enforcement officer to establish a plan of action in the form of an abatement plan under the terms of which the owner will eliminate the conditions, behaviors or activities which constitute nuisance activities. 2. An abatement plan shall be signed by the owner and shall include the following: i. The name and address of the owner of the property; ii. The street address or a legal description sufficient for identification of the property; iii. A description of the nuisance activities to be abated and whether the property is abandoned; iv. The necessary corrective action to be taken, and a date and time by which the corrective action must be completed; v. An agreement by the owner that, at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice, the enforcement officer may inspect the property as necessary to determine compliance with the abatement plan; vi. An agreement by the owner that the City may abate the nuisance and recover its costs and expenses and penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter from the owner if the terms of the abatement plan are not met; and vii. An acknowledgement by the owner that, if the owner does not comply with the abatement plan, that the City may immediately, as authorized by this Title, issue the owner a summons and complaint into the Loveland Municipal Court for violation of this Title. E. Enforcement. Nothing in this Title shall be construed as limiting or forbidding the City or any other person from pursuing any other remedies available at law or in equity. F. Appeals. Any owner who disputes the City’s declaration of property as a chronic nuisance property may appeal such declaration as set forth in Section 1.32 of the Code. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager Christopher Murtha, Chief of Police FROM: Jonathan Pickett, Patrol Commander DATE: January 12, 2022 (for February 7th study session) SUBJECT: Street Racing ISSUE Street Racing, by definition, is illegal. Problems associated with it include excessive noise at late hours, taking over of public property, dangerous stunts, and road racing that endangers the public as well as participants and on-lookers. The Wheat Ridge community has a low tolerance for this behavior. Staff is looking at additions to the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code that would give the police more tools to deter Street Racing and its associated activity in Wheat Ridge. While Street Racing is not a new phenomenon in Wheat Ridge and the surrounding metro area, it has become more prominent since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Street Racers are a highly organized group comprised of several different clubs. These clubs use social media to organize gatherings, oftentimes having up to three different venues in one night. You must be a member to access information. You have to be aware of when the plan will be publicized and on what social media platform, and then the information is streamed lived, so there is no record of what was aired, helping to elude Law Enforcement intervention. The meeting notification is streamed only a short time before the meet. Once at the first venue, the next location for the night is disseminated by word of mouth or through club texts. This makes it hard (but not impossible) for Law Enforcement to preemptively prevent a gathering. There are several issues associated with Street Racing, such as Loud noise - many of the vehicles at these gatherings have aftermarket exhaust systems that are meant for racetrack use and are not street legal. Dangerous Stunts - during the meets, there are often "burnout pits" where Street Racers accelerate their tires beyond the point of traction. Highway takeovers - this is where a large group will shut down all lanes of a highway so that they can have their gathering without the need of a parking lot. And, of course, Racing, where anywhere from two cars race one another to all the vehicles in the meet racing to the next venue. The chance of property damage and personal injury is high among the racers and puts the general public at risk. Staff Report: Street Racing February 7, 2022 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Wheat Ridge Police Department has worked diligently to prevent gatherings within Wheat Ridge, but most violations are of a traffic nature and have little consequence associated with them. Our Street Racer Coordinator has reached out to local business owners where Street Racers often gather and have worked with the business owner to close their parking lots to such activities. We have also built relationships within the Street Racing community to spread the word that the City does not condone such gatherings and behavior. We have also been able to monitor some of the club's social media platforms to learn when and where gatherings may occur. These efforts have been successful this year, bringing complaints of street racing down significantly. Several issues still remain. Street racers are very organized and able to use social media to their advantage, making it difficult for us to intervene prior to large gatherings starting. Although we don't have as many gatherings as we once did, our location in the metro area makes it likely for street racers to go through the City on the way to their ultimate destinations. Also, having I-70 running through the middle of Wheat Ridge, we have the potential of street racers taking over the highway. RECOMMENDATIONS The City Attorney has researched ordinances from around the country to find more tools to assist police with deterring and preventing the problems and risks associated with Street Racing. Staff believes that adopting a nuisance ordinance that would make street racing and its associated activities a public nuisance would assist in deterring such activities. Staff requests council direction/approval to bring forward an ordinance for first reading or additional discussion at a future study session. ATTACHMENT 1. Memo from City Attorney’s Office, dated January 28, 2022 710 Kipling Street, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Main 303.493.6670 Fax 303.945.7960 MEMORANDUM To: Hon. Mayor Starker and Members of the City Council Cc: Patrick Goff, City Manager Christopher Murtha, Chief of Police Through: Carmen Beery From: Nicholas Klein Date: January 28, 2022 Re: Classifying street racing as a public nuisance Background On August 18, 2021, Commander Pickett reached out to our office inquiring about the feasibility and reasonableness of classifying street racing as a public nuisance in the City of Wheat Ridge (the “City”). Commander Pickett also forwarded to us information he received from the Denver City Attorney’s Office concerning Denver’s classification of street racing as a public nuisance and their experiences with this local enforcement option. With this background, we researched street racing ordinances in other jurisdictions, analyzed the legal issues implicated by classifying street racing as a public nuisance and evaluated options for the City to adopt such a regulatory scheme. The findings of this research and subsequent ordinance options and policy choices for you to consider are included in this memorandum. Ordinances in Other Jurisdictions Classifying street racing as a public nuisance is a recent development in Colorado. At the moment, Denver (the first city to enact such a set of laws over twelve years ago), Aurora, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo are the other Colorado municipalities that have enacted such legislation. Most recently, these laws were enacted partly in response to the decrease in traffic due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the racers that took advantage of the less congested roadways. The street racing community utilizes social media and technology to organize races or so called “meet-ups.” Some indications are that the online community has recognized the significant consequences imposed by these ordinances in these other cities, leading the organizers of these events to avoid those jurisdictions. It appears that street racing as a public nuisance law has created an effective deterrent against the more organized portions of street racing activities. Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo all have enacted laws that function in similar ways. These laws act as a deterrent to organized street racing by: ATTACHMENT 1 Street Racing as a Public Nuisance Memo January 28, 2022 2 • Taking a zero-tolerance policy towards street racing. If someone is found to be street racing, whether or not they are the owner of the vehicle, they will have a civil public nuisance action filed against them by the city. • Impounding vehicles that are found to be used in street races. Denver initially seeks a $2,000 judgement and an impoundment of the vehicle for one year. Settlement offers are made to owners of vehicles, and settlements can vary dependent on whether the driver was also the owner of the vehicle. • Allowing impoundment to occur even if the vehicle cannot be stopped at the time of the race. As long as the officer can identify the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle and it is found within the city, the vehicle may be impounded and a nuisance action may be initiated, even if the driver of the vehicle has not be identified. • In Denver, trials have been extremely rare because of the high consequences to the owner of the vehicle if they lose at trial. In over twelve years of enforcement, one Senior Assistant City Attorney assigned to the Prosecution and Code Enforcement division has only seen one trial concerning street racing. • If a vehicle is financed, lienholders are able to reach out and repossess the vehicle. When a lienholder repossesses a vehicle, Denver has mandated that they not release it back to the owner for a period of one year as part of the settlement process. Legal Issues Constitutional Considerations Our research indicates that the City could adopt such a set of laws without infringing on drivers’ constitutional rights if certain requirements are met. The impounding of a vehicle passes constitutional muster so long as: (1) the decision to impound is guided by a standard policy—even a policy that provides officers with discretion as to the proper course of action to take—and (2) the decision is made “on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). As such, a City ordinance would need to include standardized criteria outlined in the Code and WRPD Officers would need to strictly follow those criteria as reasons to impound (rather than as a ruse to impound and search a vehicle for evidence of other crimes). Carefully crafting and adhering to such an ordinance will minimize the risks of legal claims and challenges related to alleged Fourth Amendment violations. Finally, the ordinance should include some findings and statements of purpose concerning the community care-taking function served by impounding street racing vehicles. The fact that a seizure conforms to standardized criteria is not, standing alone, sufficient to survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny. People v. Thomas, 488 P.3d 1191, 1196 (Colo.App., 2021). Even if an officer follows the standardized procedure outlined in the Code during the impoundment process, the impoundment must also serve a legitimate “administrative community caretaking function.” Street Racing as a Public Nuisance Memo January 28, 2022 3 Id. Valid community caretaking purposes may include the need to remove vehicles that impede traffic, or threaten public safety or convenience, and the need to protect the vehicle and its contents against vandalism or theft. Id. Courts also use five non-exclusive factors to determine whether a reasonable, non-pretextual community-caretaking rationale justifies impoundment: (1) whether the vehicle is on public or private property; (2) if on private property, whether the property owner has been consulted; (3) whether an alternative to impoundment exists (especially another person capable of driving the vehicle); (4) whether the vehicle is implicated in a crime; and (5) whether the vehicle's owner and/or driver have consented to the impoundment. United States v. Kendall, 14 F.4th 1116 (C.A.10 (Colo.), 2021) Note that not all five of these factors need be satisfied for an impoundment to meet a community caretaking function. Id. These factors are weighed in sum by a court. Id. We believe that several of the above considerations would persuade a court that an impoundment resulting from street racing serves a legitimate caretaking purpose: (1) the protection of public roads and those who use them, (2) the crime the vehicle was implicated in, and (3) the lack of an alternative to an impoundment, particularly when most or all of the ‘potential other drivers’ are also participants in the illegal street racing activity. Lastly, if such impoundments were clearly constitutionally suspect, we would expect the Denver street racing program to have been challenged and faltered over the last twelve years. Condition of Impounded Vehicles: City Obligation to Preserve/Protect? We also considered what, if any, obligation the City would have to protect and maintain the exact condition of an impounded vehicle for up to a year of storage. This was of particular concern given that the City may not have the capacity to store all impounded vehicles indoors. We conclude that the City has no legal obligation to store towed vehicles indoors, nor any obligation to take unique safety precautions for stored street racing vehicles beyond placing them in a locked and secure outdoor area. C.R.S. § 42-13-101 applies to “all personal property acquired or held by a law enforcement agency in the course of motor vehicle law enforcement or related highway duties and under circumstances supporting a reasonable belief that such property was abandoned, lost, stolen, or otherwise illegally possessed.” The C.R.S. also ensures that police departments are not liable for any damages, providing in relevant part “[n]o person or agency shall be responsible for consequent damages to another occasioned by an act or omission in compliance with this article.” Colo. Rev. Street Racing as a Public Nuisance Memo January 28, 2022 4 Stat. Ann. § 42-13-108 (West). A level of protection is provided by this statute for tows performed in accordance with State Law. Additionally, this same sort of protection against liability is extended to tows and impoundments performed under local law. The statute provides that, “[t]he provisions of this article may be superseded by ordinance or resolution of a municipality or county which sets forth procedures for disposition of personal property.” The City has such an ordinance that sets forth procedures for the towing of vehicles, a process to retrieve such vehicles, and a lack of City liability therefor. Section 13-43 of the Code states: Whenever any police officer or community services officer finds a motor vehicle, attended or unattended, standing upon any portion of a street or highway right-of-way or other public place in such a manner as to constitute an obstruction to traffic or proper highway maintenance, or the construction of any public improvement, or threatens public safety, such officer is authorized to cause the motor vehicle to be moved forthwith to eliminate any such obstruction, and neither the officer nor anyone acting under his direction shall be liable for any damage to such motor vehicle occasioned by such removal. (emphasis added) As long as impoundments are lawfully performed, the City and its officers are generally shielded from liability for the tow, the storage, alleged damage and similar claims. This is true whether the impoundment is accomplished under state or local code provisions. Ordinance Options & Policy Choices Ordinance options We identify two (2) ready options to add street racing nuisance regulations to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the “Code”): 1. Adding a new Article V to Chapter 13 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Code that cross-references and incorporates portions of Chapter 15 (Nuisances). Placing the bulk of these new regulations in Chapter 13 would eliminate the need to heavily amend the existing nuisance provisions of Chapter 15. Locating these regulations under “Vehicle and Traffic” may also underscore that these regulations are necessary to safeguard the public safety of other drivers and users of City streets. In that way, this nuisance issue is different than noxious weeds on private property or a dilapidated office building: this nuisance occurs upon public streets. Chapter 15 would require some minor amendments adding language that supports the enactment of street racing as a public nuisance, but these amendments would not require extensive rewriting of existing Chapter 15 language. Street Racing as a Public Nuisance Memo January 28, 2022 5 2. Adding a new Article V to Chapter 15 (Nuisances). Adding these regulations directly to the existing nuisance Chapter also makes sense. Here again, the new Article V would cross reference other existing Articles within Chapter 15. We believe either of the above Code locations is logical. Both provide the opportunity to enact a set of laws that establishes street racing as a public nuisance. The resulting ordinance would include, at a minimum: • A policy section outlining the City’s interest in classifying street racing as a public nuisance; • A definitions section; • A violations section; • A procedure section outlining the enforcement and impoundment process; • A section covering temporary restraining orders—the mechanism utilized to allow for impoundment of vehicles; • A section outlining the appeals process for offenders; • And other miscellaneous sections up to the City’s discretion covering judgements, affirmative defenses, voluntary abatement agreements, limitations on actions, etc. Policy Choices If you choose to authorize the preparation of an ordinance, there are two policy choices in particular on which we would like your input: 1. Should the ordinance penalize owners of vehicles, drivers of vehicles, or both? 2. Recommended duration of impoundment. If the goal is meaningful deterrence, a significant impoundment period is likely wise, such as Denver’s one year impoundment period. We recommend that you consult with Chief Murtha and the P.D. concerning their impound storage capacity on this policy choice. We look forward to your discussion of these issues and further direction.