Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2025 Study Session NotesCITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION STUDY SESSION NOTES Hybrid – Virtual Meeting September 15, 2025 1. Call to Order Mayro Pro Tem Korey Stites called the Study Session to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Leah Dozeman, Rachel Hultin, Dan Larson, Scott Ohm, Jenny Snell, and Amanda Weaver. Absent: Mayor Bud Starker and Janeece Hoppe Also present: City Manager Patrick Goff, Assistant City Manager Marianne Schilling, Strategic Manager Cole Haselip, Police Chief Chris Murtha, Division Chief Eric Kellogg, and Sr. Deputy City Clerk Margy Greer. 3. Public Comment on Agenda Items In Person Several members of the public offered comments on agenda items. The majority of comments focused on the Animal Code Amendments, particularly regarding roosters in Wheat Ridge. Guy Nahmiac of 3650 Ward Road spoke about living next to neighbors with noisy dogs and young children, noting his hens get excited after laying eggs. He emphasized these are all legal activities until they abuse neighborly relationships. He stated there are existing noise ordinances with quiet hours, arguing that roosters should be treated like dogs. He expressed concern about banning animals based on gender, noting it would be embarrassing for a city whose mascot is a rooster. Mike Tully, a Wheat Ridge resident, addressed the staff recommendation to allow one rooster per residential household, strongly disagreeing with this approach. He compared the staff memo on muffler noise with the rooster issue, noting both disrupt residential neighborhoods. He described the constant crowing of a neighbor's rooster, comparing it to a car with a loud muffler driving up and down the street for hours. He advocated for a rooster ban, citing that surrounding municipalities prohibit roosters. Becky Blackett, a Wheat Ridge resident since 2002 and owner of 11 properties, discussed receiving a summons to appear in court regarding her rooster. She highlighted an inconsistency in ordinances where roosters are allowed, yet complaints trigger enforcement actions regardless of actual noise levels. She noted she has taken steps to reduce noise including soundproofing, installing a white noise machine, and using a crow collar for her rooster. Jill Mustafa, whose property is on the former Cooler Strand farm, spoke about her rooster that occasionally crows, noting that even hens can crow. She expressed concerns that banning roosters could lead to banning hens, and pointed out that during the bird flu outbreak, backyard flocks provided eggs when stores had none. She compared rooster noise to children and dogs, suggesting all should be treated equally. Kimberly Cross introduced herself as an applicant for the grants committee, highlighting her community involvement including over five years with the Wheat Ridge Police Department Volunteer Academy. Chris McEwen of Roost Farms spoke about operating what is likely the city's largest chicken farm. He explained his family chose Wheat Ridge for its ordinances promoting sustainability and urban farming, noting the city's agricultural heritage as represented by its "Farmers" mascot. He described how chickens are healthier and happier with roosters present, and suggested compromise measures including coop requirements. Becky Osborne, a lifelong Wheat Ridge resident, spoke about the rural character of the area that makes it special, allowing residents to live close to the city while maintaining agricultural practices. Molly Duplechian expressed concerns about a neighbor's rooster disrupting their previously peaceful neighborhood. She supported either banning roosters entirely or prohibiting them in residential areas while allowing them on agricultural properties of at least one acre. She argued that the benefit to a few rooster owners should not burden the many neighbors affected by the noise. Jailing Kubasta and Kevin Kubasta both spoke about ongoing issues with a neighbor's rooster. Jailing has been a resident for 35 years and described the situation as a "nightmare," with the rooster crowing throughout the day despite the owner being cited. Kevin added that they can no longer enjoy their backyard and family gatherings have moved indoors due to the constant crowing. H. Sanford described the disruptive impact of a neighbor's rooster on her husband who has stage 4 cancer. She questioned neighborhood etiquette and argued that while Wheat Ridge has agricultural roots, it is now a city that should update its laws accordingly. Wheat Ridge Speaks Jordan Landgrebe: We live in an urban area and the current agriculture policy is not reflective of reality. There is no need for people to have 'livestock' of any kind on small residential properties. Poultry in particular attracts disease, and their food attracts rats and mice. Aside from the noise of roosters, why is the city allowing people to keep livestock within 10 feet setbacks of other properties at all? Famers in rural areas are not even allowed to build pens this close to roads or other properties. Please consider a limitation on any non-domestic animals based on property size and increasing any setback for 'farm animals' to at least 50 feet. There should be an outright restriction on properties which are less than a half-acre in size. I have never seen a city in an urban area allow this to continue. Kathryn Ness: I was made aware of a situation in Wheat Ridge where there is a a rooster in a residential neighborhood that is causing many of the residents much angst due to consistent noise. The residents are losing the serenity of their home and having to live with the anxiety of waking up every day to this type of noise with no relief. While I do not live in that area, I can't imagine what that would be like to have it next door to me. I read the recommendation by the staff that there be a limit of only one rooster. This doesn't solve the noise problem and creates a situation where enforcement is more difficult and time consuming...something I know Wheat Ridge doesn't need. Having lived here for over 50 years I know that our agrarian roots are worn at times like a badge of honor. But, to truly become a "serious" city, some of these outdated ordinances need to be changed. You have to ask yourselves why the other cities around Wheat Ridge have banned roosters altogether? Because they have determined that is what is best for their city and residents.../something you need to do for ours. I would like to encourage a ban on roosters in the city limits, at the very least in residential areas. Sina March: I have lived at 3570 Moore Court since October of 1986. This has been a lovely, peaceful neighborhood. Recently the incessant rooster crowing has become an irritant and causes physical reactions among some of us. I don't understand why roosters are allowed in this residential area. I like roosters. They are noble birds and beautiful...but they are noisy. The crowing is disruptive in this neighborhood. In my opinion Wheat Ridge should honor the residents by conforming to the regulations of the adjoining cities. Thank you for considering this change. Josh Duplechian: Important note: I submitted a comment yesterday prior to reading the staff recommendations for the amendments to the animal code regulations. If possible, I would like to withdraw that public comment and replace it with these comments now that I have read the recommendations. Additionally, this comment is being provided solely from Josh Duplechian instead of the joint submittal provided yesterday. To Wheat Ridge City Council, I have been a resident at 3500 Moore Ct. for 14 years. About 7 years ago, we had a chicken coop in our backyard. As the baby chicks grew it quickly became clear that one of them was a rooster. The crowing in the early morning hours and throughout the day was the clearest indication but it was also a very aggressive chicken towards the other chickens and even our children. It was our understanding that roosters were not allowed in Wheat Ridge, so we did the hard but responsible thing and got rid of the rooster. Jump forward to this summer when we started hearing the sounds of a rooster crowing throughout the day. Again, with the understanding that roosters were not allowed in Wheat Ridge, we assumed the noises would not last long as the neighbor would also do the responsible thing and get rid of the rooster. We were incorrect. Despite many requests and pleading with the neighbor and explaining the disruption the roosters crowing has caused; they have refused to do anything. The sounds of the rooster have created a noise nuisance and have prevented us and all our neighbors from peacefully enjoying our homes. Additionally, for the last 14 years the block and the neighbors have all lived in peaceful co-existence with one another. When issues have arisen, we have worked together to solve them in a way that is mutually beneficial. It is upsetting to know that we have a neighbor that is knowingly disturbing another's peaceful enjoyment of their home but refuses to do anything about it. There are solutions and compromises but this neighbor refuses to acknowledge the impact they are having on their neighbors’ lives. This neighborhood disagreement is a direct result of the lack of clarify in Wheat Ridge Code. I urge the City Council to create clarity in law that roosters are not allowed. When you search if a rooster is allowed on ChatGPT, it is a decided "no". However, when I ask for the exact citation, it is unclear. When there is a lack of clarity in the law, it is your responsibility as City Council to clear that up. Additionally, your responsibility as Wheat Ridge City Council members is to act as representatives of the public, hear from residents, advocate for our needs and make decisions on behalf of community welfare. Your action is needed in this circumstance to defend and protect the quality of life for your constituents. On Saturday, September 13 when were inside trying to just relax and read we set a video to record for 5 minutes and captured at least 3 loud crows. If you spread that out throughout the day, it is estimated the rooster crows approximately 30-35 times per hour. What is recorded in this video is a regular occurrence throughout the day even though our home is more than 200-300 feet from the home with the rooster. I can't even imagine how our neighbors that are directly adjacent to this property are coping with this noise and I ask you to consider how you would feel if your life were being impacted in this way. Wheat Ridge is behind many surrounding jurisdictions on this matter. Denver, Lakewood, Golden and Arvada have all prohibited roosters, and their laws have been in place for many years. As much as many of us have moved to Wheat Ridge to live in a more rural area, we also must acknowledge that it is becoming more densely populated and therefore, we need to adjust our code and regulations to adapt. Roosters were mainly prohibited in these other jurisdictions to prevent noise disturbances, and it is clear from our experience and our neighbors that is exactly what this rooster is causing. Please consider passing a law that would prohibit roosters in Wheat Ridge. A reasonable and practical compromise is to allow roosters in more agricultural zone districts with larger lot size. However, for the type of neighborhood we live in on the 3500 block of Moore Court, the proximity of our residences and the size of our lots, roosters should not be allowed. Thank you for your consideration. Mary R. Tully: Re: Demand for a rooster ban in residential areas of Wheat Ridge City staff has recommended allowing one rooster per dwelling in residential areas of the city. I strongly disagree with this recommendation. The only real change to the vague wording of the present ordinance is to specifically allow one rooster per home. The new ordinance would add nothing of substance to address the problems that arise from neighborhood conflicts that are created by a crowing rooster. Neighbors who complain have no redress short of a long, exhausting process through Code Enforcement. Wheat Ridge residents might not consider a rooster that crows a problem until the rooster is crowing in their backyards. Many residents in Wheat Ridge are not aware that roosters are allowed in residential areas of our city. We weren’t. They have never heard a rooster crow close to them. Our neighborhood has discovered that roosters are very real and very loud. A common misconception is that roosters only crow in the morning. This is incorrect. They crow all day. The far better and more appropriate option is to ban roosters in residential areas but allow three roosters on agriculturally conforming zoned properties. This would protect residents in neighborhoods while preserving farming on the land that was meant for it. Reasons for my demand to ban roosters: • Neighbors in the residential areas of Wheat Ridge live in close proximity to each other. Nuisance animals, including roosters, severely damage their quality of life. Our neighborhood peace and quiet has been shattered since the beginning of August by one rooster. The dispute started as a request to our neighbor to do something about the constant crowing of her rooster. She adamantly refused, and the situation quickly escalated to serious conflict, animosity and tension. • More and more of Wheat Ridge's agricultural areas are being rezoned for housing. It seems contradictory that, even as these rezonings take place, Wheat Ridge city staff recommends allowing a barnyard nuisance in neighborhoods. • Roosters are banned in residential areas in every other city in the metro area except Wheat Ridge because they are considered a nuisance due to the noise they make Arvada, Lakewood, Golden, Denver, Broomfield, Edgewater, Commerce City, Northglenn, Westminster, etc. etc. Going farther afield, even Greeley, Fort Collins and Colorado Springs prohibit roosters. There is a very good reason for this. People move to a city to enjoy their homes, their yards, their kids, their peace of mind. These cities are taking care of their residents and making sure, as best they can, that they get the peace and quiet they want and paid for. • Wheat Ridge allows many kinds of animals. My neighbor with the crowing rooster has two goats, some chickens, and a beehive. That's great. What isn't great is a rooster that crowed, without any restraint, through the entire month of August before the homeowner was finally issued a summons. Rooster cries have been clocked at 130 dB, a very high number. The noise was unbearable. When a rooster tilts his head back to crow his ears are protected from the harsh sound by a natural system that blocks his ear canals. The rest of us are not so lucky. • The staff report mentioned noise problems. Crow collars and soundproof chicken coops, if actually used, are not practical, long-term solutions that will protect neighbors. If roosters are not a nuisance, in and of themselves (and they are because of their crowing), why would staff then have to suggest these extraordinary measures rather than an outright ban? In our neighborhood, the rooster owner does not think her rooster is a noise problem. Neighbors disagree. Vehemently. The dispute includes many families who have been harmed by the harsh, loud crowing. My husband and I are retired. We are home and hear the crowing all day. The owner is not home so she does not. We have lived at this address for 44 years. I don't want to be forced to move because of a nuisance rooster. • If the staff recommendation is followed, there is no way to effectively address the noise nuisance except through a complaint to Community Services. This is what is happening in my neighborhood, and it is a nightmare. Those who complain must devote incredible amounts of time to amass the information needed for a summons: documentation of dates and times of the constant crowing, audio recordings, video recordings, collating evidence in a timeline and more. This is needed so a Community Services Officer can issue a summons and set a court date. Our case is now in Wheat Ridge Municipal Court and could end up in a jury trial. What an unnecessary waste of time and resources for a matter that would never arise if there were a rooster ban. Examples of decibel levels: • Rooster: 130 dB, some measurements are as high as 143 dB • Police siren: 100 to 120 dB when measured at a distance about 10 feet from the siren speaker • Fire truck: 110-140 dB at short distance. Average is 123-124 dB • Ambulance: 110 to 130 dB at short distance • Gunfire: 140-190 dB • Barking dogs: most register around 80-90 dB • Professional gas powered leaf blower: 65 to 80 dB at 50+ feet This unacceptable decibel level of rooster-generated noise adversely impacts neighbors, especially: • People with babies and toddlers • People who work nights and must sleep during the day • People working from home • People who are older/retired • People with PTSD • People with fragile health who are home-bound • People who are ill and recuperating at home • People with normal and sensitive hearing • People who leave their windows open • People who enjoy peace and quiet while gardening • People who enjoy relaxing and entertaining in their outdoor spaces Jeri Schmelzel: I have been a resident of Wheat Ridge since 1994. As our city has grown over the decades, our needs change. We are now an urban suburb and as such roosters crowing at all hours are a real nuisance. Our current ordinance needs to be changed. I urge City Council to no longer allow roosters in the city limits. This is similar to most of our neighboring cities. Mary Steffeck: To whom it might concern, I have heard that the city council staff has recommended allowing 1 rooster. As a Wheat Ridge resident, I disagree with the city council staff decision. I have lived at 3590 Moore Court since the late 1950’s, except for a short stint in Lakewood. There have been hens and roosters kept in the neighborhood in the past, which had left me strongly opposed to allowing chickens. My opinion was changed lately by neighbors who kept only hens and no roosters. Recently a rooster has been added to our quiet neighborhood and has become a nuisance. During a meeting with the city for new townhouses at 32nd and Kipling, a real estate agent stood up and made the comment this new development would negatively affect the value of our properties. The presence of roosters in a quiet neighborhood would negatively affect our property values, too. Surrounding cities like Arvada and Lakewood do not allow roosters. The consistency between neighboring cities makes it easier for residents to following their city’s ordinances. Yes, Denver allows 1 rooster, but we incorporated in 1969 to separate ourselves from Denver. Roosters should be prohibited from residential neighborhoods. Kassandra Rumbaugh: To the members of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing today as a 15-year resident of Wheat Ridge (5 years as an adult, 10 years as a kid) to express my strong support for the continued allowance of agricultural animals, including roosters and pigs, within our city limits. As you consider policies on animal codes, I urge you to recognize the significant benefits that these animals bring to our city. Urban agriculture, including the keeping of farm animals, provides numerous advantages to our community, such as: *Increased food security and self-sufficiency: Allowing people to produce their own eggs and other products contributes to a more resilient, local food system. This can help families access fresh, nutritious food and reduce reliance on industrial food sources. It also cuts back on transportation of food goods, therefore lessening exhaust and other pollutants in our community. *Educational opportunities: Raising agricultural animals is a valuable learning experience for families and children, teaching them about food production, animal husbandry, and responsible pet ownership. This firsthand knowledge helps foster a greater connection to the food we consume, which is quite out of touch for a lot of people these days. There is a great 4H group in Wheat Ridge with a wealth of knowledge to share with kids doing livestock projects. I would hate to see city ordinance prevent a 4H member from being able to pursue raising an animal they were passionate to learn about. *Pest control and natural fertilizer: Chickens are effective at controlling common pests like insects and snails. Their manure is also a high-quality, natural fertilizer for home gardens, which reduces waste and provides a sustainable resource. *Connection to nature: For many city dwellers, raising chickens and other small livestock offers a rewarding way to connect with nature and experience a slice of rural life. While roosters do crow, it is important to remember that they are often less noisy than other common urban sounds, like vehicles and dogs. Roosters also provide essential protection for hens, alerting them to predators and helping to maintain social order. I have seen this in action on multiple accounts when my rooster saved his hens from predators (everyone loves chicken!). Wheat Ridge has a rich agricultural history that I would love to see continue and we have an opportunity to provide an example for other cities on how to support urban agriculture in a residential area. Our local high school is even home to the Wheat Ridge Farmers! Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. I am confident that allowing agricultural animals to remain a part of our urban landscape will enrich our community and support a more sustainable and resilient food system. Sincerely, Kassandra Rumbaugh Rachel Wheeler: To whom it may concern, My husband and I have lived at 3581 Moore Court for over 36 years. Many of our neighbors have lived on this block longer than that. Our neighborhood has been a quiet and cohesive environment for most of the time. But lately a new resident on Moore Street (One block over but directly across from us) has acquired chickens and roosters. Some of our neighbors have had chickens in the past, and we have never complained. But the rooster has become more than a nuisance. It’s constant crowing is disturbing the peace and tranquility of this neighborhood. We live in a suburban residential community. Our yards are not large, so what happens in our neighbor’s yard affects us as well. We are respectfully requesting that Wheat Ridge prohibit roosters in our neighborhoods as all the cities around us have done including Golden, Lakewood, Arvada, Denver, and Edgewater. Thank you for taking up this matter. George and Rachel Wheeler Denise Midroy: We have lived in Wheat Ridge, both east & west side for over 35 years one of the things we really appreciate about Wheatridge is its ‘country’ & agricultural appeal, the larger properties, the non ‘cookie cutter’ houses all contribute to the unique charm of this town. I understand how not everyone is enthusiastic about hearing a neighbor’s rooster at inopportune times especially in closer quarters. It seems reasonable to prohibit roosters in such circumstances (of course not everyone knows their chick will grow up to be a male until it matures even when they are supposed to be sexed) it might take a ‘minute’ to rehome the rooster. My point in this is to continue to allow the keeping of poultry & other animals (where there is sufficient space) that represent the unique lifestyle that personifies Wheatridge. 5. Community Partners Grant Program Committee Recommendations Cole Haselip from city staff introduced committee members Alex Gouldsmith and Jeff Richards to present the Community Partners Grant Program Committee recommendations. Alex Gouldsmith explained he had served on the committee for three years, while Jeff Richards noted it was his second year. They described the committee's function as a bridge between the city and organizations applying for grants, supporting nonprofit agencies and programs serving Wheat Ridge. This marked the eighteenth year of the program. Jeff Richards reported that since 2020, nearly one million dollars had been awarded through these grants, with applications increasing each year. The committee consists of members from all districts, including new members who performed well despite their inexperience. Alex Gouldsmith noted a significant spike in applications the previous year due to increased marketing efforts by city staff, combined with other funding sources drying up. He explained that the number of applicants had increased substantially, with total funding requests ballooning. In recent years, the committee had to cut nearly $300,000 each year from requests, making it necessary to carefully weigh each organization's impact. Jeff Richards detailed the evaluation process, which opened on June 1, 2025, and closed on July 20, 2025. The committee introduced a change this year, dividing applications between smaller grants (under $7,500) and larger grants (over $7,500), with presentations only required for the larger applications. The committee evaluated applications based on who would be served, how many Wheat Ridge citizens would benefit, impacts on health, safety, and welfare, and performance measures. For the 2026 budget, the committee recommended awarding $200,000 across 32 of the 43 applicants, with awards ranging from $1,000 to $12,000. The median award increased from $4,000 in the previous year to $5,000 this year. The committee would provide feedback to applicants about decisions and recommend that Wheat Ridge High School groups consolidate their proposals under one umbrella application rather than submitting piecemeal requests. During questions, Councilmember Larson expressed disappointment that Energy Outreach Colorado, which provides energy assistance to vulnerable residents, was denied funding. Committee members explained that while they recognized the organization's value, they had to prioritize organizations addressing food, housing, and community health, and that Energy Outreach Colorado would serve fewer Wheat Ridge residents compared to other applicants. Councilmember Snell asked about the process for communicating with organizations that were not funded. Haselip explained that they invite organizations to schedule conversations to receive feedback, which has helped some organizations like Tin Shed Food Pantry to improve their applications and receive more funding in subsequent years. Councilmember Dozeman inquired about decisions regarding multiple applications from Wheat Ridge High School, asking why some programs received funding while others did not. Jeff Richards explained that the high school's funding structure is complex, making it difficult for the committee to determine how funds would be disbursed. Alex Gouldsmith added that they had to make difficult choices, such as prioritizing funding for instruments that would last years over uniforms that would benefit fewer students. Councilmember Hultin suggested creating dashboards or impact data to better demonstrate how the grant funds benefit the community. The Council unanimously agreed with the Community Partners Grant Program Committee's recommendations to award $200,000 across 32 organizations for the 2026 budget year. 6. Animal Code Amendments Cole Haselip from city staff presented on animal code amendments, noting that Council had previously reviewed these issues and requested additional details on several items. The presentation addressed nine specific issues: Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects Haselip explained that currently reptiles, amphibians, and insects are prohibited in Wheat Ridge, but staff proposed allowing them with exceptions for venomous or toxic species that could cause serious injury, venomous snakes (banned by state law), dangerous constrictor snakes, crocodilians, and any species classified as dangerous by state or federal government. Councilmember Weaver asked about the classification of killer bees, noting that they have evolved into beehive populations in Colorado. She also asked about pot-bellied pigs, which Haselip indicated would be addressed in the swine section. The Council reached consensus to accept staff's recommendation on allowing reptiles, amphibians, and insects with the specified exceptions. Endangered Species Staff recommended allowing endangered or threatened species listed under federal, state, or international law if kept by a licensed entity like a research institution or animal rehabilitator. Councilmember Dozeman asked about kangaroos, and staff explained they would need to go through the chief's exemption process. Councilmember Larson asked for clarification about the licensing process, and staff confirmed that licenses would be issued by the state, not by Wheat Ridge. The Council reached consensus to accept staff's recommendation on endangered species. Definition Consolidations Haselip proposed consolidating the definitions of dangerous dogs, aggressive dogs, and vicious animals to simplify the code. The recommendation was to have two categories: "aggressive animals" for animals that are threatening or cause minor injuries, and "dangerous animals" for those that cause serious injury, are trained for fighting, or are legally declared dangerous with uncompliant owners. Councilmember Snell expressed concern about potential breed restrictions. Staff clarified that the language about species classified as dangerous only applied to reptiles, amphibians, and insects, not to dogs. Councilmember Dozeman asked about how animals are deemed aggressive. Staff explained they assess animal behavior based on reports and observations, looking for threatening behavior like snapping or causing minor injuries. The Council reached consensus to accept staff's recommendation on consolidating definitions. Rehabilitated Fighting Dogs Staff recommended against creating an exemption for rehabilitated fighting animals, explaining that Community Service Officers are not trained to assess long-term risk, it's difficult to eliminate aggressive behavior, and there are liability concerns with designating formerly fighting animals as rehabilitated. Councilmember Weaver expressed concern about potential confusion between rehabilitated fighting dogs and rescue dogs of breeds sometimes considered dangerous. Staff clarified that the recommendation would not affect rescue dogs of any breed, only animals trained for fighting. Councilmember Snell noted that some organizations do rehabilitate fighting dogs with stringent adoption requirements and ongoing support. However, Councilmember Hultin supported staff's recommendation, noting that owners might jump jurisdictions to avoid accountability for dangerous dogs. The Council reached consensus to accept staff's recommendation against creating an exemption for rehabilitated fighting dogs. Animal Sales in Public Haselip noted that Colorado legislature had passed HB 25-1180 banning animal sales in public spaces, with exceptions for livestock sales and animal shelter/rescue sales. Since this aligned with the city's goals, no additional action was needed. Councilmember Hultin mentioned she had originally asked about a total ban on animal sales regardless of location. Staff explained that the state requires licenses for breeding above hobbyist quantities, which addresses potential welfare concerns. Childproof Structures for Dangerous Dogs Staff recommended requiring that outdoor enclosures for dangerous animals be designed to prevent accidental entry by anyone, including children. Councilmember Weaver asked if there were recommendations for appropriate enclosures. Councilmember Dozeman inquired about what guidance would be provided to owners. Staff indicated they could provide guidance without specifying exact requirements in the code. The Council reached consensus to accept staff's recommendation on childproof structures. Transfer of Dangerous Dogs Haselip explained that currently, dangerous dog owners may only transfer their animals to family members. Staff proposed allowing transfers to responsible caretakers verified by Community Service Officers. Councilmember Hultin suggested removing the family member provision entirely, requiring that all transfers be to a verified, responsible caretakers, as family members aren't necessarily responsible caretakers. The Council reached consensus to amend staff's recommendation to allow transfers only to responsible caretakers approved by the city, removing the family member provision. Possession of Dangerous and Aggressive Dogs Staff proposed clarifying the code language around possession of dangerous and aggressive animals. The current language states it's unlawful to possess such animals but then explains how they can be kept legally, which is confusing. The proposed language would clarify that while it's unlawful to possess a dangerous animal, a court may authorize possession if the owner complies with requirements. City Attorney Dahl suggested removing the word "reasonable" from "reasonable conditions imposed by the court" since it could imply that defendants can question court-imposed conditions. The Council reached consensus to accept staff's recommendation on clarifying possession language, with the modification to remove "reasonable" as suggested by the City Attorney. Swine in the City of Wheat Ridge Staff recommended prohibiting swine citywide, while allowing pot-bellied pigs through the chief's exemption process as they are considered household pets rather than livestock. The Council reached consensus to accept staff's recommendation to prohibit swine as domestic animals in the city. Roosters in the City of Wheat Ridge Haselip detailed the benefits of roosters, including protecting hens, maintaining flock order, fertilizing eggs, and their cultural significance. He also noted that roosters can create noise nuisances for neighbors. Staff outlined their process for handling rooster noise complaints, including investigating reports, working with owners on solutions like soundproofing or crow collars, and issuing summonses if compliance isn't achieved. Staff presented three options: (1) clarify that roosters are permitted with nuisance regulations, (2) allow limited numbers in different areas, or (3) prohibit roosters citywide. Their recommendation was to allow one rooster per property in residential areas and up to three per property in conforming agricultural areas of at least one acre. Councilmember Weaver opposed banning roosters, noting their importance to flock health and the potential for a slippery slope in regulating urban farm animals. She advocated for addressing nuisances on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Ohm compared the issue to dogs, suggesting an escalating fine system for nuisance behavior rather than an outright ban. Councilmember Dozeman agreed that the issue was behavioral rather than about the animals themselves and supported addressing it through the noise ordinance. Councilmember Hultin supported allowing one rooster per property in residential areas but suggested removing the "conforming agricultural areas" language and simply allowing three roosters on properties of at least one acre. Councilmember Larson opposed singling out species and supported addressing the issue through a clear complaint process and meaningful citations. The Council reached consensus to allow one rooster per property in residential areas and up to three roosters on properties of at least one acre (removing the agricultural designation), while maintaining the ability to enforce noise nuisances. They also agreed to hold a future study session on administrative enforcement and fine structures for noise complaints. The Council approved allowing one rooster per residential property and up to three roosters on properties of at least one acre in size, with continued enforcement of noise regulations on a case-by-case basis. 7. Muffler Regulations and Enforcement City Manager Goff introduced the topic of muffler regulations and enforcement, which was requested by Council members Larson and Dozeman. Division Chief Kellogg presented on the issue of loud exhaust in the city, which has become a growing concern. He noted the noise comes from modified exhaust systems, damaged systems, and even some standard equipment on commercial vehicles. These issues create public health concerns, including stress, sleep disorders, and impaired learning in children. Currently, the city enforces muffler ordinances through the adopted Model Traffic Code, which requires all motor vehicles to have mufflers and prohibits modifications that increase exhaust noise. The police department has been conducting enforcement efforts and working with Colorado State Patrol on inspection operations for commercial vehicles. Chief Kellogg explained that these violations are difficult to enforce due to challenges in identifying whether vehicles have proper mufflers and the limitations of current technology. He outlined three options: (1) adopt a comprehensive municipal ordinance, (2) implement a multifaceted enforcement and educational strategy, or (3) explore technological solutions like noise cameras. Chief Murtha added that they had consulted with other jurisdictions using noise detection technology, and most indicated they should have waited for more reliable tools. He noted that differentiating vehicle noise in traffic is particularly challenging. Councilmember Larson, who has been pursuing this issue for over five years, argued for a Wheat Ridge-specific ordinance to address excessive vehicle noise. He emphasized that all vehicles are equipped with mufflers from the factory, and deliberate alterations to increase noise disturb the peace and degrade quality of life. He noted that cities across the country, including New York City, have installed noise cameras with positive community response. Councilmember Dozeman asked about complaint frequency, and Chief Murtha indicated it's not frequent but acknowledged that many people may have given up on complaining because the issue is pervasive. She also asked about enforcement of jake brakes on semi-trucks, which Chief Kellogg noted will be more inspectable under a new state law (HB 25-1039) by 2027. Councilmember Ohm asked if there had been conversations with the state about requiring annual vehicle inspections that would include muffler checks. Chief Murtha explained he had worked in states with such programs and found them effective but noted Colorado doesn't have this requirement. Councilmember Hultin expressed concerns about adopting measures that would be difficult to enforce but supported creating an ordinance with more teeth if it would help address the issue. After discussion, Councilmember Hultin moved that the city adopt its own ordinance prohibiting modified mufflers and requiring mufflers as a primary offense. The ordinance would require mandatory court appearances for violations, give judges the option to require repairs, and include an escalating fine system. The Council approved developing a municipal ordinance prohibiting modified mufflers and requiring proper mufflers, with mandatory court appearances for violations, the option for judges to require repairs, and an escalating fine structure. 8. Staff Report(s) City Manager Goff invited Chief Murtha to provide an update on the police department's response to the recent school shooting in Evergreen and their preparedness for similar situations. Chief Murtha explained the department's comprehensive approach to active shooter situations, which includes prevention efforts, mitigation strategies, and planning and preparedness. The department collaborates with schools, businesses, and community organizations to identify potential threats and conducts training on how to respond to active shooter events. Chief Murtha detailed that all officers, including School Resource Officers, are trained to respond immediately to active threats rather than waiting for SWAT teams. The city has equipped patrol cars with breaching tools, ballistic shields, helmets, and flash bangs following lessons learned from incidents like the Uvalde school shooting. The department conducts regular drills in schools, businesses, and other locations throughout the city, ensuring officers are familiar with building layouts. Chief Murtha emphasized that they take a proactive approach, acknowledging that such events could happen in Wheat Ridge. Councilmember Snell requested a step-by-step escape plan for council chambers following the election, which Chief Murtha agreed to provide. Councilmember Dozeman expressed appreciation for the police department's efforts, particularly regarding security at community events like the Carnation Festival, stating that Wheat Ridge has a police department that is "second to none." Councilmember Ohm thanked Deputy Chief Ray for his thoughtful response to a constituent's question about ICE, noting that while the situation is difficult, the department understands its role is not to act as federal enforcement agents. 9. Elected Officials' Report(s) There were no reports from elected officials. 10. Adjournment There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Pro Tem Stites adjourned the meeting at 10:48 pm. Korey Stites, Mayor Pro Tem Margy Greer, Sr. Deputy City Clerk