City of Aurora COUNCIL AGENDA COMMENTARYbig.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Aurora5yearreport2011.pdf · Attachment A: Aurora’s Keeping Vicious, Aggressive or Dangerous Animals ordinance)

City of Aurora

Workshop Item #:SS:1st:

2nd:

4 ___________

COUNCIL AGENDA COMMENTARY Item Title:Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, amending various provisions within Section 14-75 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, relating to Pit Bulls and Restricted Breeds of dogs used as service dogs for disabled persons

Policy Committee/Other Reviews (i.e. Boards and Commissions):

Item Initiator: Cheryl Conway, PR Specialist, Animal Care Division

Staff Source: Charlie Richardson, City Attorney x7030 / Nancy Sheffield, Director, Neighborhood Services x7280

City Manager/Deputy City Manager Signature: George Noe

ACTIONS(S) PROPOSED (Check all appropriate actions) Approve Item as proposed at Study Session Approve Item with Waiver of Reconsideration

Approve Item and Move Forward at Study Session

Approve Item as proposed at Regular Meeting Information Only

PREVIOUS ACTIONS OR REVIEWS:

Study Session Meeting Date: 01/10/2011 Minutes AttachedMinutes Not Available

Actions Taken: Recommends Do Not Recommend

Forwarded without Recommendation

Recommendation Report Attached

Policy Committee Name: Neighborhood Services Policy Committee

Meeting Date: 11/18/2010 Minutes Attached

Minutes Not Available

Actions Taken: Recommends Do Not Recommend Forwarded without Recommendation

Recommendation Report Attached

HISTORY (Dates reviewed by City council, Policy Committees, Boards and Commissions, or Staff. Summarize pertinent comments. ATTACH MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, POLICY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.) Reviewed at Neighborhood Services Policy Committee Nov. 18, 2010 - forwarded to study session.

ITEM SUMMARY (Brief description of item, discussion, key points, recommendations, etc.) City Council enacted Ordinance Sec. 14-75 Related to Pit Bulls and Restricted Breeds of Dogs in 2005. A grandfather clause allows owners who obtained a special license to keep their dogs as long as they continue to adhere to strict license requirements and keep the license current thru annual renewal. In theory, once the grandfathered dogs expire, there will not be any Pit Bulls or Restricted Breeds of dogs in the city.

February 5, 2011 Workshop, Page 115

New regulations for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) take effect March 15, 2011. The Department of Justice (DOJ) indicates municipalities will be required to accept all breeds of dogs as service animals, regardless of existing breed bans. City personnel are limited to two categories of questions to determine if the dog qualifies as a service animal: 1. Is the animal required because of a disability? 2. What task or work has the animal been trained to do? Regarding category number two, municipalities may ask as many questions as needed to elicit information necessary to make a determination without requiring disclosure of confidential disability-related information. Municipalities may not require documentation of the dog's training. Legal counsel for Aurora recommends revisions to Sec. 14-75 to accommodate RB service dogs. Proposed changes include: 1. New definitions for "handler" and "service animal" 2. Revising section 2 (c) "Exceptions" to:

a. Allow people with disabilities to transport their RB service dog into the city and keep it for up to 72 hours

b. Require handlers/owners of RB service dogs to obtain an RB license

3. Revise section 3(d) RB License Requirements: a. Waive the license fee for RB service dogs b. Revise the age requirement for owning RB service dogs

so people between the ages of 18 and 21 are recognized as legal owners/handlers

c. Waive the requirement that warning signs be posted on gates into the backyard alerting first responders and visitors that an RB dog is on the property.

d. For service animals, waive the restriction that RB dogs may not be kept on a porch, patio or any part of the house or structure that would allow the dog to exit on its own volition.

e. Waive the muzzle and 4-foot leash length restrictions for an RB service dog only if its use would prevent the dog from fulfilling its service animal duties. The dog would still need to be under effective control of its owner at all times.

f. For service animals, waive the requirement that a warning sign be posted on the front door alerting first responders and visitors that an RB lives there.

4. Revise section 4 (e) "Impoundment," requiring Animal Care Officers to return an RB service dog to its owner for a license violation instead of impounding the canine. Officers would still impound these dogs for other

violations.

KEY ISSUESCouncil enacted Ord. Sec. 14-75 in 2005 to address public safety concerns regarding Pit Bulls, seven other 'bully breeds' historically bred for fighting, and dogs that share the majority of physical characteristics as the banned breeds (RBs).

Effective March 15, 2011, new regulations for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) go into effect. The Department of Justice indicates municipalities will no longer be able to prohibit any breed of dog as a service animal. However, municipalities can impose reasonable restrictions on any breed of dog as a service animal.


Does Council support revisions to ordinance Sec. 14-75 to accommodate RBs as service animals for people with disabilities?

LEGAL COMMENTSThe Department of Justice issued final rules, having full legal effect, in order to adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The Department of Justice requires a public entity, such as the City of Aurora, Colorado, to modify its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability. The Department of Justice rules state it is neither appropriate nor consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. City Council has the power to make and publish ordinances consistent with the laws of the state and federal government. (Charter Section 2-32)Bob Rogers

PUBLIC FINANCIAL IMPACT (If Yes, EXPLAIN)

Yes No

The Restricted Breed license is $125 annually. Per ADA regulations, service animals should be exempt from license fees.

PRIVATE FISCAL IMPACT (If Significant or Nominal, EXPLAIN)

Not Applicable Significant Nominal

The proposed ordinance waives the Restricted Breed (RB) License fee and the $100,000 liability insurance requirement for service animals. Restricted Breed (RB) service animals must be spayed or neutered and micro chipped. Accredited service animal training organizations do these procedures before transferring the dog free-of-charge to the person with the disability. People obtaining a dog and training it on their own are required to neuter and microchip the dog at theirown expense. The only other required expenses are purchase of a muzzle and a 4-foot leash.

EXHIBITS ATTACHED:

1 - Continuation Page Restricted Breeds as Service Dogs.docx 2 - Background - history leading up to passage of Sec 14-75 (6).docx 3 - Draft ordinance 14-75 Pit Bulls and Restricted Breeds of Dogs as Service Dogs.pdf 4 - Backup Material for Restricted Breed Issue.pdf 5 - Englewood's Animal Ordinance.pdf 6 - Pit Bulls and Restricted Breeds as Service Dogs DRAFT NS Policy Comm Mtg. 11-18-2010.docx


Form 480-4A (rev. 11/99)

City of Aurora

COUNCIL AGENDA UPDATE/CONTINUATION PAGEItem Title Restricted Breeds of Dogs as Service Animals

Staff Source Nancy Sheffield and Charlie Richardson Initials

STATUS REPORT (This form to be used to provide additional information or to update information previously provided to Council)

At the study session of December 20, 2011, City Council forwarded this item to the Winter Workshop for further discussion and asked to review the history leading up to passage of the Restricted Breed Ordinance.

Attached is a memorandum dated January 20, 2011 with the background history of ordinance Sec. 14-75 Unlawful Keeping of Pit Bulls and Restricted Breeds of Dogs.

The City Attorney's Office has also attached the following: 1. Council's Options of Potential Consequences - Tables from Special Counsel Nancy Cornish Rodgers 2. Proposed Amendment to Sec. 14-75 with chart: Restricted Breed Service Dogs living in the City must still meet

certain requirements 3. Memorandum dated Oct. 12, 2010 from Nancy Cornish Rodgers 4. A draft ordinance proposed by City Council Member FitzGerald 5. Information regarding the City of Englewood's Dangerous Dog ordinance as requested by Council Member Peterson 6. Dog obedience advice


1

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Ed Tauer and Aurora City Council Members THRU: Tom Nicholas, Deputy City Manager Nancy Sheffield, Director, Neighborhood Services Department Pamela Alford, Manager, Animal Care Division FROM: Cheryl Conway, Public Relations Specialist, Animal Care Division DATE: January 24, 2011 RE: ORDINANCE SECTION 14-75 – RESTRICTED BREEDS OF DOGS ________________________________________________________________________ City Council discussed at the December 20, 2010 Study Session, a proposed amendment to the Restricted Breed (RB) ordinance to accommodate service dogs. During discussion, Council Member Renie Peterson indicated it would be helpful for today’s seated council to learn the history behind the ordinance. The following information provides a history, the establishment of the ordinance and the outcomes.

HISTORY OF THE ORDINANCE The following represents a brief summary of the history related to adoption of the ordinance and the results related to the number of “restricted breed” dogs. 2003: At the Sept. 30, 2003 Code Enforcement and Redevelopment Policy Committee meeting, the

Committee acknowledged Aurora’s current ordinance “Keeping Vicious, Aggressive or Dangerous Animals” was a national model, referred to other communities by the National Animal Control Association. Several Council Members received phone calls from constituents expressing concern about the number of Pit Bull dogs in their neighborhoods and the nature of these animals. They discussed banning the breed. They agreed this ordinance is strong and also agreed not to support any breed specific language in the Aurora Municipal Code.

2004: Council again considered a ban, but during the course of those discussions, the State of Colorado

enacted a law prohibiting “Breed Specific Language.” Denver posed a legal challenge to the new law. As an alternative, Council increased the penalty section of the ‘Vicious, Aggressive or Dangerous Animal’ ordinance, ensuring adequate penalties were in place for dealing with these animals and their owners. Upon conviction in municipal court, animals are now required to be spayed or neutered and microchipped. In addition the penalty section now requires destruction of the dog upon a second conviction involving a vicious act by the same animal (please see Attachment A: Aurora’s Keeping Vicious, Aggressive or Dangerous Animals ordinance). Council also strengthened penalties for conviction of Running at Large by increasing fines designated in the ordinance.

2005: Denver’s legal challenge prevailed in court. The Aurora City Council instructed staff to draft three

ordinance versions: An ordinance with restrictions in lieu of a ban A breed ban A breed ban including a grandfather clause with licensing restrictions (the option

approved by Council)


2

Council initially moved forward with an outright ban, but after a public hearing and passionate pleas from owners, enacted the existing ordinance: a breed ban containing a grandfather clause with licensing restrictions. Owners were given three months to gain compliance.

2006: Enforcement began with an initial 500 grandfathered “restricted breed” dogs. 2008: Mandated review of the ordinance was conducted in 2008 and two-year report was submitted to

City Council. After reviewing the report, City Council concluded that the ordinance was effective and made no changes.

2010: Amended the Ordinance to allow more authority and flexibility in minor infractions of the

ordinance for the courts. Additionally, city council decreased the annual registration fee from $155 to $125, recognizing that the grandfathered dogs have decreased in numbers from 500 (2006) to 211 (2010) and that the age of the animals has increased as well.

FACTORS CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING THE ORDINANCE

There were a number of considerations that contributed to council’s adoption of a Restricted Breed ordinance, which included: restricted breed bites; impacts on Animal Care facilities and operations; public and staff safety and welfare; council constituent complaints, and a regional discussion around restricted breeds. I. BITES

Restricted Breeds (RBs) inflicted a disproportionately high number of bites to people when compared to bites from other all dog breeds. In addition, those bites tend to be more severe.

Year RB Bites % of All Bites Bites - All Other Dogs Combined*

2003 28 15.1% 185 2004 33 18.5% 178 2005 27 24.6% 110

Bites from Restricted Breeds decreased once the ordinance was enacted. Year RB Bites % of All Bites Bites - All Other Dogs Combined**

2006 8 6.2% 129 2007 15 9.6% 157 2008 8 3.7% 216 2009 9 4.1% 220 2010 6 3.2% 188

* For this report, “all other dogs combined” does not include any Restricted Breeds of dogs. ** Although, it appears bites increased in 2006 and 2007; the numbers are deceptive. The ordinance

required a report including the number of bites to other animals. Bites to other animals were not tracked or included in 2003, 2004, or 2005. Those years above reflect only bites to people.

II. Impact on City Resources - Animal Care Division

The identified impacts of “restricted breed” dogs on City resources and the Animal Care Division are summarized below and served as part of the rational to adopt the present ordinance. 1) Pit Bulls consumed a significant amount of time and safety concerns from both citizens and staff.


3

a. Animal Care received numerous complaints from citizens regarding individuals baiting one Pit Bull against another on sidewalks and in front of residences. Also, there was an increase in citizen reports of people being taunted by individuals with Pit Bulls. Callers voiced fear of both these dogs and their handlers.

b. Staff picked up several dead or dying Pit Bulls in fields across Aurora, suspecting these dogs were losers in a dog fight based on the animals’ wounds and injuries.

c. Staff reported an increase in backyard breeding of these dogs and it appeared people were breeding for increased size and aggression.

d. Officers voiced concern about Pit Bull owners’ possible gang affiliation and retaliation against them for any charges filed, and/or for impoundment of their dogs. Division policy was to have assistance of the Police Department when there were concerns.

2) Operational Impacts

a. The number of problematic Pit Bulls impounded for various ordinance violations increased dramatically during the following years. Prior to 2006, problematic restricted breed dogs were impounded for various violations. 2006 reflects a major increase as a result of enforcing the new ordinance. From 2007 to present, the trend has been a decline in the number of impoundments.

2002 - 169 2007 - 269 2003 – 289 2008 - 209 2004 - 372 2009 - 143

2005 - 478 2010 - 175 2006 - 758

b. Kennel impacts prior to the enforcement of the ordinance reflected that nearly 50% of available kennels held restricted breed dogs. Because they were being held as strays for owners to claim, or awaiting court dates, the city was required to keep these animals, leaving little kennel space for housing adoptable dogs. Unfortunately, to free kennel space for new incoming dogs, healthy, adoptable dogs were transferred to other area shelters for adoption.

c. Veterinary costs were high prior to the ordinance since some of the dogs came in with injuries; stress levels made others more susceptible to illness. These dogs needed appropriate care during their extended stay in the kennel.

d. Operating and repair costs were also high since restricted breed dogs, because of behavior work themselves into a frenzied state, cause kennel and shelter property damage. Full metal covers for kennel gates were purchased to block their view. Partial roofs over numerous kennels were purchased and installed to prevent these dogs from attempting to ‘get to’ other dogs in the kennel.

e. The City lost revenue on adoptions at the same time expenditures increased due to housing Pit Bulls.

III. Public Perception

1. Council relayed as early as 2003 that many constituents called them, voicing fear and concern about the increased presence of Pit Bulls in the City and the nature of these animals; requesting a ban.

2. There was a general perception that the larger number of Pit Bulls in the City was because the breeds were banned in Denver and owners crossed the border into Aurora where they were legal.

3. There were frequent media reports of Pit Bull attacks across the nation and reports of new areas banning the breed, adding to people’s concern about local dogs.


4

IV. RESTRICTED BREEDS The breeds selected in the establishment of the ordinance were based on the breed’s association with “bully breeds.” They share the majority of physical characteristics and are known to have inherent in their nature the same aggressive tendencies. The seven additional, larger breeds were added because they were beginning to appear in our community and animal shelter. Also, they are much larger and stronger than Pit Bulls. The ten breeds in the ordinance are listed below with the number of reported bites from 2003 to 2010. Attachment B: Restricted Breeds provides additional information on each breed. Restricted Breed Bites

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

The ordinance has been effective in helping ensure a safe community, reducing the number and type of complaints received prior to its enactment. Staff recommends keeping the ordinance in effect, making allowance for service dogs under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Staff further recommends that if Council chooses to revisit the entire ordinance, that a hearing be held to receive public comment prior to amendment, as was initially done in 2005.

Dog Breed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

American Bull Dog 1 3 1 2 3 4 2 2 American Pit Bull Terrier 27 30 29 19 13 4 7 3 American Staffordshire Terrier

3 1 1 1

Cane Corso Dogo Argentino Fila Brasileiro Presa Mallorquin Presa Canario Staffordshire Bull Terrier

1

Tosa Inu TOTAL 28 33 33 22 18 8 9 6


5

ATTACHMENT A – ORDINANCE SEC. 14-7 Sec. 14-7. Keeping vicious, aggressive or dangerous animals. (a) Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a fierce, vicious, aggressive or dangerous animal. For the purposes of this chapter, the term "fierce, vicious, aggressive or dangerous animal" shall mean any dog or other animal that, without intentional provocation, bites or attacks humans or other animals or in a fierce, vicious, aggressive, dangerous or in a terrorizing manner approaches any person or other animal in an apparent attitude of attack, whether or not the attack is consummated or capable of being consummated. It shall be an affirmative defense to charges under this section if the actual or intended victim of any attack has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling of the owner. (b) Guard dogs excepted. Dogs maintained as guard dogs, as defined in section 14-74 and in compliance with such section, shall not be included under this section. (c) Penalty. Any person found guilty of violating this section shall, upon the first conviction, be subject to the payment of a fine of not less than $150.00, upon the second conviction shall be fined not less than $500.00, and upon the third and any subsequent convictions shall be fined not less than $1,000.00. In addition to the fines stated in this subsection, a person convicted under this section may be subject to not more than one year in jail. None of the minimum monetary fines in this subsection shall be suspended by the municipal court and the penalties in this subsection may be imposed in addition to the court-ordered destruction provided for in subsection 14-4(f). In addition to the fines and penalties stated in this subsection, any person convicted of this section shall be ordered to have the vicious, aggressive or dangerous animal microchipped and spayed/neutered. Any person convicted of a subsequent violation of this section shall be ordered to have all dogs within their ownership microchipped and spayed/neutered. If such violation is a second violation involving the same animal, the animal shall be ordered destroyed. (d) Destruction. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the immediate destruction by the animal care officer or a police officer of any fierce, vicious, aggressive or dangerous dog or other animal when less drastic methods, such as tranquilizing, are not available or effective and when neither the animal care officer, a member of the police department nor the animal's owner is able to restrain or control the animal so that it might be impounded in the animal shelter pursuant to section 14-4. (Code 1979, § 7-4; Ord. No. 97-51, § 5, 10-13-97; Ord. No. 2004-52, § 4, 8-23-2004)


6

ATTACHMENT B: RESTRICTED BREED PROFILES

The following breed information pages were included in the 9-19-05 Council Meeting packet: Again presented in the Nov. 8, 2010 Council Meeting Packet


7


8


9


10


11


12


13

Presa Canario / Perro De Presa Canario


14


15




























DRAFT

NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING November 18, 2010

Members Present: Council Member Miller (Chair) Council Member Markert Council Member Cleland Others Present: Tom Nicholas, Nancy Sheffield, Tim Joyce, Dave Chambers, Mike Garcia, Dana

Spade, Scott Berg, Rej, Simenson, Pamela Alford, Cheryl Conway, Steve Beumer, Cliff Stephens, Ron Moore, John Schneebeck, Mindy Parnes, Mary Avgerinos, Steve Stanton, Mike Dailey, Kim Calomino, Sara Castellanos, Dexter Harding, Alyssa Samson, Nancy Rodgers

RESTRICTED BREEDS AS SERVICE ANIMALS Summary of Issue and Discussion: This summer, the Department of Justice (JOA) issued new rules relating to the portion of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regarding service animals. According to new regulations which become effective March 15, 2011, municipalities will no longer be able to prohibit a person with a disability from keeping a pit bull or restricted breed (RB) as a service dog. Mr. Richardson was present from the attorney’s office and introduced Nancy Cornish Rodgers, special counsel on restricted breeds. Mr. Richardson said one of the obligations of the City Attorney’s office is to bring forward new regulatory developments that can have an impact on the City’s existing ordinances. He said the above regulation from the DOJ will put stress on Aurora’s existing ordinance regarding restricted breeds. Mr. Richardson said he recommends the Committee supports the proposed revisions to Sec. 14-75 Keeping a Pit Bull or Restricted Breed of Dog to accommodate RB service dogs. If this step is taken, it will significantly lower the City’s exposure to claims that Aurora is violating an individual’s rights as specified in ADA regulations. Council Member Cleland asked if the owners of the RB service dogs would have to comply with the remaining regulations. Mr. Richardson said the proposed ordinance revisions include changes to accommodate the special needs of people who own RB service dogs as defined in the ADA regulations. Some RB license regulations would be waived for RB service dogs, others would not. There are a few regulations, such as wearing a muzzle or being tethered on a 4-foot leash that would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the work/tasks the dog performs for its owner. Chair Miller asked if fees would still be charged for insurance and microchipping. She asked what the cost is for microchipping an animal. Ms. Conway of the Aurora Animal Care Division replied the fees charged by private veterinarians range from $55-$90. The Aurora Animal Shelter charges $25, which includes the cost of registering the dog in a national data base. Chair Milled asked if staff has an idea as to how many people will be coming forward with pit bulls for their service dog. Ms. Sheffield said this information is not known.


Ms. Rodgers said the City cannot charge more fees for service dogs than they would for the other animals. Microchipping is not required for the other animals. Chair Miller asked if the Shelter has the money to cover the $25 for micro-chipping the service dogs. She said there should be a straight fee across the board like licensing fees but, as a budgetary concern, she felt the City should not pay for the microchipping. Ms. Rodgers noted licensing fees are waived for service dogs per ADA regulations. She said with the new regulations, you can’t use the breed of the dog as the basis for denying it as a service animal. If microchipping was required for all animals, then she would agree to a fee across the board, but because not all dogs need to be microchipped, she did not believe the City could charge a microchip fee for RB service dogs and still be in compliance with ADA rules. Ms. Rodgers said the decision would be a policy decision. Council Member Markert stated she understands Ms. Rodgers analogy, but believes a different attorney could argue the comparison would not be with “all dogs,” but would be, “All RB dogs.” “Everyone that has a pit bull must pay for microchipping of their dog. It is not a special expense for the disabled person using a pit bull for a service dog.” Ms. Rodgers replied that the disparity would be for other disabled people using other breeds for service dogs. Council Member Cleland said she understands the logic of having the microchipping and the owner having to pay for it or the City paying for it. Chair Miller referred to the memo they received in their packet from Nancy Rodgers, and asked if Animal Care is aware of what they can or cannot ask about a service animal. Ms. Conway replied they are aware of these regulations. The ADA limits staff to asking only two questions, “Do you have a disability?” and “Is the dog individually trained to perform work or tasks specifically related to your disability?” If the owner answers, “Yes,” the City must accept the dog as a service animal. We cannot ask additional questions or require proof of the animal’s training. Council Member Cleland said she has a problem with the City paying for microchipping. Does it have to be required for service animals since they would have to be licensed? Does that make it a dual license? Ms. Conway said the reason for the microchip requirement is that the chip is imbedded; it stays with that animal so owners cannot present a different canine claiming it is the same dog. Chair Miller said perhaps the microchipping should be optional, like it is for owners of other breeds. Chair Miller suggested the verbiage be deleted where it states the microchipping shall be done at no cost if it is done at the Aurora Animal Shelter.


Chair Miller agreed with waiving the insurance requirement for RB service animals, saying, “If you can’t discriminate against a service dog, then you can’t mandate that they have insurance.” She noted again that the City cannot require documentation that a dog has been trained as a service dog, but said there is nothing in the regulations that says a public entity cannot remove a service dog if it engages in aggressive behavior. Chair Miller said she agrees with the proposed ordinance revisions, except for #6 of the RB license amendments, to allow handlers/owners of a Restricted Breed service dog to obtain a Restricted Breed License. OUTCOME: The proposed amendment passed with a 2-1 vote to accept all of the license

amendments, except number 6, of the proposed ordinance with Council Member Markert voting no.

Council Member Markert said she is opposed because pit bulls could present a public safety concern, and there isn’t a “certification” program that the dogs must go through to be deemed a service dog. She felt it is important that there is some type of certification for service dogs that indicates that they have been trained to do the work that the person needs them to do. When that is in place, she said she would feel comfortable knowing that whatever the breed is, it’s suitable to have the city’s firefighters and policemen run into the house and not get attacked.


5

Documents

City of Aurora COUNCIL AGENDA COMMENTARYbig.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Aurora5yearreport2011.pdf · Attachment A: Aurora’s Keeping Vicious, Aggressive or Dangerous Animals ordinance)