by MOSES LEOS III
A concise, streamlined approach was the goal in revising two sections of the existing Animal Control ordinance in Buda. On June 18, the Buda City Council unanimously approved amendments and revisions to sections 4.01 and 4.04 of the Buda City Ordinance.
The ordinance passed its first reading and is scheduled for a second reading on July 2.
However, a complete overhaul of the entire ordinance is on the horizon, according to Buda Police Chief Bo Kidd. He cited outdated, redundant language that may confuse new residents.
“It has been at least a decade since anyone has made revisions; probably more than that actually,” Kidd said.
Cleaning up the ordinance was a main topic of discussion at the meeting. Due to the lack of revision over the years, Kidd believes sections of the ordinance have been added, rather than edited. As a result, the previous ordinance was lengthy.
“We realized we needed to revise the entire document. It was confusing. Each chapter does not flow and there was a lot of redundancy,” Kidd said. “We needed to consolidate and clean it up.”
The effort to amend and shrink the ordinance began as the city prepared to add to it.
Both Kidd and the council received complaints regarding fowl and livestock creating a nuisance in the city. They realized no such language was featured in section 4.04: Animal Care and Control. Kidd recalled anecdotes from longtime Buda resident Tommy Poer.
“Back when they drafted the original ordinance, Buda was a different city; it was a farming community,” Kidd said. “Tommy [Poer] said cattle and poultry were common, even in Old Town. Get yourself in a subdivision today, and if you have roosters crowing every morning, it is going to cause a problem.”
Therefore, the city enacted additional sections for livestock and fowl control in the city limits. Council and Kidd based much of the new language on existing animal care and control sections from Austin, Kyle and San Marcos Animal Control Ordinances.
As they added those measures, Kidd said he realized the overall ordinance was muddled. With the help of Animal Control Officer Jennifer Hall, council revised language in section 4.04 and added language addressing current animal issues faced by law enforcement.
One such issue was tethering animals. Under city law, it is unlawful to tether an animal to a stationary object.
Kidd affirmed the city is not going to ban tethering outright, referencing Kyle’s failed – and controversial – 2012 tethering ban. Rather, Buda wants to ensure animals are treated humanely.
“Whenever we are looking at an ordinance, I don’t like to be at the forefront for controversial issues,” Kidd said. “That’s why we look at surrounding cities. If we are the only one doing it, that is a problem. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we look at surrounding cities for guidance.”
Buda also considered any costs associated with the new tethering law. Kidd estimated the cost to comply, by buying a dog-run, would be no more than $10 to $15 dollars.
“That was one thing we considered. We did not want to create an ordinance that was going to be a financial burden on citizens,” he said. “However, at the same time, we want to require the humane treatment of animals.”
Keeping animals inside cars was also a new feature in Section 4.02. Specific emphasis was on leaving animals in cars, especially in hot months.
“We have had a few of those in the past year, where owners leave pets in their car,” Kidd said. “I’m amazed people still do that.”
The city also shortened most of the language in existing portions; sections dealing with vicious animals and proper animal care were considerably limited. Work was also done to 4.01, which deals with definitions. The council added 42 new definitions, adhering to many of the current issues.
“Originally, we wanted to address [4.04] control and care of animals. Once we did that, chapter one needed to be addressed as well,” Kidd said. “As we amended .04, we had to add updated language.”
However, Kidd said the city needs to address some issues with the ordinance; most important to him is uneven penalty fees. Under the ordinance, the minimum fine for a dangerous animal offense is $100; the minimum fine for an unrestrained dog is $200.
“We do need to review the fee schedule. That does not seem right to me,” Kidd said.
However, only Precinct 2 Judge Beth Smith and the city clerks can amend penalty amounts. Kidd hopes to bring the issue up during the budgeting period in the fall.
The council tabled further discussion and action on the use of electric fences – which typically use “shock collars” – and whether they effectively control animals based on arguments for and against the issue.
“We pulled that out; I didn’t want to hang the ordinance out on one thing,” Kidd said. “The focus was on the livestock and fowl. I did not want the electronic fence to stall the ordinance.”
In six months time, Kidd hopes to bring a complete overhaul of the entire ordinance to council.
“We will listen to concerns of citizens and direction from council,” Kidd said. “We will take it to the city attorney and hopefully have a clean, single ordinance.”
Buda’s Tethering Ordinance
Buda’s animal control ordinance allows tethering of an animal as follows:
Animals must to be tethered to a cable run, where the animal wears a comfortable, properly fitting collar.
The tether must swivel at one end, and must be 15 feet in length, weigh no more than 1/18 of the animal’s weight and keep the animal five feet from the sidewalk.
Animals tethered to a cable run must have continuous access to water and be allowed to lie down. They also must be taken off the tether once a day.
