Council reviews ordinance updates: animal control and disorderly conduct become infractions first; graffiti enforcement shifted to property owners

City staff presented a package of ordinance updates at a work session changing how the city enforces animal control, disorderly conduct and graffiti rules.

Police and legal staff said the proposed changes do not create new prohibitions but instead change enforcement to make many first offenses infractions rather than misdemeanors, with misdemeanor exposure reserved for repeated or intoxicated conduct. "None of the law creates a new expectation," the police chief said; the changes are intended to align enforcement with the city's existing five‑level ordinance framework.

Animal control: staff propose treating a first offense for animals at large and for exceeding a pet limit as an infraction; a second offense within a year would be a misdemeanor. Staff said the default fine schedule for infractions would apply on first violations and a misdemeanor would be available if someone repeatedly fails to comply.

Disorderly conduct and airport behavior: council heard that many conduct items previously enforced under a "disturbing the peace" or disorderly conduct charge are now covered by the noise ordinance; the proposed disorderly conduct ordinance focuses on specific acts (threats, taunting, obstruction of public ways) and would be an infraction unless the person is intoxicated in which case it becomes a misdemeanor. The chief said intoxication will be proven by officer observations (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol, erratic behavior) and noted that airport‑specific disruptive behavior provisions would cover airline and airport staff interactions (including TSA personnel in practice).

Graffiti: staff proposed making failure to remove graffiti a civil infraction for property owners rather than giving the city a routine power to enter and abate graffiti on private property. Staff reminded council that the code already includes a notice process (citing the city code section that gives property owners 48 hours to object via the clerk and a board process) and that removing the city's abatement authority would align graffiti enforcement with other private‑property maintenance codes (for example, weed abatement). Council members asked staff to provide clear public guidance and PIO outreach so property owners who had expected the city to remove graffiti know how to access resources and referrals.

Next steps: staff said the ordinance language will appear on a future council agenda (ordinance changes are not typically placed on consent agendas) and the police department and city attorney will coordinate PIO materials to explain timelines and resources for property owners.

Councilors emphasized helping property owners comply and ensuring city facilities set the same example for prompt removal of graffiti.