Truth or Consequences reviews overhaul of animal code, staff backs microchipping and community‑cat program

Truth or Consequences city staff and commissioners spent a special workshop reviewing Ordinance 771, a proposed rewrite of Chapter 3 of the municipal code governing animals, focusing on clearer legal definitions, adjusted penalties, microchipping as a permanent form of licensing and the possible adoption of community cat (TNR) programs.

City staff told the commission the draft was published for a 60‑day comment period to gather more public feedback than the usual 15 days and said they hope to take action as early as November if revisions fit inside the 60‑day window; if staff republish the draft for a new 15‑day notice the earliest action would shift to December.

The staff overview said the rewrite aims to close legal “gray areas” that have made prosecutions difficult, preserve stiff penalties for proven animal cruelty, and reduce punitive fines for routine nuisances where appropriate. Staff emphasized collaboration among the clerk’s office, the animal shelter and animal control during drafting and asked commissioners to send comments through the clerk or directly to the staff lead, Tyler.

Ley Van Cavage, senior legislative attorney at Best Friends Animal Society, gave a roughly five‑minute presentation urging a stronger emphasis on nonpunitive, cost‑effective solutions for community cats and on permanent microchipping. Van Cavage said that, in her view, “New Mexico is killing more cats and dogs per capita than any other state in the nation,” and described TNR as a strategy that stabilizes and reduces community‑cat populations while lowering shelter intake and nuisance complaints. She encouraged sterilization, rabies vaccination, ear‑tipping and returning healthy, free‑roaming cats to their locations rather than bringing them into shelters.

Staff and commissioners discussed switching from annual tags to microchips as the city’s permanent licensing mechanism. Staff noted microchips are permanent and allow field scans that can speed an animal’s return to an owner; they also described local practices for low‑cost or drive‑through microchip clinics. Commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about chip reliability and follow‑through: one resident, Buddy Montoya, said a microchip placed in his Chihuahua later failed to read and he had trouble getting help from the original clinic. Shelter staff responded that the shelter has multiple readers and will scan chips brought to them and that some partner organizations register chips on owners’ behalf at clinics.

Commissioners pressed staff to soften requirements that could burden low‑income residents, such as detailed kennel‑structure specifications and mandatory equipment where a home can reasonably serve as shelter. Planning and zoning interests—represented in public comment by Esther Luchini—asked that kennel permits clearly tie permitted animal counts to objective property factors (square footage, animal size) and that inspection responsibilities and permit processes be spelled out so planning staff and animal control coordinate inspections and recommendations.

Livestock in town also surfaced as a point of contention: public commenters and commissioners noted the city is in a fence‑out state and that livestock roaming into yards can create local liability and neighborhood complaints; staff said the municipal code must provide mechanisms to address such situations and that animal control typically coordinates and calls livestock officers when necessary.

Throughout the meeting multiple speakers emphasized enforcement philosophy: staff and several commissioners said the department rarely cites on a first offense, prioritizes education and remedies, and reserves citation for repeat or egregious cases. Commissioners repeatedly asked that fee revenue tied to licenses be visible and dedicated to animal services so residents see the benefit of compliance.

The commission received public feedback in the 60‑day window and discussed outreach options, including tabling at the county fair to collect more comments. No final vote on Ordinance 771 occurred at the workshop; staff said they will incorporate feedback, prepare a revised draft and return with suggested next steps.

The special workshop concluded with the mayor adjourning the meeting after public comment.