Revisiting an issue first addressed by Wayne Parker, Provo’s former chief administrative officer, during an Aug. 22 work session presentation, city staff on Tuesday presented to the City Council their findings and ideas to help keep dogs in their place. Due to a number of complaints from residents regarding animals in open city spaces, staff members had been asked to come back before with council with proposals for establishing an official definition of “emotional support animal,” possibly banning or restricting dogs during events or at certain facilities, and potentially tweaking fines for any violations of city ordinances.

They also shared the requested definitions of a service animal versus an emotional support animal. Service animals can accompany their handlers whereas support animals are under normal regulations.

According to section 8.02 of the city code based on section 35.104 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. The crime deterrent effects of an animal’s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.”

“Emotional support animal” means any animal that provides companionship, relieve loneliness, and help with depression, anxiety and certain phobias, but does not have special training to perform tasks that assist people with disabilities. They do not qualify as service animals, according to section city code.

Albi Maccabee, an intern for the city, did a study of how other cities handle wayward pooches and their owners and came back with penalties that carry a financial burden on the handlers.

“This is a people problem more than a dog problem,” Maccabee said Tuesday. “I’ve reached out to animal control and everything in the presentation they approve of.”

That includes fees for dogs off leash. Salt Lake City has “soft” fees with the first offense being $25 and doubling with each offense until the fifth offense, when the animal is seized.

That’s compared to Chicago, which has “hard” fees that range from $300 to $10,000 and jail time for the owner.

When it comes to dog waste, the “soft” fines are the same in Salt Lake City, starting at $50 and doubling until the fourth and subsequent infractions that are considered criminal.

“It’s not that (Provo) didn’t have laws but the citations were stacking up,” said council member George Handley.

Potential new ordinances would be designed to handle safety concerns, aggression between animals, contamination of food, high temperatures and hot pavement issues.

The greatest part of the council discussion was on whether dogs should be allowed at city events and if a new ordinance should cover those issues.

Maccabee noted that Hobbs, New Mexico, prohibits animals in areas of certain events with up to a $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail, on or off a leash.

Lafayette, Colorado, banned animals at public events on city property altogether, she said.

City staff recommended that Provo draft an ordinance based off of language from other city ordinances that ban dogs from public events on city property or city-sponsored events.

Some council members wondered if Provo had that big of a dog problem. “We already have three tools (laws) we can use but haven’t,” Handley said. “I’m in favor of (soft) off-leash penalties and in favor of training.”

Staff members were asked to write up an ordinance with potential fees and to bring it back to the council.