Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.20.88 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR JUNE 20, 1988 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. June 6, 1988 b. June 14, 1988 c. June 15, 1988 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 7:15 P.M. - Extension of Water to the Fairgrounds b. 7:30 P.M. - Consider Establishment of an Economic Development Authority 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Akin Park Estates 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Discontinue Lease/Purchase Agreement for Police Dictaphone Equipment 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Project 88-3 - Street Improvement - 195th Street, MSAP b. Fair Hills Phase III and Fair Hills 4th Addition c. Whispering River Development d. Assessment/Improvement Policy e. Terra 2nd f. Parental Leave 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Comprehensive Water Study b. Purchase of New Garbage Truck 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Budget Adjustment - Insurance Coverage - General Services 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Purchase Pickup for General Services - Capital Outlay Request b. 1988 Reforestation Project - 88-12 - Capital Outlay Request c. Convey Tax Forfeited Property to Adjacent Property Owners d. Request to Attend Schools and Conferences - Fire Department e. Approve Appointment of Two New Firemen f. Request for Payment No. 2 - Project 87-16 g. Capital Outlay Request - Administration h. Preliminary LAWCON Grant Application i. Approve Payment of the Bills 12. ADJOURN 13. ADD ON a. Appoint Member to ALF Board b. Approve Resignation Agreement - Stan Whittingham c. Clarification on Ethics Board Complaint d. Police Chief Hiring Procedure AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. 4510 NAME: Larry Thompson N elb acrri:m>4- DEPARTMENT: Administration U� 6/419- DATE: June 9, 1988 MEETING DATE: June 20, 1988 CATEGORY: Public Hearings SU3JECT: Consider Establishment of an Economic Development Authority - 7:30 P.M. EXPLANATION: Set June 6, 1988 REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Update REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Wayne Henneke Finance Charlie Tooker Planning Karen Finstuen Administration S I G I'TUy' I MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: JUNE 16, 1988 Last week you received information relating to the establishment of an Economic Development Authority (EDA) . Due to recent changes in legislation and a reluctance by the HRA, an EDA would be required if the City wishes to undertake any Economic Development Tax Increment project. Presently Jim Romberger has proposed such a project and is extremely anxious to proceed. (See attached.) Therefore, I would recommend that if the Council wishes to establish an EDA, it should appoint itself to the EDA (Statute requires at least 2 Councilmembers on the Board) . I plan to meet with Jim Romberger on Monday to further discuss his proposal. I will report on this matter Monday evening. ' 11-4 V Larry homps n City Administrator cc: Jim Romberger Ernie Darflinger file MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: DUO PLASTICS EXPANSION DATE: MARCH 1, 1988 Jim Romberger has contacted City staff regarding the potential expansion of Duo Plastics. Mr. Romberger has requested financial assistance in the form of tax increment financing and industrial revenue bonds from the City. The following provides background information and legal aspects. Background The first phase of Duo Plastics, built in 1982, was financed with tax increment financing (site acquisition, development, on-site sewer and water - $49,500) and industrial revenue bonds ($250,000) . The project was approved by the City and State as a redevelopment project and therefore incorporated into the Farmington Redevelopment Plan and financed and administrated by the Farmington HRA. At that time it was estimated that 20 new jobs would be created and an increment of $10,021 would be generated. In 1983, Duo Plastics again approached the City that it was outgrowing its present facility, and requested assistance for a second expansion. The City and State approved an amendment to the Redevelopment and Finance plan which authorized the HRA to use an additional $28,000 in tax increment financing for various site improvements. The City also issued an additional $250,000 Industrial Revenue bonds for the project. It was estimated that the project would create an additional 10 jobs and generate an additional $6,020 in tax increments. Today, Duo Plastics employs 115 persons and generates $20,411 (payable 1987) in tax increments. Mr. Romberger has indicated that the plant has reached its capacity and they must either expand or cut back on future orders. It was indicated that the new building would be constructed of concrete and would have the floor space of the two existing buildings combined. Mr. Romberger has requested that the City provide tax increment financing and industrial revenue bonds to finance the project. Legal Aspects As noted above, the first two projects were approved by the State as "Redevelopment" projects, which allowed the projects to be financed and administered by the HRA. The Economic Development Act of 1987 effectively eliminated projects similar to Duo Plastics from qualifying as redevelopment projects. Instead, it would qualify as an economic development project which would be administered by an economic development authority created and appointed by the City Council. Since at least two councilmembers must serve on the authority, the HRA could not be appointed as the authority. Therefore, the only involvement the HRA could have would be to possibly finance the project through a loan. Regarding the use of industrial revenue bonds, several law changes have been made since the City last issued IDR's, and I am not certain as to the attractiveness of this financing. Mr. Romberger intends to talk to his banker about the law changes. • HRA Attorney Ernie Darflinger has discussed the law changes with James Holmes, who has drafted much of the existing tax increment financing laws. Mr. Holmes indicated that several changes would probably take place during this legislative session which would affect the present tax increment laws. Therefore, it is staff recommendation that the City not initiate the process of establishing a separate Economic Development Authority at this time in the event the new law would allow the activities to be "rolled into" the HRA's activities. Mr. Romberger indicated that he would like some indication from the Council if it would be inclined to pursue additional TIF/IDR financing for his expansion pending the outcome of the 1988 Legislative Session. Obviously no commitment may be made by the Council until a public hearing is held. Mr. Romberger has discussed preliminary figures, but I am not certain if I am at liberty to give out that information. If Mr. Romberger wishes to make the figures public, he can do so in writing. In summary, Mr. Romberger is requesting a preliminary discussion on this matter and a consensus by the Council so he can plan accordingly. This matter will be on the March 7, 1988 agenda for discussion. z Tho P s City Administrator cc: Jim Romberger Robert Williamson Ernie Darflinger Dave Grannis Wayne Henneke file (Duo Plastics Expansion - 1988) Amendment to • TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN FHRA ACQ 82-1 A8 INTRODUCTION " Dar Lin Investments is proposing the construction of a 60'x312' building which will be leased to Duo Plastics to be used as a warehouse/secondary operations facility; The location of the proposed facility would be within the existing tax increment district in Section 36. A part of the proposal is the request of $28,000.00 in Farmington HRA funds to be used for site development. This action requires an amendment to the present tax increment finance plan. OBJECTIVE/PARCEL DESCRIPTION The objective of the original tax increment plan was to acquire and develope parcel #14-03600-012-29 located within the NW 4, of the NW 47 Section 36, T114, R20 (for complete description, see attached) " for locating and expanding industry, which in turn would increase employment opportunities in Farmington and eventually lead to an increase in the City, County, and School District tax base. The objective of the amendment is to carry out the original objective of the tax increment fi- nance plan. DEVELOPMENT PLAN/COST/FINANCING I The Developer(Dar-Lin) plans to develope the property it presently owns as follows : • A. Excavation $19,000 B. Parking & Blacktop 5,000 C. Sumps & Drainage 3,000 . D. Landscaping 3,000 E. Relocate Gas Line 4,000 $34,000 II The Developer proposes to construct a facility on the site as follows : A. Basic Stucture (60'x312' ) $100,000 . B. Concrete. 27,000 C. Electrical 8,000 D. Heating 5,000 E. Loading Dock 5,000 F. Survey, Permits , etc. 2,000 G. Legal/Finance Fees 10,000 $152 ,000 Estimated Market Value $140,000 III The project will be financed as follows : A. Site preparation - The HRA will allocate $28,000.00 from the Tax Increment internal fund , to be repaid through tax increment financing. The current project estimated the tax increment to be $10 ,021 annually to be used to pay back $49 ,500.00 to the HRA. The proposed project would increase the total allocated funds to $77 ,500.00. The developer has committed assurances of the payment through a developers agreement. The payback of the funds are esti- mated as follows. 1. Increment Present Market Value $191 ,700 Projected Increase in Market Value 140,000 Total Estimated Market Value 331 ,700 Assessed Valuation Ratio x .43 Total Estimated Assessed Value 142,631 Less Current Assessed Value 82,431 Additional Increment. Assessed Valuation 60,200 Mill Rate x . 100 Additional Increment $ 6,020 • 2. Payback * 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Outstanding Loan 77 ,500 67 ,479 51,438 35,397 19,356 3,315 Increment (10,021) (16,041) (16,041) (16,041) (16,041) (16,041) Remaining Balance 67 ,479 51 ,438 35,397 19,356 3,315 (12,726) • . NOTE: The payback schedule assumes construction will be completed by 12/31/83: If construction is not completed by 12/31/84 the developer will agree to guarantee payment in lieu of taxes to assure HRA receives $6,020 annually commencing in 1985 until the retirment of the HRA Loan. As mentioned above it is proposed that the Increment project be funded internally.. Because of a potential cash flow shortage, it may be necessary to issue tax anticipation certificates on a short term basis. The projected maximum interest .cost 'would be $ 500 which would be charged against the project. The remaining balance of $12,726.00 would be reallocated to the various taxing districts. B. Construction - The actual construction of the building will be financed through a proposed sale of $250,000.00 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. . IMPACT ON VARIOUS TAXING JURISDICTIONS A conservative estimate indicates that the project will add $60,200 in assessul valuation to the tax base of the various local taxing districts which have juris- diction over the project. i , AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. ad, NAME: Wayne Henneke DEPARTMENT: Finance ej.. DATE: June 10, 1988 ''`� U • MEETING DATE: June 20, 1988 A CATEGORY: Ordinances and Resolutions SU3JECT: Discontinue Lease Purchase Agreement for Police Dictaphone Equipment EXPLANATION: See memo REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Wayne Henneke/Dan Siebenaler REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Dan Siebenaler Police Wayne Henneke Finance W )e-i)//OvIrvi-- 14-Q--- SIGNATUR MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON SUBJECT: DICTAPHONE EQUIPMENT - POLICE DATE: JUNE 16, 1988 In 1987, the Police Department entered into a lease/purchase agreement for the purchase of dictaphone recording equipment. At the time of the purchase, we were informed by the Police Chief that it was State Law that dual taping was required when interviewing anyone that is arrested for a crime or was a victim of a crime. The dictaphone recording system was to provide the technology needed. When the equipment was delivered, it was discovered that the unit would not dual tape. Instead of calling the representative and returning the equipment, the unit has been sitting on the shelf because no one likes to use it for daily use. To break the lease/purchase agreement, we need to adopt a resolution stating no funds are available in the 1988 Budget or future budgets to continue the lease/purchase of the recording equipment. Wayne Henneke Finance Director PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R �( CANCELLATION OF LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR DICTAPHONE EQUIPMENT DUE TO LACK OF FUNDING Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 20th day of June, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member 'A introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the City of Farminton's Police Department entered into a lease/purchase -- for the lease/purchase of recording � _^= 1.--��� v"_ - P equipment from Dictaphone; and WHEREAS, the lease/purchase agreement can be cancelled any year when funds are not allocated for continuation of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has not appropriated any funds in1988 for the payment of the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington requests the discontinuance of Lease/Purchase Agreement NQ with Dictaphone,d This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of June, 1988. MEMO TO : Wayne Henneke, Finance Director SUBJECT : Dictaphone Equipment DATE : June 10 , 1988 In 1987 the police department entered into a lease/purchase agreement with Dictaphone for reporting, recording and taking statements. The main selling point of this system was it ' s dual taping capabilities . We were assured that this system could make two identical recordings at the same time (a requirement in criminal statements ) . When we discovered this was not the case we were assured that with .minor additions to the system this could be done. This is not the case . We are not able to dual tape with this system as it is or with any additions to it . I would request that the lease/purchase agreement be terminated and the equipment returned. I feel the remaining payments would be more than sufficient for the purchase of equipment designed with our purpose in mind. Thank you. Daniel M. Siebenaler Acting Chief of Police DMS/mw AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. le NAME: Ken Kuchera DEPARTMENT: Fire ria/1,4m4 June 13, 1988 4/aAA DATE: FLAL ' P 7 MEETING DATE: June 20, 1988 blAJL ? CATEGORY: Consent Agenda SU3JECT: Approval of Two New Department Approved Members EXPLANATION: Jeff Entner and Mark. :. Fischbach REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: A /lAk.A/NI;t7LCC) }AAJI2 SIGNATURE i 4 ,.. , , Pia.,,,,, May 27, 1988 Farmington City Hall Pat Aitkin • 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Dear Sir: In light of the recent changes in the', state obscentity law, I would like to make a few comments and suggestions. Fdrmington Video and Pilot Knob Video, are family oriented, community minded businesses that appreciate the patronage and support of alarge percentage of residents . If you decide to pursue enforcement of the new lawe we would like to suggest that we first be given written notification of the city 's position on this matter. This would allow us adequate time to comply. We feel this would avoid a negative situation for all parties involved. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. I will be awaiting your notification. S ' c re y , f d * - p--t_1(i'L-( Kathy eveland,Owner 400 3rd Street 1.8286 Pilot Knob Road Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Phone : 454-3328 (Home) MEMORANDUM " DATE: r4/ 7(*• • . :. v TD: 5 . /Qi'-tee ., -. • . • . . 0.4.412.4%.A.75 ALA-8J-, 04-* •-*A-*-ivINO -0,6444-7 _a,"-t__ . . ..a�.I�am_,,,/A/\).- ' . _.. V !..__ )*%4-11,4•Y‘L" 4-1-‘Cd"..14.N." --- - , ' A • . ..._ll-.-'...'.mow+ ....__.......-.y� ... flit w .,2t,i;&, 6 ..___. ptit.ot- le, e)- (1--Qx-cs.' A-trt.... 6.-3 , • . '44 (5. 7t9-e - -4-14-112.4.4#1.- 1 75 t'141'" = ,.,t 4,,, err.S1. . SIGNED: . --- TOPS FORM NO.4150 p MEMO TO: Larry Thompson , City Administrator SUBJECT: Pit Bull Ordinance DATE: June 17, 1988 Per your request , I have obtained and reviewed information regarding Pit Bulls and Pit Bull ordinances. I have included information from the League of Minnesota Cities concerning this topic. I feel it would be valuable in consideration of any dangerous dog ordinance. I have also checked with area municipalities and find that only one city has an ordinance dealing directly with the Pit Bull. The City of Lakeville ordinance (included ) covers dangerous dog3but specifically includes Pit Bulls. The LMC material explains that this type of breed specific ordinance is often the subject of litigation . It should be noted that Section 1 . d ) of the Lakeville Dangerous Dogs Ordinance is currently being challenged in Court . That section specifies the Pit Bull Terrier as a dangerous dog. I have also reviewed the current Farmington Ordinance cover- ing vicious dogs (6-2-8) . In reading this ordinance it appears to be general in it 's approach to "problem dogs" so as even to include "any female dog in heat . " Recommendation : I feel the current Farmington Ordinance 6-2-8 , is outdated and generalized . It needs to be updated to specifically address regulation of dangerous dogs. After reviewing the available information I feel the City would be setting itself up for litigation if any breed - specific ordinance was adopted . I would also point out that the current popularity of the Pit Bull Terrier is considered a trend, and that while a trend may continue for some time, they do change , diminish or end . I Memo to: Larry Thompson June 17 , 1988 Page 2 At this point, if an ordinance is to be adopted covering dangerous dogs , future trends must be considered. It would be my recommendation that a locally specific version of the Appendix A - Dangerous Dog Ordinance be developed and adopted. Daniel M. Siebenaler Acting Chief of Police DMS/mw CITY BITES DOG -- REGULATING VICIOUS DOGS/P1T BULL TERRIERS by Michael E. Weight Assistant City Attorney of Everett INTRODUCTION • At first, the newspaper accounts were infrequent and in other parts o: the county: An eleven-year-old Cincinnati boy is killed by pit bull dogs; in North Carolina, a mail carrier is mauled by an American Pit Bull Terrier; Riverside, California pit bull kills an infant; Florida has a rash of pit bull attacks. Then, in the last year, the horror stories came in rapid succession and they hit close to home: Kelso woman mauled by pit bull terriers; three-year-old Crystal Bernard attacked by pit bull in Sultan, causing extensive facial injuries; five-year-old Gresham, Oregon boy dies after being mauled by pit bull dog; in Mountlake Terrace, two toddlers attacked by female pit bull, both boys requiring stitches for facial injuries; fourteen- year-old boy requires surgery for arm and leg injuries after two pit bull dogs attack him in Kitsap County; pit bull terrier shot by Sweet Home, Oregon police officer after the dog menaced two people; three pit bulls attack two shetland ponies in Marysville, killing one and injuring the other; Tacoma pit bull bites eight-year-old boy, requiring minor surgery on leg wounds; two Everett pit bulls bite nine-year-old girl and two men, prowl neighborhood and attack Animal Control truck. The public outcry was loud and clear for some sort of governmental response. The 1986 Washington legislature, with Senate Bill 4611, considered a liability insurance requirement for pit bull terrier owners. The Senate passed the bill, taking out any mention of a specific breed, leaving it applicable to all "vicious dogs? The bill was defeated in the House. The pressure has subsequently come on municipalities to pass local laws dealing with these animals. This paper will provide a brief overview of the pit bull issue and the options available to municipalities. WHAT IS A PIT BULL TERRIER? The animal that is the subject of so much controversy assumes many different names: pit bulls, pit bull dogs, bull dogs, pit bulldogs, pit bull terrier. The two major dog clubs in this country have narrowed it down to three names. The American Kennel Club (AKC) registers American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. The United Kennel Club (UKC) recognizes the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). The history of this dog is somewhat unclear. Hundreds of years ago in England, very large dogs were bred for bull baiting and bear baiting. As the sport progressed, smaller dogs were bred for more agility. When dog fighting became popular in the early nineteenth century, these "Bulldogs" were crossed with terriers and possibly other breeds. The decades of breading, both in England and here in the United States, has 164 4 resulted in two basic breeds: (1) the dog which is recognized by the United Kennel Club as the American Pit Bull Terrier and by the American Kennel Club as the American Staffordshire Terrier; and (2) the dog recognized by the AKC as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.' The two dogs have the same features, are smooth-haired and large-headed. The basic difference is in their size, with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier being smaller (14-16", 24-38 lbs.) than the APBT (17-19", 40-70 lbs.).2 The common thread that runs through these animals is they have been bred over the centuries for one purpose: fighting. Any trait or characteristic that would be a weakness in the "pit" has been bred out. This will be discussed in more detail in the next section. You may remember the dog known as "Pete" in the "Our Gang" comedy series. This "Little Rascal" was a pit bull terrier. R.C.A. Victor's dog listening to "His Master's Voice" was also a pit bull terrier, as well as Buster Brown's pal "Tige." One should be careful to distinguish the pit bull terrier from its cousins, the bulldog and the all-white English Bull Terrier. (The English Bull Terrier may be remembered in Walt Disney's "The Incredible Journey" or as General Patton's dog in the movie with George C. Scott as "Patton.") Although these two breeds share a common heritage of being used as fighting dogs, there use as such occurred so long ago that the fighting instincts have been effectively bred out. WHY PICK ON PIT BULLS? Owners of pit bull terriers claim that the hysteria which has grown in this country about their dogs is mainly the result of media hype. They argue that their animals are being wrongly singled out as vicious killing machines. These dogs, so they say, are gentle with their children, affectionate and obedient - the perfect family pet. So why are we picking on them? A study published in 1982 analyzed 74 fatal dog attacks in the United States (March 1966 through June 1983).3 Their analysis compared the number of deaths caused by a particular breed in relation to the number of that breed registered with the AKC. The study reported: "In relation to its small registration the bull terrier (pit bull) was responsible for the highest number of deaths, but the popularity of this breed may be increasing and, therefore, its population might not be reflected by its registrations."4 'The Complete Doe Book (16th Ed. 1980), p. 514. New York: Howell Book House, Inc. 2Deena B. Case, "The Pit Bull Adoption Quandary," Community Animal Control, March/April, 1984, p. 11. 3Pinckney, Lee E., and Leslie A. Kennedy, 1982, "Traumatic Deaths from Dog Attacks in the United States," pediatrics, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 193-196. 4L�•. p. 195. 165 A 1985 report from the Humane Society of the United States on dog bites5 discounts this study because if its use of AKC registrations to judge breed populations, and the lumping together of many breeds with similar names. The Humane Society report does mention that "a new (1985) and better controlled report on 16 severe attacks attributes 31% of the attacks to American Staffordshires."6 One might conclude that a pit bull is more likely to attack human beings than other breeds. Such is not the case, however. The studies that have been reviewed, and the animal control officers and animal behaviorists that have been consulted all indicate that the pit bull terrier is no more likely to attack persons than any other breed. In fact, because of the intensive breeding for aggression towards other dogs, this breed may be less likely than other dogs to attack humans. In terms of danger to humans, what sets pit bull terriers apart is that when they attack humans, the injuries arc much more likely to be serious or fatal. In an article for Community Animal Control magazine, Deena Case, a California animal behavior consultant, outlined the characteristics that have made pit bulls such feared animals: "The breed has been developed for the purpose of attacking other dogs (or occasionally other animals, such as bulls or hogs). To be an effective fighter, certain traits have been selected and maximized by controlled breeding. These include powerful jaws that grip and do not let go. Pit bulls can easily hang in midair suspended by their teeth. The bite is so firmly held that pit bull fanciers routinely use special wedges of wood called breaking sticks to release the dog's grip. "In addition to bite power, the dogs arc remarkably insensitive to pain. "Aggressiveness towards other dogs is another characteristic that is selected for in fighting dogs. It almost certainly will try to attack other dogs. "The pit bull was also bred to be very businesslike and direct about its attacks. The warnings that are commonly seen in other breeds are absent for the most part in the pit bull. They rarely bark or raise their back hair, the attack comes without preliminary displays. While this is desirable in the pit, it can be extremely dangerous if the dog decides to attack a human being. "Most pit bulls are fairly good with people. As in any breed, however, some arc aggressive with people, and have seriously injured their victims. It is easy to see that the combination of traits, bite power, pain 5Hodge, Guy R. and Randall Lockwood, Ph.D., "Facts About Dog Bites," The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. (May 1985). 61�•, p• 3. Y.�: 166 s, IMO insensitivity, aggression, lack of normal warning signals, makes the pit bull that is aggressive towards people an absolute menace. Since the pit bull is brcd to never quit a fight, they arc extremely difficult to dislodge if an attack starts. Pit bulls who have no history of biting people have become highly vicious when running together with at least one other dog. It is possible that the pack situation tends to release aggression towards humans."7 Dog fighting continues to exist and thrive in many parts of the country, and so the breeding for these fighting characteristics continue. A study of 32 fighting dogs that were seized in Ohio. in 1981 confirmed the above-noted fighting characteristics, and pointed out precautions veterinarians should take when treating pit bull terriers: "If a pit bull needs to be hospitalized, it should be confined to a cage or run that cannot be opened by the dog, and it should not be allowed to come in contact with other animals in any situation. A pit bull can seriously injure or kill a dog of similar size in a few minutes and it is not easy to detach a pit bull in preferred `hold.' Pitbulls can bite with greater force than most dogs and once in a hold they do not simply maintain the `bite,' but continue to grind their premolars and molars into the tissue while the canine teeth stabilize the hold.8 Most breeds will fight another dol until one of the dogs has demonstrated his dominance. At that point, the losing dog will admit defeat by laying down and showing their belly to the victor, and the violence ceases. Pit bulls have been bred to kill or be killed. Randall Lockwood, director of higher education for the Humane Society of the United States points out: "They often can't be kept with other dogs. When other dogs submit by showing their bellies, pit bulls have been known to disembowel them"9 LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS If your municipality is considering a vicious dog/pit bull ordinance, there are at least five options available. They are discussed below without comment regarding potential Iegal challenges, which is left for the next section. A. Generic Vicious/Dangerous Dot? Ordinance Appendix A is a sample Dangerous Dog Ordinance,10 which is proposed by the American Dog Owners Association (ADOA) and does not single out any breed. The 7Supra, note 2. &Clifford, Donald H., DVA, MPH, Ph.D., et al., "Observations on Fighting Dogs,' J Am Vet Med Assoc, Vol. 183, No. 6, pp. 654-657 (Sept. 1983). 9Quoted in "The Macho Dog to Have,' Newsweek, July 14, 1986, p. 40. 10Taken from $loodlines, Vol. 67, No. 3, p. 80 (May-June 1985). 167 ADOA has been the driving force bchind the legal challenges to the various breed specific ordinances around the country. There arc several advantages to this type of ordinance. Since the ADOA endorses it, an organized legal challenge is unlikely. Further, it provides strict regulations for those dogs that have shown signs of being vicious or have already attacked a human or other domestic animal. The main disadvantage is that it follows the common law "one bitc" rule. It is reactive, not preventive. With most breeds, this law• might be adequate to prevent serious injuries after •the first attack. If the dog that is allowed his "one bite" happens to be pit bull terrier, this single incident could result in serious injury or death. B. paneerous Dog/Pit Bull Ordinance Appendix B is the ordinance that is currently in effect in the city of Everett. This ordinance was copied, almost in its entirety, from an ordinance adopted by Cincinnati in 1983. A copy of that Cincinnati ordinance is attached as Appendix C. These laws classify pit bull terriers as per se dangerous dogs. Pit bulls are not given "one free bite," and are subject to all the enumerated restrictions as if they had already been involved in an attack. The Everett ordinance is different from the Cincinnati law in that the owner of the dog must have knowledge that his dog is a pit bull terrier, as that term is defined. This knowledge requirement was added to avoid possible constitutional challenges to the ordinance on due process notice grounds. Without specific admissions from the owner, proof of such knowledge could be difficult. To prove such knowledge, Everett Animal Control utilizes a Dangerous Dog Declaration (Appendix D) which is a formal r•.otice to the owner that the city considers their dog to be subject to the ordinance's restrictions. S' far, this method seems to be effective. The handful of persons that have been issued criminal citations for violations of Everett's dangerous dog ordinance have r1c3ded guilty at arraignment. C. )viability Insurance Reauirement This option would require owners of known vicious dogs and/or pit bull terriers to liability insurance that would compensate persons injured by their dog. This vas part of the bill that was before the 1986 Washington Legislature. Various legislatures around the country have considered requiring coverage from $25,000 to S 1.000,000. The obvious advantage to requiring liability insurance is there arc reasonable assurances that a person who is injured by a dog that falls under the ordinance will t;. have to bear the full burden of medical expenses. Such a provision may also serve as a deterrent to persons who are considering purchasing pit bulls and an impetus to those already owning one to remove it from the arca. • 168 • There arc several drawbacks. First, there will have to be a city employee assigned to the task of monitoring the insurance policies to see if they meet the law's requirements. and make sure the dog owner keeps the policy in effect. Second, this requirement may be interpreted as effectively a total ban on ownership of the affected animal. Insurance agents will be extremely reluctant to insure an animal that has already attacked a human or whose breed has been declared vicious by a municipality. If the dog could be insured, the cost of such coverage would likely be exorbitant and beyond the financial capabilities of the average dog owner. D. Total Ban of Pit Bulls This option is the most drastic and the most effective. It is also the option most likely to receive a legal challenge and to be closely scrutinized by the courts. It should be considered as a viable option, however. A New Mexico trial judge has ruled that one village's pit bull ban is constitutional'I E. Po Nothing, For many municipalities, aggressive enforcement of the laws that presently exist may be sufficient to appease public concern and prevent any tragedies. Most cities and towns have a leash law. Strict enforcement and stiff penalties could reduce the number of dog owners that allow their animals to run free. Dog fighting is a gross misdemeanor in Washington. RCW 16.52.117. This offense applies to all persons involved in dog fights, owners, trainers, organizers and spectators alike. Civil remedies are also available to any victim of damage done by dogs. State law has created strict liability for injuries done to livestock, RCW 16.08.010, and for injuries to persons from dog bites. RCW 16.08.040. The dog owner is liable "regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness." jd. If the person is bitten on private property, strict liability is imposed only if they were "lawfully" on the property. RCW 16.08.050. Proof of provocation is a complete defense. RCW 16.08.060. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES TO BREED SPECIFIC ORDINANCES Any challenge to an ordinance that singles out pit bull terriers for special treatment will argue that the regulation violates both due process and equal protection. In Florida, the dog owners have been successful in striking down breed specific laws in both federal and state courts. As noted earlier, a New Mexico judge has ruled the pit bull ban by the village of Tijeras to be constitutional. At this time, I am not aware of any legal challenge to any such law in this state. f 11$loodlines, Vol. 68, No. 3, p. 52 (May-June 1986). 169 • A. Authority to Rcculatc Does That dogs arc subjcct to a municipality's police power is well established, as set forth by thc Washington Supreme Court in McQueen v. K ittitas County, 115 Wash. 672, 198 Pac. 394 (1921): "It is almost universal current of authority that dogs arc a subject of the police power of thc state, and their keeping subject to any form of license and regulation, even to absolute prohibition." jd., at 677. The court went on further to say that: ". . .since dogs are a subject of the police power, we see no reason why the legislature may not make distinctions between breeds, sizes and the localities in which they arc kept. The object of the statute is protection. The purpose is to prevent injuries to persons and property by dogs. Any distinction founded upon reasons at least, is therefore valid. . . ." Id., at 678. • McQuillin comments as follows: "The primary purpose of dog ordinances and statutes is protection of the public from injury or damage, and, it may be remarked, their purpose is not to deprive one of property or benefits relative to his dog or to give one rights or immunities with reference to the dog of another. But property rights in dogs have been regarded as qualified. That is to say, dogs because of their propensities are, and from time immemorial have been, peculiarly subject to rigorous police regulation." McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Sec. 24.284, Vol. 7, p. 135 (3rd Ed., 1971). B. Procedural Due Process - Vagueness Any challenge to a pit bull ordinance will include an argument that the law is unconstitutionally vague. "Vagueness" is a question of procedural due process. Statutes need only provide fair notice, measured by common practice - and understanding, of the conduct which is prohibited and proper standards for adjudication. impossible standards of specificity are not required? )3londheim v,. State, 84 Wn.2d 874, 878, 529 P.2d 1096, 1100 (1975). Statutes and ordinances are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the regulation has the burden of demonstrating impermissible vagueness beyond a reasonable doubt. Seattle v. Shepard, 93 Wn.2d 861, 613 P.2d 1158 (1980). The U.S. District Court in Florida held that a Broward County, Florida ordinance was unconstitutionally vague in several respects.12 That ordinance defined pit bulls as 12Decision reported in bloodlines, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 55-56 (Nov.-Dec. 1985). 170 those "Pit Bulls." "American Staffordshire Terriers," and/or "Staffordshire Bull Terriers that substantially conform to the standards set down by the AKC and the UKC. Sincc these standards arc not uniform as to color, height, weight, etc., the court reasoned, they arc not specific enough to pass constitutional muster. Further, the Florida District Court found unconstitutionally vague the ordinance's exceptions to the leash and muzzle requirements for dogs attending lawful" dog shows or in "authorized areas" with "competent" persons.l3 A definition of pit bulls should take a common sense approach. The average person can identify a collie or a German shepherd. For those persons who have had contact with pit bulls, their identification is equally as- simple. A definition of the breed that anticipates visual identification of those dogs we know as the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier gives sufficient notice to the average person. The judge in the New Mexico case found that "the breed known as the American Pit Bull Terrier is a recognized breed and readily identifiable by a lay person"14 The Everett ordinance went one step further, and places the burden of proof as to notice on the prosecution. This was dont by defining a dangerous dog as "any dog known by the owner to be a pit bull terrier..." Appendix C, Sec. 2(B)(3). It is difficult for a dog owner to argue he did not have fair notice his dog is a pit bull when he has personally received formal notice of that fact from an animal control officer. (Dangerous Dog Declaration, Appendix D). Terms open to broad interpretation, such as "lawful," "authorized areas" and "competent persons" should be avoided if at all possible. C. Taual Protection Because pit bull owners are being singled out, there will be a challenge to any breed specific ordinance on the basis that their right to equal protection has been violated. "There are three levels of equal protection analysis: the rational relationship test, intermediate scrutiny, and the strict scrutiny applied when a law creates a suspect classification or implicates a fundamental right." In re Mavner, 41 Wn. App. 598, 602, 705 P.2d 284 (1985). Since pit bull ownership is not a suspect classification and does not involve a fundamental or basic human right, the appropriate method of equal protection analysis for breed specific ordinances is the rational relationship test, also called the minimum scrutiny test. "Under the minimum scrutiny test, the reviewing court must determine whether: (I) the legislation applies equally to all members within the designated class; (2) there arc reasonable grounds to distinguish between 131.x, p. 56. "Supra, note 11. 171 those within and those without the class; and (3) the classification has a rational relationship to the purpose of the statute." Abbot v. General Accident Grout, 39 Wn. App. 263, 269, 693 P.2d 130 (1984). I. The ordinances that single out pit bulls apply equally to all pit bull owners. 2. There exist reasonable grounds to distinguish between pit bull terrier owners and othcr dog owners. Pit bulls have unique traits and characteristics that pose a greater threat of serious injury or death to humans than other dogs. 3. Restricting the movements of the dog or banning pit bulls outright is rationally related to the purpose of such a law, which is protection of the public. It is important that a good record is made of the basis for passage of the ordinance. Documentation and expert witnesses arc essential for any public hearings if the law is to be sustained on appeal. CONCLUSION If your city or town council considers adopting any breed specific ordinance, be prepared for an onslaught of letters and telephone calls protesting this dog discrimination. The main focus of the pit bull terrier clubs will be to nip these laws in the bud. The American Dog Owners Association has little money left to challenge all the pit bull laws being enacted around the nation.l5 It is a certainty that the number of pit bull terriers will be increasing greatly in the next few years. Most municipalities will need to study the issues involved, even if no action is taken. The issue will not be going away soon since, as Randall Lockwood of the Humane Society of the U.S. points out, "the pit bull has replaced the German shepherd and the Doberman as the macho dog to have."16 "Peggy Allen, "Two Wins Too," ploodlines, Vol. 68, No. 3, p. 52 (May-June 1986). 16Supra, note 9. 172 APPENDIX A SAMPLE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE Proposed by Amcrican Dog Owners Association A. As used in this Section, "Dangerous dogs" shall mean and include: 1. Any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals; or 2. Any dog which attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation; or 3. Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or any dog trained for dog fighting. B. No person owning or harboring or having the care or custody of a dangerous dog shall suffer or permit such dog to go unconfined on the premises of such person. A dangerous dog is "unconfined" as the term is used in this section if such dog is not securely confined indoors or confined in a securely enclosed and locked pen or a dog run area upon the premises of said person. Such pen or dog run area must also have either sides six feet high or a secure top. If the pen or structure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be imbedded into the ground no less than one foot. C. No person owning or harboring, or having the care of a dangerous dog shall suffer or permit such dog to go beyond the premises of such person unless such dog is securely muzzled and restrained with a chain having a minimum tensile strength of three hundred (300) pounds and not exceeding three (3) feet in length. D. No person shall own or harbor any dog for the purpose of dog fighting, or train, torment, badger, bait or use any dog for the purposes of causing or encouraging said dog to unprovoked attacks upon human beings or domestic animals. E. No person shall possess with intent to sell, or offer for sale, breed, or buy or attempt to buy within the city any dangerous dog. F. In the event that a law enforcement agent has probable cause to believe that a dangerous dog is being harbored or cared for in violation of Sections (b), (c), (d), and (e), the law enforcement agent may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to order the seizure and impoundment of the dangerous dog pending trial. In the event that a law enforcement agent has probable cause to believe that a dangerous dog is being harbored or housed in violation of Section (c), the law enforcement agent may seize and impound the dangerous dog pending trial. 173 G. Penalty. Whoever violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Whoever is found guilty of a second offense of violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree and shall be fined $1,000.00 which fine shall be mandatory, and shall not be suspended or remitted. 2. Any dangerous dog which attacks a human being or another domestic animal may be ordered destroyed when in the court's judgment, such dangerous .dog represents a continuing threat of serious harm to human beings or other domestic animals. 3. Any person found guilty of violating this section shall pay all expenses, including shelter, food, veterinary expenses for identification or certification of the breed of the animal or boarding and veterinary expenses necessitated by the seizure of any dog for the protection of the public, and such other expenses as may be required for the destruction of any such dog. 174 APPENDIX B ORDINANCE NO. IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED: Section 1: Thcrc shall be added a new chapter to the Municipal code, to be entitled "Dangerous Dogs." Section 2: Definitions. As used in this chapter: A. "Owner" means any person or legal entity having a possessory property right in a dog or who harbors, cares for, exercises control over, or knowingly permits any animal to remain on premises occupied by them. B. "Dangerous dog" means: 1. Any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury to, or to otherwise endanger the safety of humans or other domestic animals; or 2. Any dog which attacks a human being or other domestic animal without provocation; or 3. Any dog known by the owner to be a pit bull terrier, which shall herein be defined as any American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier as to be identifiable as partially of the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier. C. A dangerous dog is "unconfined" if such dog is not securely confined indoors or confined in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure upon the premises of the owner of such dog. Such pen or structure must have secure sides and a secure top. If the pen or structure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than one foot. Section Shall not suffer or permit U confined ssu og h dog toOn rgaluncses OfiO finer. The owner of a dangerous dog Section 4: Dangerous DQx Off Premises. The owner of a dangerous dog shall not suffer or permit such obhersethe securely restraincdsuch andperson mu zledunless such dog is securely leased and muzzled orow 175 ` I $cction 5: Applicability To Adult Doss Only. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to adult dogs only, which shall mean any dog over the age of six (6) months. Section 6: penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 of this ordinance shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or imprisonment of not more than one year in jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Section 7: Severability. If any one or more of the sections or provisions provided in this ordinance shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to . be contrary to law, then such sections or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining sections or provisions in this ordinance and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining sections or provisions in this ordinance. Section 8: General Duty. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to create a cause of action or claim against the city or its officials or employees running to specific individuals. Any duty created herein is intended to be a general duty running in favor of the public citizenry. 176 APPENDIX C N A • • A. No person owning or harboring or having the care of a vicious d.•$ t•hall suffer or permit such animal to go unconfined on premises of such person. ll r B. No person owning or harboring or having the care of a vicious Nita r suffe is or permit such dog to uz yond the premises of such rs-on or otherwise securely rest a ned andnn��,;;led.$ such dog securely leashed and muzzled C. Definitions. 1. A vicious dog is "unconfined" as the term is used in this ;;tion if such dog is not securely confined indoors or confined in a sc:nrcly enclosed and locked pen or structure upon the premises of the pers.+n described in subsection (a) hereof. Such pen or structure must have secnIc sides and a secure top. If the pen or structure has no bottom secure.i to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than one t ot,t, 2. A "vicious dog" as the term is used in this section means: a. Any dog with a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack, to cause injury to, or to otherwise endanger the safetN %,f humans or other domestic animals; or b. Any dog which attacks a human being or other domr.tic animal one or more times without provocation; or c. Any pit bull terrier which shall herein be dvt'incd as any Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed of dog or any mixe,i breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire '1 errier as to be identifiable as partially of the breed of Staffordshire bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier by a qualified vctct inarian duly licensed as such by the State of Ohio. D. Subsections (a) and (b) above arc necessary controls on the unrestrained activities of vicious animals which threaten the safety and pleasantness of streets, parks, sidewalks; yards, and all areas of the city; tttltl the lack of knowledge of intent is not a defense in violation thereof. 177 APPENDIX D (Date) DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATION City of Everett Ordinance No. 1228-86 declares that a dangerous dog means: 1. Any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury to, or to otherwise endanger the safety of humans or other domestic animals; or 2. Any dog which attacks a human being or other domestic animal without provocation. 3. Any dog known by the owner to be a pit bull terrier. YOUR DOG, ONE , NAMED , IS _ HEREBY DECLARED TO BE A DANGEROUS DOG, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: It is unlawful for the owner of a dangerous dog to allow that dog to go unconfined. A dangerous dog is "unconfined" if such dog is not securely confined indoors or confined in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure upon the premises of the owner of such dog. Such pen or structure must have secure sides and a secure top. If the pen or structure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than one foot. It is unlawful for the owner of a dangerous dog to allow that dog to go beyond the premises of such person unless that dog is securely leashed and muzzled or otherwise securely restrained and muzzled. Violation of any of the above provisions is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine. Copy received this day of , 19 . ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 178 Model Pit Bull Dog Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. to or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE KEEPING OF PIT BULL by any persons which may result from the ownership,keeping or main- DOGS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF tenance of such animal. Such insurance policy shall provide that no cancellation of the policy will be made unless 10 days written notice is first given to the City Clerk. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF (6)Identification Photographs.All owners,keepers or harborers , KANSAS: of registered pit bull dogs must within 10 days of the effective date Section 1.Animals: Keeping Prohibited.It shall be unlawful to keep, of this ordinance provide to the City Clerk two color photographs of harbor,own or in any way possess within the corporate limits of the the registered animal clearly showing the color and approximate size City of , Kansas: of the animal. (1) Any warm-blooded, carnivorous or imnivorous, wild or exotic (7)Reporting Requirements.All owners, keepers or harborers of animal(including but not limited to non-human primates, raccoons, registered pit bull dogs must within 10 days of the incident, report skunks, foxes and wild and exotic cats; but excluding fowl, ferrets the following information in writing to the City and small rodents of varieties used for laboratory purposes). Clerk as required hereinafter: 121 Any animal having poisonous bites. (a)The removal from the City or death of a registered pit bull dog; (3) Any pit bull dog; provided, that pit bull dogs registered with (b) The birth of offspring of a registered pit bull dog; the City on the date of publication of this ordinance may be kept wi- (c)The new address of a registered pit bull dog owner should the thin the City subject to the standards and requirements set forth in owner move within the corporate city limits. Section 2 of this ordinance. "Pit bull dog" is defined to mean: (8)Sale or Transfer of Ownership Prohibited. No person shall (a) The Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog; sell, barter or in any other way dispose of a pit bull dog registered (b) The American pit bull terrier breed of dog; with the City to any person within the City unless the recipient per- (c) The American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog; son resides permanently in the same household and on the same (d) Any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of be- premises as the registered owner of such dog; provided that the ing predominently of the breeds of Staffordshire bull terrier,Ameri- registered owner of a pit bull dog may sell or otherwise dispose of can pit bull terrier,American Staffordshire terrier;or a combination a registered dog or the offspring of such dog to persons who do not of any of these breeds. reside within the City. Section 2. Keeping of Registered Pit Bulls.The provisions of Sec- (9)Animals Born of Registered Dogs.All offspring born of pit tion 1 of this ordinance are not applicable to owners,keepers or har- bull dogs registered within the City must be removed from the City borers of pit bull dogs registered with the City of as of within six weeks of the birth of such animal. , 1988, the effective date of this or- (10) Irrebuttable Presumptions. There shall be an irrebuttable dinance.The keeping of such dogs,however,shall be subject to the presumption that any dog registered with the City as a pit bull dog following standards: or any of those breeds prohibited by Section 1 of this ordinance is (1)Leash and Muzzle.No person shall permit a registered pit bull in fact a dog subject to the requirements of this ordinance. dog to go outside its kennel or pen unless such dog is securely leashed (11)Failure to Comply.It shall be unlawful for the owner,keeper with a leash no longer than four feet in length. No person shall per- or harborer of a pit bull dog registered with the City of mit a pit bull dog to be kept on a chain,rope or other type of leash to fail to comply with the requirements and conditions set forth in outside its kennel or pen unless a person is in physical control of the this ordinance.Any dog found to be the subject of a violation of this leash. Such dogs may not be leashed to inanimate objects such as ordinance shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment. trees, posts, buildings, etc. In addition, all pit bull dogs on a leash In addition,failure to comply will result in the revocation of the license outside the animal's kennel must be muzzled by a muzzling device of such animal resulting in the immediate removal of the animal from sufficient to prevent such dog from biting persons or other animals. the City. (21 Confinement.All registered pit bull dogs shall be securely con- (12)Violations and Penalties.Any person violating or permitting fined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel,ex- the violation of any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction cept when leashed and muzzled as above provided.Such pen,kennel in Municipal Court be fined a sum not less than 5200.00 and not more or structure must have secure sides and a secure top attached to the than 51,000.00. In addition to the fine imposed the Court may sen- sides.Ali structures used to confine registered pit bull dogs must be tence the defendant to imprisonment in the county jail for a period locked with a key or combination lock when such animals are within not to exceed 30 days.In addition,the court shall order the registra- the structure. Such structure must have a secure bottom or floor at- tion of the subject pit bull revoked and the dog removed from the City. Cached to the sides of the pen or the sides of the pen must be embed- Should the defendant refuse to remove the dog from the City the ded in the ground not less than two feet. All structures erected to municipal court judge shall find the defendant owner in contempt and house pit bull dogs must comply with all zoning and building regula- order the immediate confiscation and impoundment of the animal. tions of the City.All such structures must be adequately lighted and Each day that a violation of this ordinance continues shall be deemed ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary condition. a separate offense.In addition to the foregoing penalties,any person (3)Confinement Indoors.No pit bull dog may be kept on a porch, who violates this ordinance shall pay all expenses, including shelter, patio or in any part of a house or structure that would allow the dog tood,handling,veterinary care and testimony necessitated by the en- E to exit such building on its own volition.In addition,no such animal forcement of this ordinance. may be kept in a house or structure when the windows are open or (13)Severability.If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this when screen windows or screen doors are the only obstacle prevent- ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by __ing the dog from exiting the structure. a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction such decision shall 14) Signs. All owners, keepers or harborers of registered pit bull not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. dogs within the City shall within 10 days of the effective date of this Section 3.This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from ordinance display in a prominent place on their premises a sign easily and after its publication in the official city newspaper. readable by the public using the words "Beware of Dog" In addi- PASSED by the City Council this day of tion, a similar sign is required to be posted on the kennel or pen of 1988. such animal. - (5) Insurance. All owners, keepers or harborers of registered pit Mayor bull dogs must within 10 days of the effective date of this ordinance ATTEST: provide proof to the City Clerk of public liability in- surance in a single incident amount of$50,000.00 for bodily injury City Clerk KANSAS GOVERNMENT JOURNAL, APRIL 1988 105