Post by michele5611 on Sept 4, 2013 10:04:00 GMT -5
www.gbtribune.com/section/1/article/58870/
Council accepts pit bull panel report
Humane Society seeks additional funding
POSTED September 3, 2013 11:01 p.m.
Stressing that their action by no means meant the approval of new dog-control measures, the Great Bend City Council signed off Tuesday night on the report prepared by the committee appointed to study the matter.
The report contained several suggestions on which the committee took action. Committee Chairman Bob Suelter walked the council through those items.
The recommendations included:
• Restrictions on tethering dogs.
• Adding temperament testing requirement as an option for the municipal judge when a vicious dog and its owner are before the court.
• Increasing vicious dog offenses to class A misdemeanors with a maximum fine of $2,500 and one year in jail, or both.
• Stepped up patrols by the Humane Society. This was aimed at addressing the stray dog problem, which the committee divided into two parts – dogs at large (those that run away from home) and vicious dogs. Higher fines for picking up an animal from the shelter may also be considered.
• Encouraging proactive reporting from residents to prevent dangerous vicious dog incidents. The city would encourage people to call if they feel threatened or see a threatening situation, and the society would visit with them and the pet owner before things get out of control.
• Stepped up spaying or neutering requirements.
• Address adequate secure containment of dogs.
Rejected by the committee were an anti-teasing ordinance, required liability insurance for vicious dog owners, changing the requirement for a kennel license from four dogs to three and mandatory temperament testing for all dogs.
In May, Great Bend residents George and Zola Weber complained to the council about how they feared their neighbor’s pit bulls threatened their children. This ignited discussion of banning pit bulls or other ways of curbing aggressive dogs, leading to the formation of the committee.
However, the committee reached a consensus not to recommend banning any specific breed of dog. Instead, it looked at strengthening current ordinances or suggesting new ones to help curb the problem.
The panel included Zola Weber, Reggie Kern, and RaShann Southard to be the at-large members, and Joel Jackson and Edwin Roberts to be the City Council representatives. City staff selected Suelter and Police Chief Dean Akings to be the city staff representatives. The Golden Belt Humane Society selected Bobbi King and Seth Orebaugh as its representatives.
The council will address the question at later meetings.
More funding for the Humane Society
In a related matter, Golden Belt Humane Society came to the council Monday night seeking an additional $60,000 for their 2014 budget. It had already been granted $70,000 in the overall city budget approved by the council.
This was merely an informational item. No action was taken.
“That’s quite a bit, I know,” said GBHS Board member Jim Welch. But, the extra funds are needed in light of the increased work load that could result from the vicious dog committee findings.
Also, the funds would go to help increase staff salaries (from $7.25 to $10 per hour) and hire a new director ($15 per hour), and offer employee benefits. The society has six staff members, of which two are full time employees.
He also cited increased operational costs from higher electricity and gas prices, and facility upkeep.
There is also a need for a second truck. The one in use has 133,000 miles and requires a lot maintenance. Another vehicle would also allow officers to respond to two calls at once.
Fuel costs are another concern.
“We want to fulfill our responsibilities to the city,” Welch said. He added that the society has sometimes fallen short of its obligations.
Despite the city’s ongoing support for the GBHS, members of the council had some concerns with the request.
“It’s no question they need more money,” said council member Nels Lindberg. The budget is small and additional responsibilities could be added.
But, the Humane Society turned in its budget passed the deadline, and what it submitted was hard to follow and had errors, said City Administrator Howard Partington.
‘This needs some work,” he said.
He referred to an agreement reached between the city and the society in 2005 where the society said it would clean up its act, report to the council regularly and provide regular documentation, adding they haven’t always followed through on the deal. At the time, GBHS was behind in its bills and had other planning problems.
Also in 2005, money was included to increase wages.
“The city has always wanted to be a partner with the Humane Society,” he said. But, “there are some accountability issues.”
Before voting on any increase, council members wanted to see an accurate budget, an accounting of how the money will be spent, a capital outlay plan and a commitment to establish a reserve fund. They want to be assured this situation would not arise again.
There was one more issue. The GBHS covers all of Barton County. The County Commission funded the agency for $16,225 this year.
Of all the calls made, about two thirds are in the Great Bend city limits. The rest are elsewhere.
It appeared to some on the council that the city was paying for more than its share. “It seems that we are slapped by the county a lot,” said council member Dana Dawson.
If the county doesn’t want to increase its allotment, Dawson said perhaps it should provide its own animal control service.
However, Welch said, he has not yet taken a request for more funds to the commission.
Council accepts pit bull panel report
Humane Society seeks additional funding
POSTED September 3, 2013 11:01 p.m.
Stressing that their action by no means meant the approval of new dog-control measures, the Great Bend City Council signed off Tuesday night on the report prepared by the committee appointed to study the matter.
The report contained several suggestions on which the committee took action. Committee Chairman Bob Suelter walked the council through those items.
The recommendations included:
• Restrictions on tethering dogs.
• Adding temperament testing requirement as an option for the municipal judge when a vicious dog and its owner are before the court.
• Increasing vicious dog offenses to class A misdemeanors with a maximum fine of $2,500 and one year in jail, or both.
• Stepped up patrols by the Humane Society. This was aimed at addressing the stray dog problem, which the committee divided into two parts – dogs at large (those that run away from home) and vicious dogs. Higher fines for picking up an animal from the shelter may also be considered.
• Encouraging proactive reporting from residents to prevent dangerous vicious dog incidents. The city would encourage people to call if they feel threatened or see a threatening situation, and the society would visit with them and the pet owner before things get out of control.
• Stepped up spaying or neutering requirements.
• Address adequate secure containment of dogs.
Rejected by the committee were an anti-teasing ordinance, required liability insurance for vicious dog owners, changing the requirement for a kennel license from four dogs to three and mandatory temperament testing for all dogs.
In May, Great Bend residents George and Zola Weber complained to the council about how they feared their neighbor’s pit bulls threatened their children. This ignited discussion of banning pit bulls or other ways of curbing aggressive dogs, leading to the formation of the committee.
However, the committee reached a consensus not to recommend banning any specific breed of dog. Instead, it looked at strengthening current ordinances or suggesting new ones to help curb the problem.
The panel included Zola Weber, Reggie Kern, and RaShann Southard to be the at-large members, and Joel Jackson and Edwin Roberts to be the City Council representatives. City staff selected Suelter and Police Chief Dean Akings to be the city staff representatives. The Golden Belt Humane Society selected Bobbi King and Seth Orebaugh as its representatives.
The council will address the question at later meetings.
More funding for the Humane Society
In a related matter, Golden Belt Humane Society came to the council Monday night seeking an additional $60,000 for their 2014 budget. It had already been granted $70,000 in the overall city budget approved by the council.
This was merely an informational item. No action was taken.
“That’s quite a bit, I know,” said GBHS Board member Jim Welch. But, the extra funds are needed in light of the increased work load that could result from the vicious dog committee findings.
Also, the funds would go to help increase staff salaries (from $7.25 to $10 per hour) and hire a new director ($15 per hour), and offer employee benefits. The society has six staff members, of which two are full time employees.
He also cited increased operational costs from higher electricity and gas prices, and facility upkeep.
There is also a need for a second truck. The one in use has 133,000 miles and requires a lot maintenance. Another vehicle would also allow officers to respond to two calls at once.
Fuel costs are another concern.
“We want to fulfill our responsibilities to the city,” Welch said. He added that the society has sometimes fallen short of its obligations.
Despite the city’s ongoing support for the GBHS, members of the council had some concerns with the request.
“It’s no question they need more money,” said council member Nels Lindberg. The budget is small and additional responsibilities could be added.
But, the Humane Society turned in its budget passed the deadline, and what it submitted was hard to follow and had errors, said City Administrator Howard Partington.
‘This needs some work,” he said.
He referred to an agreement reached between the city and the society in 2005 where the society said it would clean up its act, report to the council regularly and provide regular documentation, adding they haven’t always followed through on the deal. At the time, GBHS was behind in its bills and had other planning problems.
Also in 2005, money was included to increase wages.
“The city has always wanted to be a partner with the Humane Society,” he said. But, “there are some accountability issues.”
Before voting on any increase, council members wanted to see an accurate budget, an accounting of how the money will be spent, a capital outlay plan and a commitment to establish a reserve fund. They want to be assured this situation would not arise again.
There was one more issue. The GBHS covers all of Barton County. The County Commission funded the agency for $16,225 this year.
Of all the calls made, about two thirds are in the Great Bend city limits. The rest are elsewhere.
It appeared to some on the council that the city was paying for more than its share. “It seems that we are slapped by the county a lot,” said council member Dana Dawson.
If the county doesn’t want to increase its allotment, Dawson said perhaps it should provide its own animal control service.
However, Welch said, he has not yet taken a request for more funds to the commission.
I look forward to learning much here