Page 1 of 330 The Monthly National Legislation Report 7/5/2010 ...

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 111 of 3307/5/2010Providence – (10/24/09) - A financially troubled slot parlor seeking bankruptcy protection will pay $5 million as it attempts to end the last greyhound races in Rhode Island because the sportis costing the track money, attorneys said Friday. UTGR Inc., the owner of the Twin River gambling hall, has agreed to pay the Rhode Island Greyhound Owners Association $2 million to endracing at the track if the restructuring plan is approved by a federal judge, according to court documents. The dog owners would receive an additional $3 million if Twin River successfullyemerges from bankruptcy. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur Votolato was expected to consider the plan at a Nov. 17 court hearing.Providence – (10/26/09) - David A. Holden, a retired Pawtucket police captain and former director of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is the new director ofanimal control for the City of Providence. The appointment by Sybil Bailey, city director of human resources, puts in charge a man who supports Pawtucket’s municipal ban on pit bulls.Rather than press for Providence to enact the same ban, however, Holden has other priorities. He said he wants stepped-up training for the facility staff, more public education about spayingand neutering and other pet issues, and establishment of a more formal assessment process to determine the adoption potential of animals. Pawtucket is the only Rhode Island municipalitywith a pit-bull ban, which does allow people who owned pit bulls at the time of enactment of the law to keep and replace them. Holden, who oversaw the Pawtucket animal control facility forthree years while a policeman, said Pawtucket enacted the ban because it had a problem with pit bulls. Owners of pit bulls also are required to carry insurance. In Providence, he said, “Idon’t see any ugly issue with pit bulls raising its head right now.”Warwick – (10/21/09) - Monday night, the Warwick City Council approved an ordinance that restricts how long dog owners can leave their pets outdoors, particularly during extreme weatherconditions, and without adequate shelter and food. A similar ordinance is already in place in East Providence. Warwick is only the second city in Rhode Island to adopt the measure. Dubbedthe Responsible Pet Owners Act, it will become effective once signed into the books by Mayor Scott Avedisian. The council voted unanimously for the measure. The new ordinance willauthorize Warwick’s animal control officers to fine first-time offenders $100. Second-time offenders will be fined $200, with officers possibly seizing their animal. A third offense would result ina $400 fine and the animal automatically being seized. Warwick Animal Shelter director Ann Corvin said there might be instances where the animal control officer would deem it necessary toseize an animal during a first offense. There are some specific guidelines for animal control officers to go by. These guidelines are based on standards established in the Tufts Animal Careand Condition, or TACC, scale, which was developed at the Tufts Veterinary Hospital in Massachusetts.SOUTH CAROLINAOrangeburg – (10/6/09) - Council agreed to look into Animal Control complaints raised by a Neeses area woman.Karen Lindsey said despite her efforts to cooperate, she’s “lost two dogs”and been threatened with $1,000 in fines in a dispute with Animal Control over the last five months.She urged council to reduce the potential $1,000 fine for a violation of the ordinance to amore manageable $25 and to increase the length of time dog owners would have to reclaim pets from three days to 14 days.“A lot of people see dogs as family members,” shesaid.Councilman Harry Wimberly expressed surprise that a $1,000 fine could be levied.“Who set these fines? They’re not written,” he said. “We adopted such nonsense?” As pointed out byLindsey, the county’s Web site states that “there will be a $15 charge per animal reclaim and a $10 per day boarding charge. Any violation of Orangeburg County animal ordinances may befined up to $1,025 per violation and/or 30 days in jail.” Councilman Heyward Livingston, who represents the Neeses area, said, “one of the problems is she hasn’t got a whole lot ofcooperation from the county when she called.” “I’m getting no answers from anybody,” Lindsey said. Council Chairman Johnnie Wright said, “We are sympathetic to what you’re saying. The(animal control) ordinance is coming up for review and we’ll consider what you’re saying. We can’t settle it all tonight.” UPDATE: (10/20/09) - Orangeburg County cat and dog owners will beissued a first violation warning only under a proposed animal control ordinance revision. County council, meeting as a committee of the whole Monday afternoon, instructed county attorneyD’Anne Haydel to draft the fine schedule for the new ordinance. The fines are the only change authorized by council. Councilman Willie B. Owens proposed the first violation warning and a$150 fine for a second violation. A third violation would be handled under Section 1-8 of the Orangeburg County Code of Ordinances. The county Web site says any violation of OrangeburgCounty animal ordinances may be fined up to $1,025 per violation and/or 30 days in jail. Haydel said the current fine is high because animal control violations involve the owner facing thecharge before a county magistrate, part of the unified state judicial system. Council was advised it had a number of options for the animal control ordinance, such as including everythingallowed by state law, or a total repeal and rewriting of the measure. Animal Control Program Manager Ben Boensch said there is nothing his department can do under the current ordinanceregarding exotic or non-domesticated animals, or wild animals. Council unanimously accepted Councilman Harry Wimberly’s motion to consider cats and dogs only during the meeting. Themotion held that other components can be studied at a later time. “If we don’t have the facilities to handle animals other than cats and dogs, let’s just stay hands off,” Wimberly said. “Thatreduces potential liability.” The draft will be reviewed during a scheduled committee-of-the-whole meeting Oct. 26. UPDATE: (10/31/09) - Towns that depend on Orangeburg County to handletheir pet problems will be going back to the drawing board under a proposed new animal control ordinance. The state requires the county and its towns to have agreements in place beforethe county’s Animal Control office can operate inside the towns’ limits, county attorney D’Anne Haydel said during a County Council committee meeting Monday. Animal Control ProgramManager Ben Boensch said some municipalities, such as Orangeburg, Norway and Santee, handle their own animal issues. The towns that depend on the county for enforcement, “can’t justadopt the new county code in order for us to enforce it,” Boensch said. “We will need to revisit contracts with them and start working on that intergovernmental agreement.” Council isconsidering a new ordinance to replace the current animal control regulations. Boensch recommended that the impoundment fee be increased from $15 to $25 for a first offense. The fee willremain $30 for a second offense and $50 for a third offense. Impounded animals not claimed after three business days will be euthanized unless the Maude Schiffley Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals agrees to accept the animal for adoption, he said. “State law says if the animal is positively identifiable by an identification tag or implanted microchip, it mustbe held 21 days,” Boensch said. Public notice of impoundment will only be posted on the county Web site. Under the proposed ordinance, animal control officers will be allowed to pursueroaming animals onto private property, excluding residences, in order to enforce the ordinance, Boensch said. The proposal would also give Boensch the authority to determine if an animal isdangerous as defined by state law. Such animals must be registered with Animal Control. The new ordinance will allow the owner of a dangerous animal to reclaim it only once. “They will notbe eligible for redemption thereafter,” Boensch said. Other proposed regulations would require a certificate of inspection for commercial breeding operations and prohibit exoticanimals.Council previously approved the issuance of a written warning for a first animal control violation. Second violations would be fined $150 and third violations $500. Council will hold apublic hearing on the proposal during its Nov. 2 meeting, when it is also scheduled to give second reading to the ordinance. Third and final reading is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 16.Parris Island – (10/9/09) - Most of the pit bulls, Rottweilers and canine-wolf mixes assessed at Marine bases in South Carolina this week get to keep their Marine dog tags. Of 85 dogs fromthe three breeds checked by experts from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, only two were found to be so aggressive as to pose a danger to Marines and theirfamilies. Those two will have to leave base housing. Two others showed aggressive tendencies but one will work with a trainer and another will be neutered. The Marines have banned theaggressive breeds, because their "dominant traits of aggression present an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of personnel."SOUTH DAKOTAHot Springs – (10/13/09) – Building Inspector report. It is not uncommon for law enforcement and code enforcement to coordinate efforts where certain situations effect both offices. Thisoffice often assists Animal Control, a division of the police department, when animal complaints turn out to be zoning violations. It is my belief that most dog kennel violations stem frompeople either not knowing or not understanding the zoning laws regulating dog kennels in residential districts. It can be somewhat confusing, but here is an explanation in a nutshell.A “kennel” is defined in the municipal code as ‘any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs, more than six (6) months of age, are kept.’ Simply put, if you have three dogs, it is legal. Ifone or more of the dogs have pups, that is also legal. But, if you are keeping more than three dogs that are more than six months of age on the premises, it is considered a kennel operation,which is not a permitted use in a residential district.There are certain permitted ‘uses’ in various zoned districts, and there are certain uses that are ‘permitted on review.’ Uses permitted on review are uses that are allowed by the City Councilon a case-by-case basis. It is required that neighbors are made aware of the mandatory public hearing regarding the proposed use before it is approved.A kennel, or dog breeding operation, is not a permitted use in any residential district. It is not a use that is permitted on review, nor is it listed under customary home occupations. In fact,habitually barking dogs, common in kennel operations, are a declared nuisance by city ordinance.Approved kennel locations are specifically addressed in the municipal code.Animal hospitals, kennels, and pet shops are permitted in Highway Service districts, away from residential districts.Kennels, or dog breeding operations, are considered for-profit businesses. As such the revenues from dog breeding operations are taxable. The S.D. Department of Revenue is made awareof all illegal dog breeding operations.Animal complaints are fielded by the ACO (Animal Control Officer). The ACO usually makes a personal visit and informs the occupant of the violation and issues a verbal warning. Ifwarranted, he may issue a citation.Animal violations can result in fines in the amount of $25 per violation. For example, an unlicensed, unvaccinated dog could cost $50. A repeat violation would be double that, or $100, andanother repeat violation would again double, $200, totaling $350, and so on. Continued violations may be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution.If a complaint is forwarded to this office by the ACO due to an illegal dog kennel operation, a courtesy notice is issued to the property owner.If it is a rental property the tenant is also sent a copy of the notice. A date is given as to when the violation is expected to be corrected. Property owners are responsible for any zoningviolations on their property.If the notice goes unheeded the matter is referred to the Public Safety Committee where recommendations are made as to how to proceed.Typically those recommendations would be to send a Notice And Order to discontinue the illegal activities by a certain date. If that order is ignored then water service to the property may beterminated until the nuisance is abated, or the matter may be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution, or both.TENNESSEE