Aurora pit bull proposal hits a budgetary snag

Evansville, IN -- Aurora's proposed pit bull ordinance is feeling the budget bite.

Apparently, the proposal that would allow existing dogs to stay but ban new ones can't be enforced without spending money the city doesn't already have.

So, the City Council's subcommittee on code enforcement will revisit the proposal Friday to find a solution before sending it the full council for consideration.

"If it requires money, I'm not sure we're in a position to make it work," said Councilwoman Nadine Caldwell, a subcommittee member.

The development comes just days after two separate pit bull attacks by the same pack of dogs.

If anything, Caldwell said the latest news "reinforces everything" that has been reported about the breed's nature and underscores the need for an ordinance.

As it stands, the city is facing more than $10 million in cuts to the 2006 budget - the fifth consecutive year of multimillion-dollar slashes.

There's no wiggle room in the budget and no way for the city to fund the costs of the proposed ordinance, said Councilman Bob Fitzgerald, a subcommittee member.

Councilwoman Molly Markert, who chairs the subcommittee, said city financial analysts are looking for ways to save the ordinance.

They are determining its cost, which mainly would be in staffing, she said.

They are looking at fees and fines associated with the proposed ordinance as a way to fund it, Markert said.

"There's a need to make the city safer, and we need to find a way to fund it," said Markert, who has been critical of the breed and initially wanted a total ban.

By Tuesday evening, subcommittee members hadn't received copies of the funding proposal and couldn't talk specifically about it.

Aurora began considering the ordinance when Denver's pit bull ban was reinstated May 9 after the city won a yearlong court battle against the state.

The subcommittee initially considered a ban but settled on the more lenient ordinance last month after a public hearing in which residents pleaded to keep their dogs.

The proposed ordinance includes a long list of requirements, including allowing dogs to remain in the city only if they were licensed by a certain date.

It's unclear when the City Council will take up the issue formally.

 

Was this article also ran in an Evanston, IL paper? Would you please post the link?

 

I think they are talking about illinois, not evansville.

 

No, the article is referring to Aurora, Colorado. It had already been posted, I was wondering if it was showing up in other papers nationwide, that's why I wanted to see the link.

 

This Is Good Right ?

 

It could be VERY GOOD! Part of the info packet that I sent to them had information on the cost of BSL, we knew that they were having other budget problems. I'm putting more info together to send them on costs, including the article about Prince County, Maryland - here's a quote from the article:

"A recent audit of the costs associated with euthanizing or impounding the county’s pit bulls found the regulation cost the county $681,978 while only generating $30,510 in revenue from permits for 2003-2004."

We've been bringing up the financial aspect of BSL to all council members, they seem to listen to money and reelection issues above common sense!