Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 11.29.2005 MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP NOVEMBER 29, 2005 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at 6:30 p.m on November 29, 2005. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: x Dick Fritzler x Kate Stevenson _x_ Gay Easton _x_ Jennifer Johnson _x_ Doug Poehls x Mark Mace Daniel Dar~ _x_ Norm Stamper OTHERS PRESENT: Perry Asher Sam Painter Chief Rick Musson Brian Milne, Interstate Engineering Bill Enright, Interstate Engineering Several employees of the City of Laurel Several citizens of the City of Laurel Chuck Dickerson Steve Klotz Officer Joel Sauter Public Inout fthree-minute limit}: Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action on any item not on the agenda, · None Presentatlnu to Bffi Feller for 35 years of service to the City of Laurel Mayor Olson congratulated Bill Feller for his 35 years of service to the City of Laurel. Bill started working for the City of Laurel on November 2, 1970. Mayor Olson mentioned some interesting facts about 1970 to provide some perspective on what was happening at that time. Aider seven years of employment, Bill became the foreman of the garbage department. In April 1985, Bill was awarded his current position as park foreman. Bill's history with the city and his vast amount of knowledge in areas of public works has made him a valuable asset to the city. On behalf of the mayor and city council, the city star and the community, Mayor Olson and Steve Klotz presented Bill with a leather jacket as a thank you for his hard work and continued commitment to the City of Laurel Gay Easton stated that he was on the committee that hired Bill thirty-five years ago, and he congratulated him on his years of service to the city. Brian Milne~ Interstate Engineering,: Pool Presentation Brian presented a PowerPoint presentation on the Aquatics Complex Evaluation to the council. Copies of the presentation were distributed to the council, and a copy is attached to these minutes. The presentation included: · Existing conditions of Laurel's swimming pool o Typical rectangular single body swimming pool Council Workshop Minutes of November 29, 2005 o No surface overflow system · The current type of pool surface drainage is not allowed under current regulations and is not an efficient means to recirculate water. · The existing recirculation system has multiple filters for backwashing, which wastes water and manpower. o Options considered include: · New indoor aquatics complex · New outdoor with multiple pools · New outdoor single water body with a variety of foamres · The committee selected the single water body multi-feature complex with a useful life of 40-50 years. · The usage in attraction pools like the selected option has resulted in three to four times increase in attendance at the Kalispell, Montana, and Watford City, North Dakota, pools, which were used as case studies. · The revenues have drastically increased due to user fees and concessions at the Kallspell and Watford City pools. o Alternate aquatics features considered for Laurel Aquatics Center o Financing limitations in Montana · The Montana Code Annotated limits the mount of a General Obligation bond that can be voted on for aquatics projects. · The statutory limit is 0.9% of the assessed taxable value of the jurisdiction and the limit for the City of Laurel is $1,575,000. o The estimated costs include: · Schedule I, the base project, will construct a single water pool complex with a lap area, a plunge pool, an activity pool and a splash ground with a bathhouse and parking area at an estimated total construction cost of $1,591.500. · Schedule II, the additive schedule, will construct the actual watarslide and spray activity features at an estimated total construction cost of $374,500. · Schedule III will construct the new concession building at an estimated total construction cost of $144,000. · The estimated total cost ofthe project ls $2,110,000. · The maximum bond mount $1,575,000, resulting in additional required revenues. · There is an existing memorial donation of $70,000. Brian explained the usage rote and revenue impacts for swimming pools versus aquatic attraction complexes, the user rates of existing facilities and a potential rate structure for the Laurel complex, and the tax liability for homeowners. Property owners can figure the proposed tax by multiplying their property tax'by .02. Mayor Olson and the council thanked Brian for his presentation. Planning Board: Subdivision issues The Planning Board issues were removed from the agenda, as Cal Cumin was unable to attend the meeting. 2 Council Workshop Minutes of November 29, 2005 Gay Easton: Exotic pet ordinance Gay was recently contacted by Robert Bun'on regarding changing the current ordinance in order to allow his pot-bellied pig in Laurel, as the current ordinance prohihits swine within the city limits. Gay researched the Interact regarding the issue, and eight examples of codes were distributed to the council, and a copy is attached to these minutes. Gay gave some further information about pot-bellied pits. The Vietnamese pot-bellied pig was imported to the United States and Canada in 1985 to be a companion pet. They were darlings of the media and promoted as a pet of the 1980's as being clean, smart, small, and affectionate. The first pot-bellied pig sold for around $25,000. Ten years later there are many unwanted pot-bellied pigs, which are ot~en advertised for flee in newspapers. Prices have plunged and occasionally the pigs are even abandoned by their owners. The pot-bellied pig is a very special animal, and owners who understand their personalities and quirks bond to them like dogs or children. Pot-bellied pigs are talented, curious, mischievous, and sometimes manipulative and are sensitive creatures that can be playful and even humorous. Upon further research, Gay found that a pot-bellied pig can pose a danger to the dog species as they have a virus in their genes which is similar to rabies and might require a diagnosis from a veterinarian. Gay stated that the agriculture department of livestock in the State of Montana says that the pot-bellied pig is swine and is an animal for human consumption and slaughter. It:the council puts this into ordinance, the pot-bellied pig has to be exempt from the swine family. The discussion turned to Ald~m~an Dart's comments at a prior council meeting regarding the owners of the pig. Since they rent the property, they need the consent of the landowner to have a pot-bellied pig. This stipulation should be part ora proposed ordinance. Gay has files of information on this issue. At this time, Gay asked for council discussion regarding draining an ordinance. Doug was recently contacted by the neighbor that lives next door to the owners of the pot-bellied pig. She is very adamantly opposed to this for several reasons, with one reason being that they would need permission from the landowner to have the pot-bellied pig at the rental property. According to the city's ordinance, these people are renting the basement of a single-family dwelling illegally. Doug suggested that the pot-bellied pig issue should not be addressed until the issue of multiple families living in a single-family dwelling has been resolved. There was discussion regarding the code enfomement officer's efforts to address the situation. According to the neighbor, the occupants have not answered the door when he has been there. Gay mentioned that the owners would need to prove where the pig was purchased and the pig has to have some kind of papers. Dick stated that he admired Gay for all the work he has done on this issue. Kate stated that, since the owners only contacted Gay once and it sounds like it is a transitory situation, she does not think the council should take action unless it is pursued further. If there is a rash of pot-hellied pigs in town, the council might have to consider it. Doug explained that the neighbor said that the renters rotate out of the basement every two to three months. That is the issue that needs to he addressed, and not the pot-bellied pig issue. There was discussion regarding the need for a written request to change an ordinance. Sam stated that, under the city's ordinance, the requirement is for a citizen to contact their representative. Gay Council Workshop Minutes of November 29, 2005 did his job by bringing the issue and the information to the council floor. If further action is desired, the people could come back to the council. Mayor Oison asked regarding the council's intent to let the issue lie until it is brought up again or further notification is received from the applicant. Gay stated that there is still a violation with the pot-bellied pig in the city limits. Perry stated that, even if the council decides to move forward with this, until the ordinance is changed, the owners are still in violation of city ordinance. His opinion is that the owners would still need to take the pig out of town even if the council was on track to change the ordinance. Perry's instruction to the code enforcement officer has been to inform the owners that the pot- bellied pig cannot be in town unless and until the ordinance is changed. Mayor Olson thanked Gay for his efforts on this issue. Attorney: Resolution - Purchase and Procurement Policy Sam stated that the Purchase and Procurement Policy, which has been worked on for a year and a half; is finally to a form that is acceptable to all the department heeds and the administrative assistant. In his opinion, it complies with the new changes to the Montana Code, and it basically sets a framework for the staff and department heads for purchasing large items and doing construction projects that exceed $50,000. The policy is just one piece of a larger project of preparing a bank of construction forms and service contract forms for the department heads to use for the city. It is important to have one contract for each specific purpose that is basically tested and true. The mayor has directed Sam to prepare these documents for use with this policy. It will make the city more defensible to do large or small projects and purchases the same way every time. Sam encouraged the council to read the policy and contact him with any questions. The resolution will be on the December 6* council agenda. Administrative Assistant: · Update on letter regarding the Police Department Perry asked Rick Musson to give a background on a recent complaint received by the police department. Rick stated that the council and the newspaper received this letter of complaint, but typically, complaints are sent to Rick's office and the depmhnent does an investigation. Since the council and the newspaper received the letter, he wanted to inform the council about the situation. Rick turned this complaint over to his investigator, Mark Guy, to investigate and interview witnesses. Perry distributed copies of the letter Officer Guy wrote to Chief Musson. In the letter, Officer Guy indicated that at~er completing the interviews, the witnesses corroborated a lot of what the officers said in their statements. It is a fact that people were pepper sprayed by the officer at a close distance. 4 Council Workshop Minutes of Novoml~r 29, 2005 Rick gave an explanation on use of force. He distributed a Use of Force Report Writing Template, which outlined a continuum for use of force. The department uses criteria to determine whether or not the use of force was justifiable. The first use of force is the presence of the officer. Next is verbal communication by giving dkeet orders, questioning, and verbal persuasion. The third level is physical contact, including the escort position or dkectional contact. The fourth level is physical control which includes OC restraints (pepper spray). Officers are ot~en hurt in hand-to-hand situations when trying to handenff someone. This level of physical control is less injurious because it is only temporary pain. Every officer that carries OC in the department is requked to take a blast of it so they know what it is like to be shot with OC in the face. The officer involved is an OC instructor and has been pepper sprayed more than once. The fi~h level is serious physical control, and the sixth level is deadly force. Rick explained levels of resistance and officer vs. threat factors. Rick looks at statistics when he reviews force issues. Twenty-five percent of officers are killed with thek own gun because the resisting person grabs the officer's gun. When there is a crowd of people and the officer is trying to control a subject on the ground, the officer is vulnerable and threatened. Rick will distribute a sheet on bow to determine disposition. Rick explained the criteria used at~er the facts of the case are considered. There are five different criteria: sustained - when the incident occurred essentially as reported and the officer is found to be at fault; not sustained - when the incident occurred essentially as reported but the allegations cannot be substantiated or verified; exonerated - when the incident occurs but the officer's conduct is justifiable or in conformance with department policies or procedure; unfounded - when the incident did not take place as alleged or was falsely reported; resolved - when the complainant decides not to pursue the complaint. In this case, OC was deployed. Since OC is not a deadly force and is in the moderate range, he looked at two different disposition options. The first option is exonerated - when the incident occurred but the officer's conduct is justifiable or in conformance with department proc*xlures. An officer has a fight to use the force necessary to control the crowd. The other option is unfounded - when the incident did not take place as alleged and there are some things in the complaint that are right, and the officers confirmed that with thek statements. This is where Rick made his conclusion that the officers were in a hostile situation with people that had been partying and were fighting. Different wimesses commented that the crowd was kate, died up end in a fighting mood. Rick suggested putting yourself in that situation and determining what to do. There was an allegation that the officer used profanity. Out of all the interviews taken, only one person said that happened. One person said that the people in the crowd were using profanity, not the officers. One person said the officers appeared to be afraid. Rick stated that the officers are afraid during a bar fight, but they have a job to do. Rick will write a letter of explanation to the complainants. Mayor Olson asked for questions from the council Jennifer asked bow many interviews were done end questioned Mark Guy's statement that "pepper spray is one step above verbal commands" in the letter. When looking at the chart, it appeared that OC is higher than one step above verbal force. Rick stated that Officer Guy interviewed at least eleven people. The officers had the issue of dealing with a crowd that was kate. The fight took place between two partygoers, and then the officers showed up. Rick explained that there are criteria, but it is difficult to draw the line right Council Workshop Minutes of November 29, 2005 there for verbal force. To go hands on in a situation with ten people, it might be necessary to use pepper spray to get a crowd dispersed, and the officer has flexibility on that. Jenny mentioned that the complaint letter stated that the police use excessive force in Laurel She has heard this for well over two decades, but has never exporienced it herself. There was further discussion regarding whether the department has acquired a culture of this sort. Rick stated that it has not. The officer involved is an experienced officer. The audience can say that that they are abusive, but people do not want the police to control a situation. If the police are to be hands off on everybody, a police department is not needed end everybody can run rampant. The police department uses the rome necessary and does not get a lot of complaints. There was further discussion regarding the comments. Jenny stated that not every town has complaints regarding the police department. Rick disagreed and said that anytime there is a police department, people are going to be arrested and complain about the officers being abusive. Perry commented that complaints were made regarding the police department in every place he has ever worked. Complaints of police brutality and too much force are made in small towns and big cities bemuse people do not like being arrested and getting into trouble for what they have 'done wrong. Mark Mace stated that he was not there, but he knows some people that were there. It is hard for him to believe that this is police brutality. But what concerns him as a citizen and council member is that we do not forget the fine line that the officers have to do. He knows the police have to do their job and he is thankful they are there at times. But if the officers are spraying pepper in a crowd that tells him that the whole crowd was a threat. He had two family members in that crowd and they were not a threat. The reason he spoke was to tell the chief that there is a fine line and he does not think everybody in that crowd was a threat. They may have been unruly and some of them may have been fighting because of the alcohol, which is always a problem. From his perspective, the officers have to walk that fine line and somewhere the officers have to know that it is there. It is not always just protecting them and using the amount of force that they see is necessary, but there are people that get caught up in this type ofsitnation. Rick responded that, if the officers must walk such a fine line, then we dictate that the officers do not go to bar fights, domestics, and certain things because people are going to be arrested and the officer will have to use force. The use of force is there. Not everyone in a crowd is bad. This crowd was within five feet of the officers, as the witnesses and officers said. It only takes one person to step out of that crowd and grab that officer's gun. That did not happen, but there are statistics and we know what happens to officers every year. The officers have to protect the citizens, but putting additional restraints on the officers and making them walk a fine line should not be done. Pepper spray is not used in every situation, and the use of force with spray is not that high. All of these people were not bad, but it was a hostile situation for the officers that were sworn in to be out on the streets to protect the City of Laurel. The officers have sworn an oath to do the job and uphold the laws of the State of Montana, the United States and the City of Laurel. Rick stated that it is a tough situation and use of force issues are difficult. Use of force is used everyday by mere presence, OC, and the use of every available tool before resorting to deadly force or hands on. 6 Council Workshop Minutes of Novembex 29, 2005 Doug has lived in Laurel for twenty-seven years and served on the council for four years. This is the first complaint of the police department that the council has heard in those four years. It did involve a lot of people, but he thinks the officers responded responsibly. It was probably a learning experience for the officers, but he is not sure the council needs to give a directive that the department should walk a fine line. Dick has seen some really ugly situations that the police had to confront in the past thirty-five years. He stated that the police officer has to control the situation and take the steps necessary to control it. He stated his support for the Laurel Police Department. There was discussion regarding the Police Commission and the alleged victims' fights to go to the commission. Rick stated that the Police Commission does not usually review a complaint unless the officer appeals such things as wrongful discharge, eec. Rick explained that this issue came before the council bemuse the letter of complaint was sent to the council and the newspaper. That does not usually happen, and Rick did not recall that it had happened in the past twenty-three years. The police department does an internal investigation of complaints, and another agency is contacted to investigate in the case of a criminal act. · Resolution - Non-union compensation adjustment Perry explained the non-union pay analysis and recommendations for salary increases. The council reviewed this information at the recent council retreat. The copy attached to the drat~ resolution was essentially the same with one small change. Jenny asked regarding the small change. Perry explained that he changed the pay grade and adjusted the amount slightly for the council secretary to bring it in line with the deputy treasurer/cashier, who is full-time and is due for an increase at the end of her probationary period. The deputy treasurer/cashier is full time and the council secreeary is part time, and it is justifiable to have a difference between the two positions. Jenny stated that she understands the changes in the levels of the police department, but she questioned why the clerk/treasurer was graded so far above the staff. Perry explained that the clerk/treasurer is still not up to the wage of the police captain, even though the two positions are in the same pay grade. Perry gave a brief explanation of the pay grades and that salaries increase with the higher pay grades. Given the level of the clerk/treasurer's responsibilities, it is justified to have the position in this pay grade. Jenny asked regarding the proposed wage increases. Perry explained that the union contract was approved for three years, with a 3 percent increase this year, a 3.5 percent increase the second year, and a 4 percent increase the third year. The non-union compensation proposal matches the union contract and only addresses the current fiscal year. Jenny further questioned the wage increases for the next two years, the total cost to the city for the wage increases, and the total benefits to the employees. Perry explained that annual salary increases need to be given to the supervisory staff or the union employees will catch up with the supervisory staff; which happened in the police department. Perry Council Workshop Minutes of November 29, 2005 stated that the total cost to the city for increased salaries for this year is $31,165 and benefits are generally worth about 25 percent. Next year it will be 3.5 percent plus 25 percent of the total for benefits. Perry stated that the non-union wage compensation would be on the council agenda on December 6th. Storm Water Management Utility The council received copies of a memorandum from Perry recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance creating a Stormwater Management Utility for the City of Laurel. The memo explained the pmposah which Perry suggested could be adopted by ordinance in time for the budget process next year and begun with the next fiscal year. All capital and maintenance activities for the stormwater function in the city are currently funded out of the wastewater utility, but this does not make a lot of sense because it is a completely different function. Jenny stated that the council should walt until the next budget session to do this. Perry stated that this is a common means of stormwater management bemuse it provides a dedicated revenue stream that can be used only for those functions. Like a lot of the city's infrastructure, the stormwater management system is in need of capital right now. He thinks that the first five years would go to capital improvements in the stormwater system to get the pipes underground and fix the intersections that have a pipe sticking out at each end. · Change in Personnel Policy Manual One change in the union contract is that birthdays are no longer considered as paid holidays. The recently adopted union contract now calls for just two personal days, instead of a birthday and a personal day. Perry's recommendation is to change the Personnel Policy Manual for all employees to list two personal days. A resolution to approve this change in the Personnel Policy Manual will be on the December 6~" council agenda. Executive review: · HOME Program Advisory Board appointments: Perry Asher & Robin Herman Mayor Olson explained that some issues regarding appointing Perry to the board need to be reviewed. Robin HvtliiaB, who works for Yellowstone Bank, will be appointed to take Patsy Guenthner's position on the board. Robin's appointment will be on the December 6th council agenda. · BSEDA Nominating Committee appointment - Gay Easton (current appointment expires Dec. 7, 2005) Mayor Olson stated that Laurel is fortunate to have representation on this nominatin~committee, and he will reappoint Gay Easton to that position at the council meeting on December 6 . Review of draft council agenda for December 6. 2005: 8 Council Workshop Minutes of November 29, 2005 · Public Hearings: o Ordinance No. O05-15: An ordinance creating Title 14 and amending Title 15 of the Laurel Municipal Code for the purpose of updating the codes adopted and enforced by the City of LaureL (First reading - 11/01/2005) o Ordinance No. O05-16: An ordinance modifying Title 3, Chapter 3.08 of the Laurel Municipal Code, to comply with changes both in State law and the City's adoption ora Purchasing and Procurement Policy. (First reading - 11/01/2005) · Second Reading: o Ordinance No. O05-13: Ordinance emending Table 17.16.020 (setbacks) of the Laurel Municipal Code relating to comer residential lots. Second reading. (First reading - 10/18/2005; Public heari~ - 11/15/2005) Announcements: Jennifer spoke with Ken Weaver and Judy Mathre at the Local Government Center in Bozeman yesterday, and she encouraged the council to visit Wilson Hall and the Political Science Department. Mayor Olson mentioned that Ken Weaver is retiring and will not be available for workshops. Kate mentioned that the Billings City Council meeting lasted over five hours on Monday. Doug asked if the fire department has requested the council's permission to display fireworks for the "Christmas to Remember" celebration on Sunday, December 4t~. Mayor Olson stated that no official request has been received and that a special council meeting might be needed to grant p~ ~lfissior~ There was a lengthy discussion regarding: routinely putting the request for permission to display fireworks on the council agenda at the council meetings prior to the 4th of July and the Christmas to Remember celebration; a resolution authorizing the mayor to grant permission for the fire department's fireworks displays; the need for a written request from the fire department; the need to publicize the fireworks for the safety o f animals; and the fire department's pride in and obligation to request permission to set off fireworks. There was discussion regarding scheduling a special council meeting to grant approval for the fire department to display fireworks at the Christmas to Remember celebration on Sunday, December 4tu. The fire department needs to submit a letter of request, and a quorum must be present at the special council meeting. ARer a lengthy discussion regarding possible options for granting approval for the fire department to display fireworks throughout the year, a special meeting was scheduled for Friday, December 2~a, at 5:30 p.m~ in the council chambers to consider the request to display fireworks on Sunday, December 4th. Attendance at the December 6th council meetinm All present will attend. Other items: 9 Council Workshop Minutes of November 29, 2005 Mayor Olsun thanked Kate for scheduling the pool presentation, which afforded the council a realistic view of the pool and what it can mean to the community. Mayor Oison stated that, at the council retreat, the council came to a consensus that a park maintenance district and pool presentation should be presented together. It is necessary to address the financial responsibilities for future capital improvements, which is not funded at this time. The mayor thinks there is a fiduciary responsibility to maintain that attitude until the full picture is presented. Mayor Olson mentioned that another council retreat is planned for January. By that time, the city will have received some revenues f~om the State that will give the council a clearer picture of revenue statements and provide more definitive direction to the department heads. The council workshop adjoumed at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy Allen Council Secretary NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. 10 2 3 4 5 Section 8.19.010 Purpose. Chapter 8.19 POT-BELLIED PIGS Page 1 of 1 Section 8.19.010 Purpose. M/n/ature pot-bell/ed pigs are increasing in popularity as domesticated pets mad the keeping of not more than two such animals on any single family residentially zoned property, excluding the RA-5 and RC zones, is permitted in the City. However, as such animals are still livestock notwithstanding size, the keeping of such animal needs to be closely regulated and controlled to insure that such mm,al does not become a nuisance or danger to the general public and the neighborhood/n which it is kept. The City Council finds that the keeping of pot-bellied pigs so as not to create a nuisance can be reasonably accommodated by licensing and other restrictions. (Or& 6213 § 1 (part), 1995) http://www.riversideca~ gov/municipal_code/Title_08/19/010.htrnt 11/21/2005 Section 8.19.020 Defmitio~ Chapter 8.19 POT-BELLIED PIGS Page 1 of 1 Section 8.19.020 Definition. For the purposes of th/s chapter, the words "pot-bellied pig" shall mean a domesticated miniature Vietnamese, Chinese or Asian pot-bellied or pot-belly pig not exceeding one hundred twenty-five pounds in weight and eighteen inches in height measured at the shoulder. (Ord. 6213 § 1 (part), 1995) http://www, riversideca, gov/municipal_code/Title_08/19/020 .html 11/21/2005 Section 8.19.030 Administration and enforcement. Chapter 8.19 POT-BELLIED PIGS Page I of 1 Section 8.19.030 Administration and enforcement. The provisions of this chapter shall be adm/nistered and enforced by the City's duly appointed and acting Animal Control Director as defined by this title and the deputies of such Animal Control Director. In addition, the provisions of this chapter may be enforced by any code compliance officer of the City. (Ord. 6213 § 1 (part), 1995) http://www, riversideca~gov/municipal_codefritle_08/19/030.html 11/21/2005 Section 8.19.040 License, compliance with regulations. Chapter 8.19 POT-BELL[ED PIGS Page 1 of 1 Section 8.19.040 License, compliance with regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of Title I9 of this code, it is unlawful fo; any person to own or have custody, control or possession of any pot-bellied pig within the City unless such pig is licensed pursuaut to the provisions of this chapter with/n ten calendar days upon said pig's entry to the City and unless said pig compl/es with the regulations as set forth in th/s chapter. (Ord. 6213 § 1 (part), 1995) http://www, riversideca, gov/manicipal_codegTifle_OS/19/O40.html 11/21/2005 Section 8.19.050 Licensing procedures. Chapter 8.19 POT-BELL[ED PIGS Page t of 1 Section 8.19.050 Licensing procedures. Any person owning or having custody or control of a pot-bellied pig within the City may obtain a hcense for such pig from the Animal Control Director in accordance with the following procedures: A. Application, File with the Animal Control Director an application on a form provided by the City which shall contain the following information: 1. The name and address of the applicant and the address of the property upon which the pot-bellied pig is to be kept; 2. The name, age and weight of the pot-bellied pig including any identifying marks or tattoos; 3. Such other information as the Animal Control Director deems approphate. B. License Fee. The application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable license fee in an mount as may be established by resolution of the City Council. C. Veterinmy Certification~ The application shall be accompanied by a statement signed by a licensed veterinamu certifying that the pot-bellied pig has been spayed/neutered, that the pig is in good health and has received all necessary vaccinations, and the height and weight of the pig. Such certification shall be no older than th/try calendar days when submitted to the Animal Control Director. (Or& 6213 § 1 (pm), 1995) http://www.riversideca~ gov/municipal_code/Title_08/19/050 .htrnl 11/21/2005 Section 8.19.060 Issuance, term, renewals. Chapter 8.19 POT-BELLIED PIGS Page 1 of 1 Section 8.19.060 Issuance, term, renewals. A. Issuance of License. The Animal Control D/rector shall issue a license for the keeping of a pot- bellied pig on a lot w/thin the City zoned for such use upon the filing of a completed application and a finding that the animal meets the requirements set forth in subsections A through D of Section 8.19.070. B. Term of License. Any license issued pursnant to this chapter shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance; provided, however, any 1/cense expiring on a Saturday, Sunday or hohday, shall be valid until the next work day. C. Renewals. Any hcense issued pursuant to this chapter may be renewed for periods of one year each upon the filing of an application for such renewal w/th the Alljmal Control Director accompanied by a noarefundable renewal fee in an amount as ma3( be established by resolution of the City Council. The renewal application shall be on such form as provided by City. The Animal Control Director shall issue such renewed license unless it is found that the pot-bellied pig is not in compl/ance with the regulations as set forth in Section 8.19.070. (Orc[ 6213 § 1 (part), 1995) http://www, rivemideca, gov/municipal_code/Title_08/19/060.html 11/21/2005 Section 8.19.070 Regulat/ons. Ch _apter 8.19 POT-BELLeD PIGS Page 1 of 1 Section 8.19,070 Regulations. The owner or person having custody, control or possession of a pot-bellied pig wittdn the City shall comply with the following regulations: A. Spayed/Neutered. The pot-bell/ed pig shall be spayed or neutered. B. Weight. The pot-bellied pig shall not weigh more than one hundred twenty-five pounds. C. Height. The pot-bell/ed pig shall not exceed eighteen inches in height as measured from the shoulder of said animal. D. De-tusked. Any male pot-bellied pig two years of age or older must have his tusks removed. E. Confinement on Premises. Each pot-bellied pig shall be provided with a fenced yard designed to assure that the animal is confined and managed in a safe, clean and odor-free manner when out-of-doors. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the pot-bellied pig may be kept as a pet in the residence on the lot upon which said pig resides. F. Leash Requirements. Each pot-bellied pig while on a street, sidewalk or other public place shall be restm/ned by a harness and leash or similar restraint not longer than six feet in length held by a competent person. (Ord. 6213 { 1 (part), 1995) http://www, riversideca, gov/manicipal_code/Title_OS/19/O70.html 11/21/2005 Section 8.19.080 Revocation of license. Chapter 8.19 POT-BELLIED PIGS Page 1 of 1 Section 8.19.080 Revocation of license. The license for a pot-belIied pig issued pursuant to ttds chapter may be revoked by the An/real Control Director upon the finding that the provisions of subsections A through D of Section 8.19.070 have been violated and not corrected within ten calendar days of issuance by the Animal Control Director or a deputy of the Animal Control Director of a notice of such alleged violation or wSthln such longer period as may be specified in the notice of viohtion. Upon failing to correct the violation w/thin the required time, the Animal Control Director shall issue a written notice of the revocation of the license and the pot-bellied pig must be removed from the City v~*hin ten calendar days thereafter or such longer period as may be set forth in the notice of revocation. (Ord. 6213 § t (part), 1995) http://www, riversideca, gov/municipal_code/Title_OS/19/OSO.htrnl 11/21/2005 LAUREL POLICE DEPARTMENT 215 W. 1~r STREET, LAUREL, MT. 59044 PHONE: 406-628-8737 FAX: 406-628-4641 DATE: 20 NOV 05 TO: CHIEF MUSSON FROM: MARK GUY RE: CASE #205CR0007167 siR, PER YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, I HAVE CONDUCTED FOLLOW UP ON THE FIGHT OUTSIDE THE. EAGLE'S BAR THAT TOOK PLACE ON 30 OCT 05. I HAVE INTERVIEWED OR ATTEMPTED TO INTERVIEw THE SUBJECTS LISTED AS WITNESS BY LYNDSEY BACHIWiEIER AND TOBIN NOVASIO. FKOM MY 12',ITERVIEWS I OBSERVED, THAT AS I LNTERVI:VV-ED A WITNEss, TI{E WITNESS wouLD suBSTANTiaTE vau: A OF THE O CER'S REPORTS. EAC WITNESS WAS EI'I2-~K ~: FRIEND OK RELATIVE OF ONE OF TH~ SUSPECTS ARRESTED. EACH ONE OF THEIR STATEMENTS VARIED TO AN UNUSUAL EXTENT. I ALSO SUSPECT THAT THE WITNESSES TOLD AND RETOLD TO EACH OTIKE~ WHAT THEY HAD HEARD. I SUSPECT THAT EACH TIAiE THEY TOLD TH~ STORY MORE DETAILS WEKE ADDED. WHEN I WOULD SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENT WITNESS, THEY COULDN'T CONFIBM TH~ STORIES THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO. THEM THE WITNESSES DID CONFIRM MUCH OF THE OFFICER'S REPORTS. TF~Y CONFn~fl~D 'I'h~R.E WERE NUN~ROUS PEOPLE OUTSIDE, MOST OF WHOM WERE NOT SOBER. THEY ALSO CONFIRMED THROUGH THeiR STATEMENTS THAT ~ CROWD was NOT ~q A. POSiTiVE MOOD TOWARD Tt-EE OFFICERS; ONE WITNESS DESCRIBED ITAS "FIGHTING ·MOOD." Tt~ MAIN COMPLA~qT FROM Ti-lB PEOPLE INTERVIEWED, W,~S THAT THE OFFICERS DIDN'T RENDER AID TO ~ SUBJECTS PEPPER SPRAYED. THE OFFICERS DID GO ~NTO THE BAR TO LOCATE TH~ S-UBJECTS THAT HAD BEEN PEPPER SPRAYED~ BUT THE SUBJECTS HAD GONE 12qTO THE BATHROOMS OF ~ BU'J'~DINO NEXT DOOR. ~ OFFICEKS DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO LOCATE THE SUBJECTS AS THEY STILL HAD PRISONERS THAT NEEDED TRANSPORTING fi.ND TH~ CROWD TO DEAL WITH. ALSO, DISPATCH HAD MEDICAL ON STAND BY ~r CASE THeY WERE NF~DED. IT IS IvUi OPI2qION THAT THE OFFICERS ACTED RESPONSIBLY. THeY USED TH~'MINIMLrM FORCE TKEy cOULD HAVE TO CONTROL THE SITUATION. AS YOU KNOW PEPPER SPRAy IS ONE S'l'pSl~ ABOVE VERBAL COMMANDS, IS PA.[NFUL, BUT WEARS OFF WITHOUT LASTING ~I~ECTS IN A SHORT PERIOD. 1T IS ALSO MY OPINION THAT DUE TO THE ATTITUDE OF THE CROWD, THAT 12~ THEY HADN'T USED THE PEPPER SPRAy WIq:EN THEY DID, THAT A HIGHER USE 'OF FORCE MAy HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AS THE CROWD BECAME MORE HOSTILE. ¥ ..... · NOVASIO SUSY~ ADIVftl lING TO GETTING BETWEEN OFFICER BRY,~aqr ~ HER SON ~ ~ OFF:C~S V~ ~a TO AF~CT AN ~U~ST IS AN E .X~mLE OF ~0W ~-m CXOWD WASN'T USTENE'~a. PLEASE READ MY REPORT AND INTERVIEWS FOR FURTHER INFORMAT[ON. RESPECll~ULLY, MARK GUY Use of Force Report Writing Template Force Continmxm Force Continuum Key Level Mdthod Level of of of Threat THREAT Force Force Resist Any person resisting arrest or being lawfully controlled, Any force readily chpable and/or demonstrating the intent, and having the means VI Deadly of causing death or serious Lethal · physicalinjury. R and opportunity to inflict injury, serious physical injury, r E or death. Less-Lethal Techniques Neck Restraint A S I Ominous Serious K.9 (Bite) N V Physical Impact Weapon :ocus,d~o,,s c S LEVELS OF RESISTANCE Control Electrical Stun O T Mace (CN/CS) M Active P I STATIC: Threat refuses to comply by balking, be- JointHair TakedOWnTakedowa ni V coming dead weight, and/or grasping a solid structure. Physical Digital Control .~ E IY Control OC Restraints N Static JointComealor~g C AC/FIVE: Threat physically resists by pulling away, pressumPoints E attempting to escape, or powering through a control . hold. Physical Escor~ Posaion 11I Contact Directional Contact ~ OMINOUS: Threat displays menacing behavior, Verbal DireCtQuestioningOrder Verbal D or assaults·. (bites, pushes, strikes, etc.), or attempts · 1I Coamnni~oa Persuasion oc to assault. · M Display of Force Option None I Presence Body EanguagefDeme~or ! LETHAL: Any force, under the circumstances in Identification of Authority a which it is used that is readily Capable of causing o,~,tope~ /or co, s~a ~,~,~o~, ~4. a~ a~s~,, a~,~,*~ serious physical injury or death. This ~ontlnuum is offered as a qmek reference. Your department's continuum and use of roi'ce policy should always be followed. Key Elements of a Use of Force Report Managing the Use of Force Incident 1. Note: weather/lighting conditions, pedestrian/ t. Determine if the action is worth the risk of injury to vehicular traffic congestion or flow,, availability of the Threat and yourself. Back-Up, your distance.from the Threat. 2 Use the least amount of force necessary to Control 2. Describe how you applied the technique or force the situation and/or the Threat. option. '3. When u~ing force, always give the appropriate 3. Explain why you used that method/technique/level verbal commands; of force. Not what, but Why! 4. When using force, avoid profanity, sarcasm, and 4. Avoid general terms (aggressive, threatened, resisted, bravado· struggled, etc.). Instead, describe in detail the per- -5. Photograph all injuries to the Threat, yourself, son's behavior/actions which 'neCessitated the force, and/or .third person(s). 5. Identify the Officer vs. Threat factors and Influential 6. Charge the Threat with the appropriate crimeis). Circumstances which necessitated the level of force. 6 Describe the Threat's physical size and appearance. 7. If you are injured (even slightly), seek medical · attention for' a permanent record of your injuries. Include-facial expressions threatening gestures, pre- existing injuries. 8. During the struggle,'if your uniform is badly soiled or damaged, place it in evidence as proof of the 7. Describe the scene of the incident in detail. Include- resistance or assault. environmental Weapons, physical harriers, and specific locations. 9. After using force, explain the justification (circum- stance and necessity) for the force to onlookers and 8. Desc~'ibe the First Aid/Post-Force Care given, other potential witnesses. To order, contact: Hitman Training Systemd, P.O. Box 375, Monmouth, Oregon 9736) Phone & Fax (503) 838-1365 Use of Force Report Writing Template USE OF DEADLY FORCE Requirements of Tennessee vs~ Garner USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE Requiremev.¢s of Graham vs. C°nnor An Officer may use deadly force when: 1. There is an immediate danger to the officer or others. 2. The suspect demonstrates dangerousness by the previous use of or threatened use of force. 3. The officer reasonably believes the suspect has committed a crime involving the use or threatened use of serious physical harm. 4. When reasonable, an officer must issue a verbal challenge before using deadly force. Four specific factors or circumstances to consider when determining iliability: 1. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others. 2. The severity of the crime. 3. Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest. 4. Whether the suspect is attempting to escape. These standards apply (to all less-than-lethal use of force options) anytime a citizen is stopped, restrained, or physically controlled. Officer vs. Threat Factors CircUmstances Officer vs. Threat's Combat Skill Level Officer's Age vs. Threat's Age Inability to Disengage / Confinement Close Proximity to a Weapon Officer's vs. Threat's Gender Injury or Officer Exhaustion Threat's Mental State Officer vs. Threat's Size and Strength Officer - Ground Level Terrain/Environment Multiple Threats -The listed Factors (above) and Circumstances (right) ~justify an escalati_on of force. They may also limit the use of force options when the factors and/or circumstances favor the officer. ©Copyright by Con Sim International, £.0. Box 375, Monmouth, Oregon 9736i Previous Experience Special Knowledge Officer Disability Sudden Attack (503) 838-1365