Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
|
|||||
|
STATE FUND |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
||
|
General Revenue Fund |
|||||
|
Revenues |
Potential negligible loss |
Potential negligible loss |
|||
|
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
||
|
Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) |
|||||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
Potential negligible loss |
Potential negligible loss |
||
|
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
||
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2008 is July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008.
·
By
removing pit bulls from the definition of vicious dogs, it is possible that
violations of the law concerning certain requirements with respect to vicious
dogs will decrease. If the number of
violations does decrease, it would result in a negligible loss in the amount of
state court cost revenue collected by the GRF and the Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402).
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|||
|
Counties and
Municipalities |
||||||
|
Revenues |
Potential loss |
Potential loss |
Potential loss |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Potential decrease |
Potential decrease |
Potential decrease |
|||
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
By
removing pit bulls from the definition of vicious dogs, it is possible that
violations of the law concerning certain requirements with respect to vicious
dogs will decrease. If the number of
such violations drops, counties and municipalities may spend less prosecuting
and adjudicating such cases. There
might also be a corresponding loss in court costs and fine revenue.
|
|
Background
Current law defines
"dangerous dog" and "vicious dog" and requires owners,
keepers, and harborers of dangerous or vicious dogs to satisfy certain
requirements regarding transfer, confinement, and restraint of the dogs and
liability insurance that do not apply to dogs that are not dangerous or
vicious. Currently, "vicious
dog" means a dog that, subject to certain exceptions, without provocation
(1) has killed or caused serious injury to any person, (2) has caused injury,
other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another dog,
or (3) belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. Owning, keeping, or harboring a pit bull dog
is prima-facie evidence of owning, keeping, or harboring a vicious dog.
Changes made by the bill
This bill removes pit bulls
from the definition of "vicious dog." Therefore, a pit bull would be classified as a vicious dog based
only on its behavior, rather than its breed.
However, the bill states that local ordinances or resolutions to control
dogs may define "dangerous dog" or "vicious dog" more
broadly than those terms are defined in state law. The bill notes that the locally expanded definitions cannot be
considered to be in conflict with the Revised Code.
Fiscal effects
Current law contains various
penalties for violating the prohibitions and requirements pertaining to vicious
dogs. By removing pit bulls from the
definition of vicious dogs, an owner of a pit bull could not be liable for
failing to satisfy those requirements (which concern transfer, confinement, and
restraint of and liability insurance for the dogs) unless the dog meets the
other aspects of the "vicious" definition. The Franklin County Municipal Court reported that, in
CY 2005, there were 91 charges of "failure to confine a vicious
dog" (such charges were not enumerated by the Court for FY 2006) and there
were 157 charges of not having liability insurance for vicious dogs in CY 2006. However, it is uncertain how many of these
charges specifically involved "pit bulls" or if these numbers are
representative of the entire state.
It is important to note that
pit bulls are not actually a breed of dog.
They are better categorized as a "type" of dog. According to an official with the Ohio
Veterinary Medical Association, the pit bull type is generally recognized as
comprising certain breeds, such as the American Staffordshire terrier, the bull
terrier, and the bulldog among others.
LSC is unaware of specific charge data on failure to confine and
liability insurance cases that identify the specific breed or type of dogs
involved. As such, determining the
magnitude of the reduction in criminal cases, if any, would be difficult.
If the number of violations
drops, counties and municipalities may experience a decrease in expenditures
related to prosecuting and adjudicating such cases, and a corresponding loss of
court cost and fine revenue. A
reduction in cases would also result in a negligible loss in the amount of
state court cost revenue collected by the GRF and the Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402).
LSC fiscal staff: Jason Phillips, Budget Analyst