A new city of Parsons law that increased penalties for dogs at large that bite people or attack other animals may be revised again in the future.
Parsons City Commissioner Tom Shaw on Monday brought up the dog ordinance and said he thought it needed to have more stringent penalties for owners allowing their dogs to run at-large. Now the penalty for having a dog at-large is a $30 fine plus $110 in court costs. That didn’t change when the ordinance was amended earlier this month.
The recent ordinance change offered penalties for dogs that bite. If an at-large animal bites a person, the owner will have to pay a minimum fine of $500 in addition to other penalties allowed in the ordinance. If an at-large animal attacks or wounds another domestic animal, the owner will pay a minimum fine of $400 in addition to other applicable penalties.
Two at-large pit bulls attacked and wounded a smaller dog in the summer. The dog died before getting to the veterinarian. The owner brought the issue to city commissioners, who responded with the ordinance change.
Shaw said he’s heard some feedback on the ordinance revisions. While it does some good things, he said it didn’t do enough to prevent future attacks by failing to offer stiffer penalties for having a dog at-large.
He thought raising the fine for having an at-large dog was needed as a deterrent. He mentioned the fatal dog attack.
“Something to prevent that from happening is what I’m looking for here,” Shaw said.
City Attorney Ross Albertini said he could prepare language for the ordinance and let commissioners make a decision on the fine amount at that time.
Shaw also wanted to know about the part of the ordinance that allows officers or the community service officer to decide if a fine is warranted for having an at-large animal.
Albertini said officers could use the same discretion in these instances as they would in determining if they would write a speeding ticket. The decision is based on the circumstances at the time. He said the city can legislate to the worse scenario but violations rarely rise to that level.
Commissioner Kevin Cruse noted that $140 (fine plus court costs) for having a dog at-large was pretty significant already.
Shaw said it doesn’t go far enough. He said this past week he saw two dogs at-large and one of them did its business in the yard of a police officer.
Parsons resident Ryan Robertson told commissioners the issue is not new and other communities are dealing with
See CITY, Page 10.
it. He suggested that the fine double for each subsequent violation, from $30 to $60 to $120 to $240. Shaw and other commissioners liked that idea.
Cruse noted that the issue needs addressed. He heard screaming while at the gas station. A woman and her son were facing a menacing dog barking at them. He called police who arrived and knocked on the door but no one answered. He said he heard police were called to that residence near 29th and Main again.
“This is something that needs to be taken care of, and people need to take this seriously,” Cruse said. If it takes higher fines to make dog owners listen, maybe that’s what should happen.
“I don’t want to be that way, but I just have a problem with someone knowing something is wrong and just disregard it,” he said.
RV living
City commissioners also heard from city staff that they could not come up with a list of recommendations for planners to consider in allowing someone to permanently live in an RV inside the city by variance. Living in an RV isn’t allowed now under city zoning rules.
Earlier this month, city commissioners voted to return the RV issue to the planners with a recommendation to consider implementing a variance option with restrictions on what RVs would qualify and how utility hookups and other matters would be handled. Planners voted before that to not recommend any change to the zoning rules, meaning living in an RV permanently would not be allowed.
The issue resulted from Linda Philbrick living in a 40-foot RV on her son’s property at 1106 S. 14th St. She was given the OK by a city official even though zoning rules didn’t allow it. Once she learned her living arrangement violated zoning rules, she attended a city commission meeting to talk about it in October 2023. She since spoken to commissioners a couple of times.
Jim Zaleski, economic development director for the city, told commissioners that after several hours of meetings involving senior city staff, the group could not come up with a list of criteria that would allow someone to live in an RV permanently. Safety was a main concern as well as utility hookups, some of which may not be allowed. How to tax the RV was another issue, as it would be a permanent living structure and could be subject to property tax.
Weather is another concern because high winds could overturn the RV. Zaleski said Kansas Gas Service would not connect a natural gas line to something that has wheels and would move easily in high wind.
While Philbrick’s living situation is clean and has approval of her neighbors, that doesn’t mean that all such situations would have neighborhood approval and would be clean and neat looking. Single-wide trailers are not allowed in residential neighborhoods but someone with such a trailer could park it, add wheels and call it an RV, Zaleski said.
“It just doesn’t work trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole,” Zaleski said.
Shaw asked how the city would correct the situations that exist if no change is made in the zoning rule. City Manager Debbie Lamb said property owners would be given a number of days to comply.
The city does have several areas where RVs are allowed, including short term at Marvel Park and longer term in mobile home parks.
Commissioners asked about what to do now that the issue had been returned to the planning commission, which was waiting on a list of rules to consider for allowing the variance.
Commissioners after discussion agreed to let the planners discuss the issue again on Oct. 15 but without recommendations from the city staff. This would give Philbrick another chance to state her case and her first time to address the planning commission.
