My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/16/2008 (4)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
12/16/2008 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/31/2018 3:24:28 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:19:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/16/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4024
Book and Page
136, 370-434
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7265
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Wheeler agreed with Chairman Davis's logic; nonetheless, he felt <br />that by not charging the pet owners, the entire expense burden for Animal Control is put upon <br />the taxpayers. <br />Commissioner Solari requested that staff provide a spreadsheet on revenues <br />related to Animal Control. He pointed out that the fee would just be paying for the program of <br />getting the animals licensed. <br />Vice Chairman Flescher felt that the proposed $5.00 increase for the license was <br />fair, as cost adjustments had not been made in quite awhile. He felt that the three-year license <br />would benefit the pet owners and help in the maintenance of Animal Control's database. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing. <br />Fred Mensing, 7580 129th Street; Sebastian, felt it was unfair to have higher <br />fees for the owners of a gentle pet dog, but wanted to see financial penalties imposed on the <br />owners of aggressive, potentially vicious, breeds of dogs. <br />Director King informed Mr. Mensing that this item has come before the <br />Legislature, but as matters stand, the County is not allowed to have a breed -specific <br />Ordinance. <br />Renee Renzi, Waverly Place, asked the Board to consider the effects of the <br />requirement to provide a fee upon surrender of an animal (Ordinance Section 302.07(D)(1), <br />noting that some owners have back fees and might set the animal loose rather than incur <br />expenses for the unwanted pet. <br />20 <br />December 16, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.