COM 0798.023 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

It would appear that the State Department of Health has a statutory responsibility to handle the noxious odor issue, and it is unclear why it is included in a County animal control bill. Regarding "offensive" odors, it would be interesting to see how they would be defined. Perfume samples are deemed offensive to some, to the extent that warnings are issued when they are included in newspaper mailings. Ill-defined, subjective, and redundant, it is suggested that this amendment to Draft 2 be removed in its entirety. Draft 3 also modifies Section 4-17 to place all dog license fees into a Spay/Neuter Fund, which presumably benefits other non-contributing animals. The issue is equity, since other animals, notably cats, are not required to pay license fees. It is requested that the county require the animal control agency to supply a breakout of effort by species to determine if dog owners are unfairly targeted financially. This information should be publicly available. As amended in Draft 3, Section 4-8 reads, "...The form may be obtained by private citizens from the animal control contractor, at the Humane Society Offices, or the office of information and complaints." From this wording one could conclude that the Humane Society is, and will continue to be, the animal control contractor. It is suggested that the sentence be reworded as follows: "...The form may be obtained by private citizens from the animal control contractor, the Humane Society, or the Office of Information and Complaints." We found Draft 2 of Bill 258 to be clear, concise, and enforceable. In our opinion, the amendments offered in Draft 3 dilute that clarity. Respectfully, Jz-~C" H 041 President 2