Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 17, 1991 TAG: 9104170073
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-7 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: M.J. DOUGHERTY/ CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: FLOYD LENGTH: Medium
On the other hand, the proposed redistricting provoked almost no response from county residents.
The county has proposed replacing its existing ordinance on dog control. County Attorney Marc Small told the crowd of about two dozen at Monday night's meeting there were only two meaningful changes in the proposal - that the ordinance cite current state law instead of old statutes and that it permit the supervisors to set the dog-license fee by resolution instead of a separate ordinance.
Still, half of the 10 speakers said the county was unfairly singling out responsible dog owners to pay for the control of unruly animals.
"I've heard there is a potential 50 percent increase in fees," said Jon Ratner of Indian Valley. "If you own a kennel, that's could be a big increase. I question what the revenue is going to be used for."
County Administrator Randy Arno said he had recommended a 50 percent increase in the fees - currently $4 for one dog and $25 for kennels. The funds are used to help offset the $35,000 cost of animal control.
But questions remained.
"Raising the license fee to raise revenue I feel like is aimed at the wrong people," said Ruth Steinberger of Locust Grove. "There are people who keep kennels who are picking up strays. They aren't breeding. There should be a fee on the breeders. And people [whose dogs] have litter after litter should be taxed."
Although the proposed ordinance is not a leash law, there were comments for and against the confinement of dogs.
"I'm going to holler what a lot of people have been saying, `It's dog discrimination,'" said J.C. Holden of Copper Hill. "I question it being right to ride a horse down the middle of the road and the dog not having the right to be running along side."
"When you see a calf you raised from small being eaten by [dogs] while it's still alive, you learn to hate dogs," Janice Duncan of Indian Valley said.
The supervisors must wait at least seven days to take action because the proposed ordinance involves fees. Small said he would make any changes the supervisors wished as well as correct the technical points raised by Floyd attorney Dale Profitt during the hearing.
The board also took no action on redistricting, although it could have.
The only significant comments came from Edmond Huff. He questioned whether the area in which he lives - which is being shifted from the Courthouse District to Burks Fork - really had the 143 people the Census Bureau said it did.
"They might be there, " he said. "But if they are, I haven't seen them. And I've lived there for 70 years."
Both matters likely will be discussed by the supervisors at a special meeting on April 30 at 7 p.m. at the county courthouse.
by CNB