Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Madison County fiscal court holds first reading of updated animal control ordinance

3589853 · May 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court heard the first reading of Ordinance 2025-005 to replace the county’s animal control ordinance, updating running-at-large rules, licensing alternatives such as microchipping, fee schedules and penalties; second reading set for the next meeting.

Madison County Fiscal Court held the first reading of Ordinance 2025-005 on May 13, a proposed replacement of the county’s existing animal-control code that would update running-at-large rules, licensing, microchipping, impoundment, adoption procedures and fees.

County staff member Susie summarized the ordinance, saying it would repeal ordinance 19‑09 and establish definitions, animal-control officer duties, seizure and impoundment policy, licensing and microchipping options, rabies vaccination requirements, stray livestock provisions and rules for commercial animal facilities. The summary also outlined a fee schedule and penalties: "Any person failing to comply with the requirements set forth in this ordinance may be fined in an amount not less than $25 nor more than $250 for each violation," Susie said, citing the ordinance text and referencing applicable KRS language.

Court members asked about substantive differences from the 2019 ordinance and requested a version that shows redline changes or a superimposed comparison to make it easier to see edits. Susie said the major substantive changes are clearer authority to enforce running-at-large rules, a microchipping alternative to licensing, and an escalated fee schedule for repeat violations; she said many other changes are structural or wording clarifications to align language with KRS and improve enforcement procedures.

Judge Taylor confirmed this was the ordinance’s first reading; the court did not vote on adoption and scheduled a second reading at the next court meeting. Court staff instructed citizens how to submit comments by email and where to find a draft of the ordinance online.

No formal action was taken on the ordinance at the meeting; court members indicated they were comfortable advancing past first reading but asked for clearer comparative documents before final consideration.