Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff proposes rewrite of animal control ordinance; court schedules further review
Summary
Julie presented proposed revisions to the county animal‑control ordinance: new definitions (livestock, dogfighting), new restraint language (community cats exempt), higher impound fees ($50), livestock penalties ($100–$500), and clearer rules for vicious dogs including 7‑ft fencing and an owner minimum age of 21; the court withdrew an immediate approval and will advance the item as a first reading after more review.
Julie, county staff, presented a comprehensive set of revisions to the animal control ordinance that align local language with recent changes in Kentucky law and add provisions not previously in the county code. Key changes she outlined included new definitions for livestock and dogfighting, explicit restraint language for domestic animals (with community cats exempted), a $50 impound fee (with staff discretion to waive a first offense but requiring reimbursement for treatment), and livestock penalties starting at $100 up to $500 per occurrence.
Julie noted the draft incorporates Kentucky statutes on animal cruelty and torture and adds an updated, clearer section on what constitutes a vicious dog — including a requirement that owners be at least 21 years old and that vicious dogs be kept inside a fenced enclosure at least seven feet tall. She also said the proposed changes remove a redundant aggravated‑abuse local section in favor of the state criminal definitions and clarified inspection language for boarding facilities and veterinary clinics.
The court briefly debated whether to prohibit selling pets in parking lots and whether to include additional checks on breeders; several magistrates asked for more time to review that section and the full document. A motion to approve the changes as presented was made and seconded but was then withdrawn; the court decided to treat the draft as a first reading and asked staff to research comparable ordinance language (for example, in Frankfort) and return with a revised draft for formal consideration.
Next steps: staff will revise the ordinance to address magistrates’ concerns (parking‑lot sales language and other items), run any needed legal checks against Kentucky statutes, and bring the ordinance back for first reading and public notice per the court’s schedule.
