Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1986 <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />this point, Board Member Prillaman and Mrs. Wooldridge pointed to the need for <br /> <br />more funding (for additional personnel) to continue the former schedule of <br /> <br />hours the headquarters building was open for public usage, whereas Councilman <br /> <br />Cole noted that if the Library Board is to seek more financial support from the <br /> <br />City the Board should prepare necessary information for Council's <br /> <br />consideration. <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />>,"'-' <br /> <br />As a result of a year's experience under the revisions to Articles I, II, and <br /> <br />III of Chapter 5 of the City Code (relating to Animals and Fowl), as enacted by <br /> <br />Council on August 27, 1985), City Manager Brown presented recommended revisions <br /> <br />and/or amendments to Sections 5-37, 5-39, and 5-55 (in the form of proposed <br /> <br />Ordinance No. 86-6) and also suggested that Council, in accordance with the <br /> <br /> <br />requirements of subsection (h) of Section 5-47, authorize the gift of certain <br /> <br /> <br />animals to the local SPCA Chapter without requiring payment of impounding <br /> <br />fees. Supplementing Mr. Brown's presentation was his written memorandum there- <br /> <br /> <br />on and, too, Police Chief Terry L. Roop's written review of major portions of <br /> <br />said Chapter 5 and his recommendations for changes therein. In response to an <br /> <br />inquiry concerning the proposed amendments to said Sections 5-37, 5-39, and <br /> <br />5-55, City Attorney Worthy reported that he is not in agreement with Section <br /> <br />5-39 as previously amended or as proposed to be amended but "....the Common- <br /> <br /> <br />wealth's Attorney wants it, so let him have it". Mr. Worthy also noted, in <br /> <br />response to Councilman McClain's inquiry, that other Virginia cities have <br /> <br />ordinances in force, dealing with barking dogs and nuisances, which are con- <br /> <br />sidered constitutional and, apparently, are satisfactory, much as Mr. Worthy <br /> <br />considered an amendment to said Section 5-39 he proposed in 1985. Meanwhile, <br /> <br /> <br />Councilman Groden expressed opposition to establishing and/or continuing a time <br /> <br />period in Section 5-39 (regarding "barking dogs") as well as a preference that <br /> <br /> <br />prosecution of owners of "barking dogs" be under nuisance violations, as deter- <br /> <br /> <br />mined by the judiciary and, too, along with Councilman Cole, <br /> <br />36~ <br />