Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLL-1978 #05MARLO M. CUOMO STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE 162 WASHINGTON AVENUE ALBANY, NEW YORK 12231 October 5, 1978 Robert W. Tasker, Esq. Town of Southold A25 Main Street Greenport, Li, .NY 11944 Dear Sir / Madam: Please'be of 1978 of the was~ received advised that Local Law(s) No. %own of Eouthold filing and filed on Septenber 29, 1978 enclosing additional forms for your future local laws. Very truly yours MARIO M. CUOMO Secretary of State James C. Aube Director State Records & Law Bureau cc: State Comptroller Division of ~unicipal Affairs (please Use this Form for Filing your Local Law with the Secretary of State) Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. of ........... .5..°.~--n..°.].~ ............................................................................................. ~ of the ~ear.19 _..7...8.... Local Law No ........................................................... (lnmet~ title) n oard Tow. B ............................................. of the Be it enacted by the ........................................................... ................................ {lime d LqlBlative Bo,ty) lgits/x of ............................................................... .S...o...u..t...h..o..1...d. ........................................................................... as follows: Town Section 1. Commencing on the effective date of this local law and until September 30, 1979, the ticens.e fee for dogs, in addition to other statutory charges, is hereby set as follows: (a) $5.00 for a male dog and spayed female dog; (b) $10.00 for an unspayed female dog. Section 2. Commencing on October 1, 1@79, the license fee for dogs shall be as follows: (a) $5. O0 for a spayed or neutered dog; (b) $10.00 for an unspayed or unneutered dog. Section'3. Section 1 of this local law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State; Section 2 of this local law shall take effect on October 1, 1979. ~'(lf additional sp,ac.e ,is nee, d~d, please attach sheet,s=rof the same size as this and number each)"~ Page 1 tC,m~o!e~.e tlte c'erlifieation in the paragraph which a. ,al;o- . · ~ .... ~ to the filing of thislocal law and strike out the tFinal adoption by local legislative body on!yo I hereby certify that the loca[ law annexed hereto, designated as local law No ....... .5. .......... of 19..7...8... ~f the (gk~y of Southold Tow ~ ............... ........... was dui,: passed by the Town Board (Name of Legislative Body) on ....... ~..e.p~c.~...m..]9.9.;7..2...6 ..... ig.Y({~, in accordance Mth the applicable provisions of law. 2. (Passage hy loc'al legislative body with approval or no disapproval by Elective Chief Executive Officer.* or repassage after disapproval.) I hereby cJertify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No .....................of 19 ........ County City' of the Town of ..................................... was duly passed by the Village not dis approved on .................................................. 19 ........ and ;vas approved and was deemed dui,;, adopted on provisions of law. (Name of Legislative Body) ' by the ....................................................... repassed after disapproval Elective Ehief Executive Officer '~' ........................................................ 19 ........ , in accordance with the applicable (Final adoption by referendmn. I I hereby certi fy that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No ........ : .......... of 19 .......... County of the City Town of .................................. was duly passed by the ...................................... Vill age ~ .... f L~'gi'si~ti~"~'~i ............................. not disapproved on ............................................... 19..2 .... and was approved by the ...................... ~ ........................................ repassed after disapproval Elective Chief I~xecutive Officer ~' on ............................................................. ~9 ........ Such local law was submitted to the people by reason of a manda [ory permissive referendum,and received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors voting general thereon at the special election1.acid' on .................................................... 19 ........ in accordance with the appli- annual ' cable provisions of law. (Subject to permissive referend,.:m.and final adoption because no valid petition rcferend um. '. filed requesting I herebvcerrif'vthat the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No ................... of 19 .......... County Ci tv of the Town of .......... was duly passed by the ..................................................... ] .......................... on Village (Name of Legislative Body) not disapproved ..................................................... 19 ........ and was aplSroved by the ................. : ....................................... on repassed, . after disapproval Elective Chief Executive Officer ~ .............................................................. 19 ......... Such local law being subject to a permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum having been filed, said local law was deemed duly adopted on .................................................................... 19 ........ , in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. *Elective Chief Executive Officer means or includes the chief executive officer of a count-y elected on a county-wide basis or, if there be none, the chairman of the ~ounty legislative body, the mayor of a city or village or the supervisor of a town, where such officer is vested with power to approve or veto local taws or o~dLnanees. Page 2 5. ((]it} l~ ::al law com:,'r::m~- (][mrtc!' re~lsiott proposed by petition.) i,,;~,i,~ ,-.~' ~a. th k :1 ~" .... mxe.:lhe,.ero, desdgnamdasioca! tawNo ................... of ~9 ........ .................. m, mg ~een submitted tc referendum pursuant ~o c,[ th~: ~.,,t'- ~ ' " ' .... a i;6 '.i,H~i..[~','[ [] 7(: [tUIO Law, alit{ Laving received the affirmative vote of a majority special election held on .................................. of the cmalifl~:d {-b,:'~ ~:. of such try :oting thereon at the general [9 ............ became operative. 6. {County local law concerning adoption of Charter. I I hereby ccrti[x that thc local luw annexed hereto, designated as Local Law No ....... of 19 ...... o[ the - State of New York, having been submitted to the Electom at the Comity of- ........................................ General Election of November ........... 19 .......... pursuant ro subdivisions 5 and 7 of Section 33 of the Muni- cipal Home Rule La~, _md having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electom of the cities of said county z~s a unit and of a majority o[ the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative. ,It any other authorized [orm o[ final adoption has been [oliowed, please provide an appropriate certi[i eationD ~ I further certi[y that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law, and was 1 above. finally adopted in the manner indicated in paragraph .......................... e County le~ative ~dy, City, To~ ~ V~e ~k offi~ desi~ated by loc~ le~da~e body Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Date: September 27, 1978 (Seal) (Certification to he execulcd by County Attorney, Corporation CounSel, ~[own Attorney, Viii.age Attorney or other authorized Attor' ,y 0f locality.) STATF, OF NF.W YO[IK CObNT~ OF SUFFOLK un~ers'gne~,a t u hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that all I, u ~o~rocee~l~n~sthe bare been had or taken for the enactment of the local law annexed hereto. proper Signature To wn Attorney Title Date: September 27, 1978 :{y;t~x of Southold . Town Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING September 5, 1978 LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board at the Southeld Town Hall, Main Road, Southold~ New York 11971, at 4:00 o~clock P.M. on Tuesday, Sep- tember 5, 1978 on the proposed Local Law providing for the increase of dog license fees in the Town of Southold. PRESENT were: Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Justice Martin L. Surer Councilman James F. Homes Councilman Henry W. Drum Councilman William R. Pell~ III Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker To~n Clerk Judith T. Terry ABSENT was: Justice Francis T. Doyen Councilman Holms read the Notice of Hearing as follows: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been presented to the To~n Board of the Town of Southold on the 22nd day of August~ 1978 a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law providing for the increase of Dog License Fees in the Town of Southold," as follows: Section I. Cor~nencing on the effective date of this local law and until September 30, 1978, the license fee for dogs, in addition to other statutory charges, is hereby set as follows: (a) $5.00 for a male dog and spayed female dog; (b) $10.00 for an unspayed fe- male dog. Section 2. Commencing on October 1, 1979~ the license fees for dogs shall be as follows: (a) $5.00 for a spayed or neutered dog; (b) $10.00 for an unspayed or unneutered dog. Section 3. Section 1 of this local law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State; Section 2 of this local law shall take effect on October 1, 1979. Copies of such Local Law are available at the office of the To~n Clerk for inspection by and distribution to any interested person during business hours. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the To~ of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road~ Southold~ New York on the 5th day of September, 1978 at 4:00 P.M. at which time and place all interested persons will be heard. Dated: August 22, 1978 JUDITH T. TERRY~ TOWN CLERK PUBLIC HEARING September 5, 1978 -2- LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES COUNCII~N HO~N: I have proof of publication in the Suffolk Weekly Times. I also haw proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman. I have an affidavit that this has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. believe that's all that's =~ in the file for now. SUPERVISOR ~IkRTOCCHIA: You have heard Councilman Homart read the legal notice of the proposed changes in the dog ordinance~ that it has been advertised in the local papers, the official paper and one other, and that it has been posted on the Towa Clerk's Eulletin Board. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this matter? ~MS. CZAKO: May I ask a question first? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: I'm sorry. The gentleman had his hand up first, but I'll come back. b~S. CZAKO: Oh~ ok. TR~ItSi-EA~RRY: What is the purpose of raising a dog fee in a period of a year 300%? Which that is what it would amount to for an unneutered male. Now, we have a l&ash law~ if it's the reason that we don't want the dogs to pro-creat% if the leash im~ was enforced, the dogs ~uldn~t be running around. At any given tinm, in any hmnlet or village in the Town of Southold, I can show you five or six dogs running loose. Now the law is not being enforced as far as the leash law is concerned. Secondly, I think that a fee~ this fee is a form of a tax on a dog o~%er. And if it is for the purpose of generating money for dog enumerators~ ! think we do have dog enumerators paid out of the General Fund, and I think it's very unfair. And if this has to go. on this way, I will have somebody, who's a very good friend of mine, draw up a petition similar'to 13, Proposition 13~ and be in front of Terp~s in Cutchogue available for signatures in the near future, because it has to be brought to a stop~ this arbitrarily increasing taxes, and that's all it is. And it's a tax by 300% if you look at it. It's a little political--not political, it's a little financial juggling by putting a date, for one date and say"well we didn't do it in one year~ we did it in a space of t~o years." So this is not fair to the taxpayers. We need dogs for the simple reason why wandalism is rampid. If things are taken out of your garage, or. stoler~ you are told "go to the insurance company because we don't think we'll ever get it back." Now I've been told this. And I know we have vandalism~ and if you have a dog, you do not have the vandalism. So I think it's unfair to take alot of people with the high price of feeding their animals, their pets~ that obey the law~ be penalized. That's all I have to say on the subject. And thank you for hearing me. SIIPERVISOR ~LARTOCCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Flurry. Is there anyone else? COUNCILMAN HOMAN: I would like to point out to you, b~. Flurry, this isn't all our doing. As of October 1, 1979 the State Law will go to $7.50 irregardless of what we do. For an unneutered or unspayed dog. The State will automatically go up to $7.50. ~M. FLURRY: Fine. Then why d6~t we wait till the State does it? Why put it on the people that don't want it now. Let the State hold the bag. Why do yon have the onus of being the, well, let's say the rip-off artists. Let's put it that way. PUBLIC HEARING September 5, 1978 -3- LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES MR. FLURRY (continued): Thatfs the only way I can make it plain. My dog is 14 years old~ he's an unneutered male~ and I don't think he could pro-create his own ~hadow. And I, incidentally, my leashes are 200 feet long as Mr. Martocchia knows. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Flurry. Is there anyone else? ~S. CZAKO: Yes. I think what is really ueeded here is to be specific about what the State is mandating you to do. Now you just read off a local law, but what exactly is the State saying you have to do and what can you do locally? COUNCILMAN DRUM: Let's see. I have it right here. I think this one paragraph p¥obably would explain it. "The 1978 legislature~" now I'm reading fram New York State, "1978 Legislature aisc emacted a new Article 7%~f,~he{ggriculture and Market La~rela~ing tO licensing and control of dogs. Section 110 of such new article sets new minimum licensing fees for dogs which will be applicable to licenses issued On and after Octobe~ 1~ 1979. The new license fee will be as follows: $2.50 for a spayed or neutered dog, and to $7.50 for an unspayed or unneutered dog. ~%S. CZAK0: What was the first one~ the neutered? COUNCILMAN DRUM: $2.50. MITS. CZAKO: And $7.50. COUNCIL~L~N DRUM: And $7.50, right. The new license fee may also be increased by local law or ordinance to become effective on October 1~ 1979. However~ the increase in the new license fee may not be more than $5.00 provided the license fee for an unspayed or unneutered dog is at least $5.00 more than the fee for a spayed or neutered dog. And it goes on~ if you would like a copy of this I can get you one. It is very lengthy. MITS. CZAKO: So actually ~hat you are saying, if I understood this correctly~ the S~te says that as of O~tober it's got to be $2.50 and $7.50~ but you can raise it up to $5.00 more. COUNCII~L~N DRUM: It did say-. ~S. TERRY: Not this 0ctober~ next October. COUNCIL~N DRUM: On and after October 1, 1979. ~S. CZAKO: Ail right. Then what's happening in 19787 MRS. TERRY: As of October 1~ 1978 we will raise it by $5.00. P~{S. CZAKO: From what it is now? ~RIS. TERRY: Yes. {~RS. CZAKO: Ail right. Now. What is~ itfs on both sides of the question on this PUBLIC HEARING -4- September 5, 1978 LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES one. Where are, wait a minute. ~et back to the statement. It seems to me I read that also a large part of this money instead of going to the State will now be coming hack to the To~v~, plus fines and impoundment fees~ etc. will also be coming back, and if I read it correctly, the point was to help us control our animals. N~w is this money going to be put into a separate account, or is it going right into the General Fund? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: !~,5~pAr~e'f revenues. MRS. CZAKO: Well then it's going to be just like when they had the lottery for education and social sgcurity~ they just threw it in the General Fund and spent it for anything. It's not really accemplishing the purpose of the bill. COUNCILP[AN HO~LAN: Well~ I thi~k unless the Legislature changes its law, like the beach fees or anything else, that's General Fund. Not by our doing. By law. MRS. CZAKO: Yeah, but s~y by raising this raise that you're making. Say you ran an extra $5~000 here~ ok~ just.~k&ng~hat from the top of my- head. Now, either you could use that.~5~000 for %etter control of the animals, upkeep of the town~ etc.~ etc. or yeu can throw it into the pot and use it for anything. As in the intent to the fact that this mo~ey is being raised~ is the intent to use it for the animals? ~. TASKER: This .is a license6 fee and there is a general rule of law that the lic~se fees should not exceed the course of administering the law. Now~ in this case we're talking about control of dogs. Probably no matter how high we raise the license fee it would never amount to the mnount that we spend for purposes of controlling dogs. We use ~e~eral Fund money in excess of what we receive in dog license fees ~or the control of dogs right now~ And we will even with the increases. In other words, there~d be a losing proposition. ~S. CZAKO: Well, now, getting back to, as I said I'm not positive about this. Doesn't the bill also have for the fines and things like that coming back to the Towns instead of going to the State? MR. TASKER: Yes~ slot of the funds that were previously paid over to the State' and the County, all of the increases above the state limits will come to the Town. A portion of the mandated license fees will come to the Town. P~S. CZAKO: Will that also include any fines that Judge Surer or Judge Rich might give out~ In other words if you really started cracking down the leash law you might be able to pull in a nice amount of change on this, b~. TASKER: If you really wanted to crack down that would mean you could hardly actually employ a few more dog wardens, and I doubt that they would bring in enough fines to justify their salaries. ~S. CZAKO: Because, I'll say the only part, what I object to basically is~ I think that what you should do is keep the fee for the spayed and neutered animals, keep that as cheap as you can to encourage people to have it done. Because this · s really the answer to your whole problem. I happen to have one of both kinds-- one fixed and one unfixed. As far as I'm concerned it probably would be greater if you charged them $100 for an animal that isn't spayed. But~ as soon as you start getting your fees up a little too high, now you're starting to get $10, you already have people coming in who don~t pay the $Sw~say~ "Oh, yeah~ she~s a male~ And I mean unless you've got the dog along and lift up its tail or leg, you're not ~oin~ to know whether she's a male or not. PUBLIC HEARING September 5, 1978 -5- LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES ~S. CZAKO (continued): Now, you're gonna have an awful lot of neutered males beigg brought in here all of a sudden. I don't thin~ -- either you're gonna have people not licensing their dogs if you make it too high, and yet on the other hand I think if you kept the ones that are fixed, if you kept that down.or, you would certainly encourage people particularly if they crack down on these animals that aren't fixed, especially these females that run around in season. If anyone is picked up with a dog like that, if they really got slapped with a nice, hefty fine, I think that in fact you could possibly work out something~ say the fine will bs-I don't know whether it's legal or not~ will not have to pay it if you can bring back a certifi- cate within "x-number" of times that your animal has been fixed. Do you know what I am talking about, Judge Surer? Either you have it fixed or you're stuck for $50~ you know? So I mean~ it encourages the sort of thing. JUSTICE SUTER: Still~ it's just not that simple. For example, you say raise the fee and teach them a lesson that way, and yet there's a law that says if the person is indigent I car~r~oI do anything to them. I~ other words if they are proven p~or~l and unable to p~y~the fine~ I cannot put them in jail. Ok? I have one now, a young lady,'who refuses to pay. Now~ you want me~ you know~ am I supposed to put her in jail because she fooka dog out of the pound? We have the evidence that she took the dog. Ok?' She.'e hmrbpring the dog, she slaid it was her ex-husband's dog-rather than see it destroyed~ she went dow~ and took it out. And she was given a surmmons. Because the 'dog wa? caught in a trap in Greenport. Ok? So the fine was $25 and she says, "I don't have any money." You know? Jail? What other means do I have? b~S. CZAKO: Well see: this is what I am driving at. If you raise your fees too high-. JUSTICE SUTER: We're trying to work it out. We thought by mentioning $5 and $10 we would be doing what you're saying. We've given people a break by going from $2.35 to $5.00. I don't know~wh~rei'ghe 300% come in. But it's $2.35 now., Right? And we're going to $5.00. Ok? And we're going to $10.00 for the ones that are not fixed. 5~S. CZAKO: What percentage of animals in this Town do you think are actually licensed? 3-OSTICE SUTER: Probably about 85%. Most of the people want to obey the law. Most of them obey the law. And the same way on people that are gorma lie~ you know, after all, it's a misdemeanor in the State of New York which means it's a crime to swear falsity. And if they want to commit a crime to swear that their dog has been neutered to save $5.00 then that's their decision. And if it's proven, you know, and there are ways and means of proving it, where something happens where a case may come up~ when a dog~ let's say~ bites somebody and all of a sudden we do find out what type of dog it is, right? Your vet has the dog, the vet examines the dog, the vet comes in and testifies as to what the dog is and you swore it wasn't female, then you have a problem. So it does happen. Most people want to obey the law. And we're just talking about a ve~/ small percentage. b~S. CZAKO: Just one more question. Why are you putting off the dogs for one year? JUSTICE SUTER: Some of it's the State problem, trying to coincide with the State. PUBLIC HEARING September 5~ 1978 -6- LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES MR. FLURRY: Why don't you let the State handle that? To satisfy your taxpayers. When it comes in then they're short of people that are obeying the law with-. JUSTICE SUTER: Because we have to do it now. MR. FLURRY: Why now? The State is only. gonna do it-. JUSTICE SUTER: Because we have a time problem. The people are already coming in and asking ~hat the fees are for next year, and the Town Clerk has to have an MR. FLURRY: Well all she's got to do is put a sign up. They can read. That's jast an alibi. That doesn!t answer my question. Why are we doing it now instead of wait- lng for the State, to do it to bear the owners of putting an increased burden on the taxpayer. Yd~zJ already overburden taxpayers. DAVE DRISCOLL: I~y I asks' who proposed this law? ~' That's one question. And number two, why is it the. person referred to by Mr~ Suter is not deprived of the dog. I don't say put her in jail, but !st the dog be put back in the pound and taken by somebody else. But it seems like we're-. JUSTICE SUTER: That may have to be step number two~ Mr. Driscoi1. bR. DRISCOLL: I thine it should be step number one. But I still want to know who proposed this law? JUSTICE SUTER: Step number one. COUNCILMAN HOMAi~: I think the whole Town Board did. Maybe the To~ Clerk would like to explain what she gets out of the present fees and what it costs her to administer the present fees. This may enlighten you on this. Judy~ how much do you get out of the present dog fees? ~S. TERRY: $.25 on every dog license. COUNCIL~N HOMAN: And in some cases ~e have to send two and three letters to people telling them they haven't licensed their dogs. ~S. TERRY: And then serving them with summonses~ I have probably served 300 sun~onses each year. bR. DRISCOLL: Some member of the Board proposed it. You didn't jointly come up with the brilliant idea all of a sudden. SUPERVISOR 5LARTOCCHIA: Ik was brought to our attention by conmmnications that came to all of us. The changes in laws. ~. DRISCOLL: May we ask who that conmnunications came from? SUPERVISOR PtA_RTOCCHIA: The State of New York. PUBLIC HEARING September 57 1978 LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES b~S. TERRY: In the Councilmen Topics~ in the Justice Court Topics, the Supervisor and Town Clerk's Topics. SUPERVISOR ~LAiITOCCHIA: The Town Clerk then went through some of her figures and our figures show the dog situation is quite a big red line for a big deficit. Since we elected two dog wardens and still it's not doing the job it should do, ~Qeg~ penses are tremendously high in that area. We saw an area where we could recoup some money so it wouldn~e~h~ debt on the whole town population. P~. DRISCOLL: I'm still confused as to why a person who re~uses to pay the fime on a summons is permitted to keep the dog. I don~t understand that because that's an open invitation to everybody to ignore summonses. JUSTICE SUTER: It's not an invitation because we can~ you know~ order the dog destroyed, and that's the next step, 5~. DRISCOLL: Then the purpose might be to return the dog to the pound and then go to the second step. JUSTICE SUTER: No~ the law says it has .to be destroyed. That's the hang up, you know, we don't like to do that until we're forced to do it. P~. DRISCOLL: In the meantime the dog runs loose and pro-creates more. 3-OSTICE SUTER: No, the dog is tied up. Mit. DRISCOLL: I suppose somebody is standing there watching him every night~ twenty-four hours a day. JESTICE SUTER: The young lady was surprised that the dog was loose and knew that if there were a second time~ she wouldn't get the dog back. And she has not let the dog out since. MR. DRISCOLL: Well~ that's interesting that somebody is that aware of what's going on with their dogs. I'm very surprised. SUPERVISOR ~LARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else? ANGE-PA~]AGOPOULOS: Mr. Chairman, I can understand why you have to raise this exorbitant amount, and we don't go along with the same lines that the State specifies. Now if we're gonna make the dogs a paying proposition~ it is ridiculous. To take a male dog and alter him, in other meaning castrating him~ like myself I have a $500 dog, a bird dog, and I castrate him, he not worth this anymore. What shall I do with him. Just have him as a house pet, like a cat~ You take a guard dog~ what is castrated, also he loses his potentiality. As the gentleman said we have slot of crime today. You have an elderly ~oman that has a little dog~ and she wants protection, that dog is altered it goes toO.. I mean, some considera- tion has to be taken. It is not the idea of the $2, or the $5, or the $6. Myself I have the means to pay for the bloody dogs. But how about the other person? I don~t see it fair to the taxpayers. That's all I have today. PUBLIC HEARING September 5, 1978 LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES BARBARA WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman~ my name is Barbara Williams~ and I'm in the dog business. And for one thing I would like to know what they propose to do about the kennel rates for licensing dogs. I myself own six, and they are fenced in~ they are never on the streets, there is never any problem when they're in season because theytre lecked up~ and I can't see where they're gonna raise me from $18 a year to $60~ when my dogs are never out. And also I think you should know that many people have come in in the last few weeks since it's been in the paper. I see clot of dog owners every day of the we~k, and they all say the same thing, "We will not pay it." And honestly I don't blame th%m because the people that are licensing the dog are the ones tha{ care for their animals~ and their animals are not going to be on the street. You go to Greenport, I,was in Greenport the other day~ a Saint Bernard running looser not even a collar on it, no license~ and about 30 dogs behind, her~ in season. Nothing wa~ done about it, and yet you're gorma hit all of us,+that have ou~ pets that are fenced in, that are never on t~e streets~ we're the ones' that are gpi~g,?e get h~t With it. And l~¢e I say~ everybody that I've talked to in the i~ few weeks have sBid the same thing~ "We're not going to pay it." That's it. ~T~ey're no~ ~oing to license th;e dogs. -~ SUPERVISOR.MAR%~OCC~IA: Thank you, Miss Williams. Is there anyone else? ~ISS WILLIAMS: I would still like to know what the kennel license fees will be. COUNCILMAN DRUM: Let' see-. SUPERVISOR ~iAiITOCCHIA: Councilman Drum is looking it up. COUNCILP~N DRUM: I believe I read one section here, I haven't read it completely- it says $25 if no more than 10 registered pu~e bred dogs eligible for registration over the age of six months are harbored on the owner's premises at the time of the application. It's up to~ no more than 10 registered dogs. M~SS WILLIAMS: This is $25 including the kennel license and individual licensing of each dog? COUNCILMAN DRUM: It says license fees for 10 registered pure bred dogs~ and then it goes on~ to $50 for more than 25. And I say~ I'~ just picking this out of the license fees, one section~I haven't gone through it that thoroughly. This is the only place I see about more than one dog. MISS WILLIAMS: Still, like I said, my dogs are never on the streets. Never. COUNCILP~N DRUM: Well this would bey as I read it: $25 for less than 10 dogs. 10 or less. MISS WILLIAMS: Right now the fees are broke to two ways. I pay a great big kennel fee and a fee for licensing each dog. COUNCILb~N DRO%i: I'll have this avai~ab.~if you want to look at this. COUNCII~L~N PELL: How much is your kennel license fee now and who~do you pay it to? PUBLIC HEARING' September 5:1978 LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES MISS WILLIAMS: I pay it here. The fee right now is $10.00 for the year and $1.25 for each individual dog. Ail the dogs I have licensed are AKC registered dogs. have six of them on my license. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: How much is it now? MISS WILLIAMS:' It's like~ either $18.25 or $18.75, something like that. SUPERVISOR PLARTOCCHIA: For the six dogs? bilSS WILLIAMS: For the six dogs. COUNCIL~N PELL: Plus the kennel license of $10.00. MRS. TERRY: Well you're paying $10.00 for the kennel license and $1.35 for each dog. MISS WILLIAMS: $1.25, excuse me $1.35 per dog. COUNCIL)~N HOP~N: Are you a licensed dealer? MISS WILLIAMS: I'm just boarding and grooming. I'm not selling puppies, no. SUPERVISOR PL~.TOCCHIA: We will review your co~nents very thoroughly as it somehow applies to ~he new rates. MISS WILLIAMS: Like I say~ it's still not fair to the general public. Because the ones that are licensing their dogs also are the ones that have their dogs on leashss. They're not on the streets. (The Town Board will review the~documents with regard to Miss Williams question at the close of the hearing. All documentation will be made available to Miss Williams.) ~. DRISCOLL: May I ask one other question? Who is the author of the Albany Bill? SUPERVISOR biAATOCCHIA: Is it on there-. JUSTICE SUTEg: John Bianchi~ isn't it? SUPERVISOR btRRTOCCHIA: We believe it's Bianchi, but we're not sure. ~rR~.~SKER~L~:~ I think someone~ Bianchi was one of them~ there is a long legislative memorandu~ attached to this new law which is very explanatory in detail~ it refers to the fact that there was a special con~nittee which held hearings all over the State over a period of a year or two, and I believe probably the basic new law is put together by the Agricultural Department. The individual sponsors, I don~t know~ there were probably'seven, i know that Assemblyman Bianchi was one of them. MR. DRISCOLL: You say that the Bill represents like 45 pages or so. b~. TASKER: Um-huh. PUBLIC HEARING September 57 1978 ~0~ LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES MR. DRISCOLL: And you people wonder what happens to your tax money. You better think about it because there's where it goes. And you wonder about statement shortages and everything else. This is enough to send anybody through the roof. JUSTICE SUTER: Most of the new legislation we don't have anything to do with. PR. DRISCOLL: No, I'm not criticizing the Board. JUSTIC~E SUTER: The only thing we do haYe any leeway in is to cha~ge slightly more in licensing fees than the minimum State law. All of the rest of these things are all mandated by the State law-. MR. DRI~COLL: i .recogmize that. I'm only a pointingt of the fact that you can take 25 pages ahd th_~o%! mp' ~ stupid silly little thing like this that provokes meetings all over the?~State just a~ it does here. It takes everybody's time, costs more money. There~'s where 5rout money goes. S~PERVISOR MA~TOCCH~A: Is there anyone else? ~rR. PANAGOPOULOS: ~lr. Chairman~ I would like to address the Counsellor one thing. Counsellor, one step the State wants to raise it to $7.50, why does the Town have to raise it to $107 Because this is the Town of the affluenc% or because the dogs they are staying in a free-of-pollution town? And they have to pay for this privilege. Do y~u thought about that please? Mit. TASKER: You're asking me-. MR. PAblAGOPOULOS: Yes~ I~m asking you because you know-. MR. TASKER: And you ~vant me to tell you? ~. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes. ~. TASKEN: All I can tell you is that I happensl ~dfoe present at the meeting last week when there was a general discussion concerning a question of whether or not the Town Board wanted to, on its own, increase dog licensing fees. What a major portion of the discussion~was, the tremendous amount of expense to the taxpayers of Southold Town for dog control. And as I got from this discussion that their general feeling was that if we had the authority to cause the dog owner~ which is generating this expense~ to pay a little bit more of the share of the controlled dogs, that that was what they thought the proper thing was to do. Now I'm only telling you what I got out of their discussion. Now what prompted each individual member to say yes, I don't know. P~. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes~ but the ~vay that you give the impression when you answered this gentlemen was that you are the brains behind the ~hole Bill. PR. TASKER: I am? Mit. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes. The way that you answered it. PUBLIC HEARING September 5, 1978 LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES MR. PANAGOPOULOS: That you say you try specific and to make points on it. ~. TASKER: I was talking about the State Legislature. ~M. PANAGOPOULOS: Now besides, you know, that as about taxes that you say, you overburden the To,fa of taxes. And you'%e picking a segment of people. Mit. FLUILRY: That's right. MR. PANAGOPOULO~:; I can throw that out in discrimination. License the bloody cats if you go for-tha~! ~. FLURRY: Horses~ tqo. · Mr. Chairman? SUPERVISOR PbkRTOCCHIA: Yes. 551. FLUB_KY: It seems tha,,t_' as this gentleman pointed out~ the previous speaker, that we are now ggY~5]toLsubsidize the general t~_xpayer because we o~n dogs. I don't see why we s,hould hawe d6nble jeopardy. We're paying a tax for our animal shelter as taxpayers,'ao why~5ot raise the tax? But it seems to me that you people don't want to do thais. ~fo~e t~ying to put this taxx in a form of a fee on people that own dogs. Ibis a Ii~tle m~nority. If you need the money so bad~ put it out that you want to t, ax eve~body ]in the To~a~ and I don't third~ anybody would object as an individual e~r a segment of the taxpayers. And that's the way I feel about it. It's s~':]~ to me a rip-off. We're supposed to be residents of the Town~ taxpayers wezking for the good 'of the Town. We don't need people tearing it down. Get after the people that come out here in the sun~ner that~ gives you a little tourism money, that leave their pets when they go. MISS WILLIAMS: Amen. ~. FLURRY: And we have to pay for them as taxpayers without this license fee of rounding up their strays and disposing of them. We also can't get rid of a cat in the Town of Southold. I had about 20 of them come in and barge their way into ~f garage. How do I get rid of these cats? I can't take them up to the so-called animal shelter because when I do they say this is a dog pound, but it still says "animal shelter~ I should be able to bring a horse up there, if it's an animal shelter. Or are we playing semantics on words? Let's get realistic and govern the Town the way it should be. I have to be an agent of the Town if a street light is out, i have to call Mr. Dean. We don~t have the funds to have street lights looked up. We have police departments, they don't see nothing. You have to put a,whole in the roof so they can see when the light shines in~ if it's lit or not. And they don~t come and try my dog- when I'm away, but they'll try the businessman's dogr. Come on. We ought to get something for our money. I've been paying taxes on a dog 30 years. I got nothing. But feeding my dog. I got nothing from the pound. I'd clean up this mess, too. I mean, I'm arguing for slot of you people. Some of you people must have some thoughts on this. And I can't talk, if I could talk I would get up there and really yell at them. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Yes you can. You're doing pretty good, Mr. Flurry. PUBLIC HEARING September 5~ 1978 LOCAL LAW - DOG LICENSE FEES SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA (continued): Is there anyone else ~vho wishes to be heard? (There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Has everyone had the opportunity to speak on this matter? (There was no response.) SU?ERVISOR MAiITOCCHIA: Haaring none, I will call this hearing to a close. The Baard ~ill make a determination in the near future. Thank you for coming. The hea~ing was declared closed at 4:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary to the Supervisor ,'~ ' PU~ LIC H..E A RING ' ,+, OF LOCAl: I_AW NoTI.-~ ts, 'he,i;eby ~mven that there has,,bei~u pl:ese~ted to the Town Board of the '[own :~; of $outbold on the ~.~..311d day of ~;. August,. 1.978 ' a .I_oca] Lag, ,~!' entitlc-~ "A Local La? p'rovid'- ~ i~g for the increaSing of dog ~ license fees i'~ Se To~n of ~.$outhold". as folks, s: .Section [. Commencing on he effecn~e date al' r. hJs Ia:al law ~an~l ·until gep~e~iber =10. t97,8., the lice~ fee fet. dogs Lcffa~'~s:' is::hereb> set- as follows: {al ~5.00 ',for a mai& itiog and. spayed ~male dogl 7~h) $10.00 for ~emale dog. ' -, ~",. Sect'ion 2. C,m~me~em'g on ~O~ober · 19~9. ~h~ license lees far dogs~shall be,..as '~;.io r ne.a toted dog: Co } $10.00' for inn unspaykd, &. un~eutered ri.dog. ~. ,~. SectiOn 3~ , S~Z~LiOn-I of' this ~ibca[ law ~h~[ 'iake effect ~iimmediately upoh' filin~ m the ~.o£fice of the Seel!e-t~rv of State· ~?ection Z of. this loch'law shatl :?~ake rife& art Oe~ber 1. 19-9. · Copies of such E~eal La~. a~ea ~.,ailable.m the ,o,l'~fice of the · Town Clerk tbr. inspection by and disudbuh~n to any hater- ~ested person during business ?hours:: ., NOTICE ,' . GIVEN that ihe~ the Town ot:Sou'thotd wiU hold ~ · pubJie ,h~aring on the aforesaid Lbea[ .Law at th& i! Southold Toe~n.. Hall., .Ma.m ;Road. $oufhoM; ~- ~0rk on the 5th d&? of September. 1978 ~at 4;00 p.m. at ,,~hiel~ nme and place &Il mtere-St~d persons ~q'll bc heard. ,' Da[ed:.Aagus 22,- I9'~$ ; .JuDI~T. TERRY · ', To~ C erlt · :.,.~;.:,; ~: ~: 1T;:'8/24 (60I) · COUNTY OF SUFFOLK s~: STATE OF NEW YORK Potricia Wood, being duly sworn, says tho¢ she, is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed a~ $outhold, in Suffolk Counfy; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ........... ./. ......................... weeks th. ......................... CLEMENT J, THOMPSON ~h~TAR¥ PUbLiC, ~tat~ of f~ew Yet ' e,.~ .,-! NOTLCEOF ~ ' ': ~. --~ .PUBLICHEARIN6 ~ ' " OF LOCAL LAW NOT~.~ ~. g~en to the Town ~a~ ofthe To~ o~ Sb~ola an ~ 22no flay ~ugust, 1~Tg a .L~I Law ~tle~ <'~ ~ Law provid- ~g, for ~e .m~g . dog Ii.nsc feei"~-~ T0~ of S~qn I; C~m~ on the eff~ ~atg o~ ~ l%& the ,Bcen~ff~ ~gr d~s ~{Iows~ ta)?5~ iht ~ ~e,- do~ 'an~ sp~v~r female; foR~ r~ (~. for a .': "7:.: . ' mm~at~y upBm~hng ,'Office oDhe WeO~-' 6f '~le:at';th~ o~ee bY. the :~t~a pe¢~ ~ing. ~usiness ~ours. ' ' ~'~ .;,~ ~5., ' ~.~ ~'on~':Tis--~.'~O~vm~ ~e Town o[S~thol8 ~ hold a .publ~..~he~ng on .ihe ":aror~d L~al ,L~' ~ the ~ou~ ~ .~1, .Main' Road. Sou~la, ~w Yb~ on ~7~th~ 5& da~ ~ 5~mber 1978' at 4:~ p.~: ~%-fi~h ~im¢ ~d place a~ i~sted per.ns COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STARE OF NEW YORK Patricia ~Vood, being duly sworn, soys that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVEL£R-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Islond Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ......... /: ............................ weel~ successively, commencino on tt~ ...~7.~.; ............................. 19...~___..~ ............ SWam to before me this ~--~'- defy at ,~ ' ' :LEGAL NOTICE- '~r J~ i 'i ,~ .PLEASE TAKE NOTICE ./~ that':-on the 26th d~y of L --September 1978, the To~ , Board of the Town of South61d, . ~' S~olk Couety,. New York~ ~ ~ed .the foflowing L~al ~ Law, m~t:. .~ . -, the Incre~in~ ~ Do~ License ~ 'Fe~s- in the-:'Town of Sduthold. .S~cti0n.1. Commencing'on tl~e effective date'of this I6dal :."4~ ~nd unt~ Septembeb 30; 1979, the lic~ fee for ~ogs~ addition to oth~ statuto~ ~dog ~d S~'e~ g~male doe: S~tion ~: ~mmenc~g on ;:~.~ee~ for 'ffffgs sh~t be as' ows ia) $5;~ ~ a spayed ~ ~r an~nSpa~ed o[ ~neu~d ~ ~.]6Eal law ghall take 'effeCt' jmmediamlj apon filing'~ the i bffi~'of the Se~t~ of State; :~ Section 2 of th~ loc~ law sh~. ;;~ta~'~ffea 0n October t, 1979." C~;Dated: Se~temb~ ~, 1978 SOVTaOL~.TOW8 ~O*gD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEVe' YORK Patricia ~Vooa, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week far / weeks successively, commencing on the . ..~. ............................. Sworn to before me this ._..~ .................. d~¥ at Notary CLEMENT J- T.'-iOMPSg~I i' pLEASE. TAKE AoTIcE that on the ~th day of Sep- i~:.tember 1918, the Town Board of the -Town of Southold, ' Suffolk County, NeW York enadted .the following Local:, :~, Law, to wit - ." LOCAL'LAW NO. 5,:? ! !~:i;~;'::~l~:~¥:. '~:~:'" ;!! iI:'I ~'-~ - 1978 :.. .... ,-: - I,::.':' '...'", '' ' P ''.7'" ':," ·: t 1. Commencing on !; :. the e~e~tive date of this local +...law 'afia~mntil September mO,. ,;.,1~9, tlie':lieens'e fee for dogs,. i.:::eharg~i,~; is. hereby set as - ?'fOllowsi k[(a) $5.00 for.a mate :'!'?dog and 'spayed female dog :.. .~,¢qlor 2. (.Oll'.'J'l{'.'.l i[i}! ,'}'.'~ t)clohor ll'i': .or or ii{.II'('I'¢N] i,io.!~ ii ~.~ ..,, ior hi; '.irl.'p:i.xpd or ill';rlidliOl,;d ~O('[iOli ? .';('('lll)ll [ ',), 1]'1..~ :local:.,.law 'shall Lake' effect rLmmediately upon fili~ in the officiO, :of the Secretary of State! ,gection 2 of this local law .~ti~]l take effect on O¢- toSe~' i~ 1919. :Dated::: SepLember 26/1918 ' '. ::', BY oI~DEI~ OF ? ', TOWN BOAP. O :' ~': '. .~. JUDITH T. TEP, i~Y ;::~ '- '~ ~i TOWN CL~tK' COUNTY OF. SUFFOLK, ~ ss: STATE OF NEW YORK, j ....... .~:~,?:.. ~:o.a~a~s/n~ .............. being duly Sworn, says that ........ is Printer and Publisher o! the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper published at Greenport. in said cou,nty; and that the n,otic¢, of which the annexed is u printed copy. ,has been published in the Said Suffolk Weekly Times once in each week, for .~..or}.?..~ .~)! ................. weeks successiv,ly commencing on the . .~. ,~?..~.~...( .5.).. ...........