[The Brazil Times nameplate] Mostly Cloudy ~ 59°F  
High: 58°F ~ Low: 45°F
Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Ordinance catches snag

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The most contested ordinance of the year so far, the animal control ordinance, was discussed at Wednesday's Brazil City Council meeting.

Ordinance No. 10-2012 adds to and amends many aspects of the animal control ordinance that was previously in effect.

One of the additions -- which would require pet owners to register their animals yearly, for a fee of $5 for an altered animal (spayed or neutered) or unaltered animal for $50 -- didn't sit well with Councilman Dustin Jorgensen after talking with citizens and hearing some opinions.

"My view on it was ... we're punishing those people who take care of their animals, and we're asking them to pay a ... fee to us when the people who already are breaking the rules aren't going to pay that fee upfront; they're going to still break the rules, and then they'll eventually be charged with something later when they break the rule again," Jorgensen said. "We're fining those people following the rules, and that bothers me. I just think that's kind of a silly thing to do, especially when doing it every year -- we ask them to keep paying us for just having a pet.

"I understand why we have that in there -- we're trying to basically raise some money for ourselves so we can afford an animal control officer (to) enforce the (rules). My kind of in-the-middle (suggestion) would be ... I could go for a registration fee if it's a one-time deal, instead of annually. Maybe we just do a one-time registration fee for each pet. Register it and then it's done, whether it's altered or unaltered."

Jorgensen added he isn't a pet owner so his biggest concern is the fines for the stray animals and animals that can cause damage.

Brazil Mayor Brian Wyndham said he understood Jorgensen's hesitance of making responsible pet owners pay the yearly fee, but that fees are a part of life, like paying a premium at stores because of shoplifters.

Wyndham noted the goal of the council is to at some point be able to afford an animal control officer -- instead of having Brazil City Police officers serve that function -- and these fees and fines laid out in the ordinance would be a way of supplementing the officer's salary.

"Once we feel like we have got most of (the animals) registered, it would give us a baseline on what kind of income we would be looking at," Wyndham said.

Wyndham wanted to be clear that the money that was raised through fees and fines would not fully fund the salary of an animal control officer, but it would certainly supplement it.

However, Councilman Sam Glover's opinion differed from Jorgensen's regarding the registration fees.

"The need for the animal control officer is going to be ongoing," Glover said. "We register our cars every year and pay fees every year for our automobiles and other things. I don't have a problem with paying a yearly fee. My dog is altered, so $5, to me, is really nothing."

Glover said he felt responsible pet owners wouldn't mind paying the $5 yearly fee because the services it would help provide would be beneficial to them.

Councilman Brad Deal agreed with Glover, saying the yearly $5 registration fee would also help offset the cost the city would incur when buying new identification tags every year.

Wyndham said the $5 fee wasn't put in place to make it financially hard on anyone.

"I hope it's not a financial hardship for anyone, and I don't think $5 is," Wyndham said. "I could go either way on it. I'd still like to keep the registration, because we've got to be able to identify these pets and link them to a person."

Councilman Tyler Hutcheson said he had done some research into what other towns have done but said Brazil doesn't have to copy another town's rules.

"Looking at what other towns have done ... I think what you'll see is a lot of time they'll have a one-time fee," Hutcheson said. "You're still required to register yearly, but as long as you keep that registration up-to-date, there's no additional fee on top of that.

"I think that's great for the $5 for someone who has an altered pet. I think for someone who has an unaltered pet, we still need that yearly fee because it's still that push to spay and neuter your pets and hopefully start to fix the problem we have."

Jorgensen said he would only vote for the ordinance if the council changed the yearly fee to a one-time fee and then revisit the issue a year from now.

Glover said he thought the opposite way, which would be to accept the ordinance as written, then revisit it in a year.

City Attorney Traci Lawson reminded the council it has to unanimously vote to suspend the rules to pass the ordinance on the first reading.

Glover then made the motion to suspend the rules and pass Ordinance No. 10-2012, which was seconded by Deal.

The unanimous vote was then stifled by Jorgensen.

Lawson then advised the council to move to pass the ordinance on the first reading.

Deal made the motion to pass Ordinance No. 10-2012 on the first reading as it is written, which was seconded by Councilman Ann Bradshaw.

Jorgensen, once again voted against the ordinance.

Lawson then said the process is to revisit the ordinance at the August meeting for the second reading, which at that time will not require a unanimous vote to pass.

Look for a more in depth write up of the changes to the animal ordinance in Saturday's edition of The Brazil Times.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Glad I don't live in town.

-- Posted by bowman on Thu, Jul 12, 2012, at 8:59 PM

My question is how do you collect the $50 from a pet owner that has a Un-Altered pet. And also does this include Cats?And how do you enforce the Registration.

There is alot of people that have pets that they received for free.. and some people once they hear thay have to pay $50 for registering or pay upwards toward $100 to get the animal Altered will ultimately just release the animal into the city limits Then What?? Who is Responsible ??

-- Posted by TiredofIdiots on Thu, Jul 12, 2012, at 9:01 PM

Thank you Mr. Jorgensen for voting No!

-- Posted by skooby on Thu, Jul 12, 2012, at 10:25 PM

Thank you Dustin Jorgensen for bringing critical thinking and common sense to the table. It is refreshing to have you on the council. You'll have my continued support.

-- Posted by Claycountian on Thu, Jul 12, 2012, at 11:42 PM

Well i sure as hell am going to be at the next meeting,,,, way to go mr jorgensen...... there is a lot of elderly people out there that keep pets as companions and its apparently obvious that the others dont care about the people and pets that are like family to them. oh by the way mr Deal ,mr glover and our illustrious Mayor why dont you start collecting fees( another way of saying a TAX )on the parents of kids that are running the streets skateboarding ,biking and all other kid related activities if you are so hard up for more money because thats what our local government wants....worry about getting our streets fixed first and then new businesses that pay decent wages instead of this stupid BS ...I apologise to anyone who feels offended by this rant but i just wish this city council will wake up and deal with the real issues instead of the inane ordinances already cluttering our books

-- Posted by brazil citizen on Thu, Jul 12, 2012, at 11:55 PM

On a humorous notes i didnt see any Fees (TAX) on any other animals that could be kept in the city ....LOL.... dont tell me they forgot those critters

-- Posted by brazil citizen on Thu, Jul 12, 2012, at 11:59 PM

Thank you Mr. Jorgensen, at least one member of the council listens to the people they represent. Because I have not heard from any pet owners I know that think this is a good or workable idea.

There are far more important ways to improve our city, which is what the council should really be focusing on. If this passes, I will strongly consider relocating outside the city limits.

-- Posted by ClayCountyGuy on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 7:33 AM

I think the idea of a one time registration fee for altered animals is fair. Then the animal should have a tag for a collar and one for the home owner to keep as proof. Tags should be issued once and if lost a replacment tag can be purchased. It should also be thought out to what other animals should be covered. Stay with the idea it is sound and needed folks work togther.

-- Posted by coachB on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 7:34 AM

I agree with you, brazil citizen, here we have curfew laws on the books, past police chiefs that have said they would be enforced, and they weren't then and they aren't now. But this is a much bigger problem.

-- Posted by ClayCountyGuy on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 7:37 AM

My neighbor has around 10 cats, no collar,nor fixed and when confronted about them, he/she says "there not mine." Yet the whole neighborhood knows they are. So, my question is if he/she is questioned and they lie about the cats not being theirs, who is going to pay the $50?

-- Posted by sixfoottown on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 8:48 AM

All of you agreeing with Mr. Jorgensen must be the ones who own pets and let them crap in my yard and not clean up. Im sick of all the animals running loose in this town. One day this spring my daughters left for school only to hear them screaming at the top of their lungs because someones big dog was loose on Logan Street and was chasing them. My children's safety COMES FIRST.

Your excuse of it being to expensive is ridiculous. If you cant afford this then how are you paying for pet food - its not cheap either. If you want to get upset - then get upset up with the irresponsible pet owners that have caused this issue.

-- Posted by justsayin63 on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 9:03 AM

First of all, $5 or $50 or whatever is not a fee -- it is a tax -- selective like the cigarette tax, but still a tax. Second, I'd like to apply for the animal control officer position when the Brazil City Council believes it has raised enough revenue from the tax to do so. I'm a retired senior citizen, but this should not be a problem. How much work can there be for the animal control officer in a small town of only 8,073 persons?

-- Posted by dismalscientist on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 9:15 AM

Before they start charging for neighborhood animals they need to address the fact that there is no where to take strays. Yes I know that a new contract was announced but that was worthless. Less than 24 hours after it was announced that there was a contract with humane shelter, I called to try to take strays in and was told that they were full and that I would be put on a waiting list. I am still on the waiting list a month later.

-- Posted by viking44 on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 9:59 AM

Finally someone has some intestinal fortitude in town good job Councilman Jorgensen.

-- Posted by Combat VET on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 10:54 AM

in the little town we live in here in Oklahoma every cat or dog you own has to have their rabies shot done by a certified vet and you have to pay $2 per pet to register them with the town.It doesnt matter if they are fixed or not your pet has to be vaccinated and be registered and its the same price either way.

-- Posted by officers_wife on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 11:53 AM

once again its the city of brazil enforceing what they think is in their best intrests and step on tax payers.it would be a hardship on me as im disabled and unemployed.seems to me the administration are dog haters.

-- Posted by unclegrabby on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 12:11 PM

I would like to see a fee ( or tax ) on children too. as well as additional tax on vehicles, cigarettes, fast food and shoes.

When does it end. when are political people going to stop trying to make me conform to their standards. Leave me alone, and mind your own business. Buy the police a extra box of bullets and let them shoot the strays. problem solved. No stray animals, shelter not full. Cheaper than an "Animal Control Officer" Use your common sense people. Use your brain, not your heart.

I'm done.

-- Posted by Tom B on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 1:18 PM

Am I to understand, those of us who have our dogs and cats spayed and neutered, take them to the costly vet for medical attention and shots not to mention food to feed them. Also the folks who do care for their animals like the ones who obey the law usually have them living in our homes. Why not fine the ones who let their pets run wild, messing in yards of others, usualy they are not spayed or neutered. Let these folks pay $100. fine the first time and maybe this will stop them from letting them run. I object to paying any amount for my spayed and neutered animals that are in my home, vet cared for, fed good and bother no one. Way to go Mr. Jorgensen.

-- Posted by Tracy Jones on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 4:19 PM

$5.00 per year to have an updated tag and try to cut down on the strays and bring some control to this problem in our town. I am flabbergasted by all the wringing of hands. REALLY

-- Posted by SNG621 on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 6:50 PM

My name will be the first in for the record! I will not pay this. Someone wants some good ole boy friend of theirs to have a job so they have to create one! I think if this town had an I.Q. people would feel sorry for it and offer it government assistance! Glover and Deal have enough money to throw away. It must be nice to have so much money you don't care what happens to it, or maybe they do? Sorry folks but I just see this money going into someone's pocket.

-- Posted by trapperfrye on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 8:58 PM

How much will we have to pay for each squirrel in our yard?

-- Posted by bjkrider on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 10:38 PM

Ok , I am gonna have to also disagree agree with this train of thought. Why ? Punish all the people with pets... Cause not everyone let's them run through town everyday on their own.. some of the people out there I'm sure have taken in strays to keep them off of the streets... Punishing the ones who take care of the animals just don't seem right too me... I see a dog darn near everyday that comes walkin passed our house , the dogs hair is a mess, I'm not sure he can hear either, cause if you try to get his attention by yelling here boy... He don't even look up... Now that's someone who needs to be punished, the owner of that dog... The ones who put a roof over their pets head, feed them, water them, love them, play with them explain to me how we ought to pay a price when we already pay for the animal vet care, food, water, shots, roof over there heads, and then I mention Love and Playin , LOVE and PLAYING WITH YOUR ANIMALS OR ANIMAL IS PRICELESS.... Fine the ones who let their pets Run.... Not the ones who take care of their animals... I'm sure some of the people in Brazil at one time or another has taken in a stray cat or dog...just to get it off the streets before ,I know I have ..... Again why punish us all for the few people who don't care about their animals as much as they should... I will never agree with this, this is just PLAN WRONG.... I'M SORRY TO SAY... :-(

-- Posted by M.Marsh on Sat, Jul 14, 2012, at 5:35 AM

I would like to add that before I moved to Brazil I never lived anywhere where I didn't have to have my pets registered and had to pay a small fee of somekind to do that. I never felt like I was being "punished" by doing what every other person who had pets were required to do. Just always brought up to be a responsible pet owner as well as a responsible citizen.

-- Posted by SNG621 on Sat, Jul 14, 2012, at 1:16 PM

Its called GOVERNMENT CONTROL! They want total control over everthing!

-- Posted by driverdude on Sat, Jul 14, 2012, at 2:06 PM


-- Posted by brazil citizen on Sun, Jul 15, 2012, at 6:24 AM

last year,i caught two dogs that wondered over to my place,sheltered them,fed them and spent an incredible amount of time on the phone and internet trying to locate their owners,and when located and returned,not one offer to reimburse for food and care of.hasnt anyone noticed that every time there is a change in comand,this topic always comes up?i look at it like this,i pay property tax,and that is all.when government starts prying into home owners possessions like pets,theyre intruding on home owners right.as a home owner i do have the right to freedom of choice,and i choose to not pay the pet fee as it infringes on home owner right and their freedom to choose.

-- Posted by unclegrabby on Sun, Jul 15, 2012, at 12:11 PM

good luck with that unclegrabby!!! They will just tack it on to your property taxes, just like they would if you refused to mow your grass and they came and done it for you.

-- Posted by MS660 on Sun, Jul 15, 2012, at 6:10 PM

If you're a pet owner whose dog(s) aren't "fixed" - why should you shoulder the responsibility (again) for non-responsible pet owners??

My dogs do not crap in a neighbor's yard, nor are they loose to wander the neighborhood to create more and more unwanted puppies! Those petowners who ARE allowed to do this are the ones that should have the $50 annual fee to pay (per animal)!

Oh, and good luck getting any money out of them .. as is customary in Brazil - the responsible pet owners get punished, while the irresponsible pet owners get to continue being irresponsible.

While there's nothing wrong with a nominal fee to own a pet (which many pay to the Humane Shelter when they choose a pet), charging me $50/per dog isn't going to happen.

Not everyone pays property taxes, so good luck getting blood out of that turnip, fellas.

Thank you, Mr. Jorgensen for listening to the public outcry.

-- Posted by Emmes on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 12:05 PM

Hey! Its a free country and I've got all the licenses and permits to prove it!

My animals are my property. If I break the law (an ordinance is not the law, do some research) there is a victim then there is punishment (fines?) No victims, no breakage, no punishment.

Dear Brazil City: You take care of your (Our!) property, I'll take care of my own. Piss off! I won't pay. I do not consent and I waive the benefits. Private, fully fenced property here.

...and, no, you don't have to register your car. There are ways around it. Stupid sheople are just too brainwashed (or lazy) (or both) to take care of it. Property taxes are the same way.

Look up "allodial title" (for land) and "private title" for vehicles. I'm sure they'll be some naysayers but they're just government shills and brainwashed sheople that don't know the truth that I do.

This is just another ploy to expand government. You can call it control and invasion of privacy if you want, but, it boils down to one thing: your money into their pockets and expansion of the (color of law) rules (No! Not laws, just rules) that YOU think you have to obey. Wise up. Government will end up regulating EVERYTHING if you let them.

-- Posted by ClayPrepper on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 4:15 PM

well stated clayprepper,i have no tresspassing signs up on my property and i double dare the city to set foot on mine.im in faver of the ind law where a owner can use force to protect his.ive been known to let my hands do the talking.thats the bottom line.i will not pay squat.

-- Posted by unclegrabby on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 7:48 PM

What needs to happen is we all show up at the next meeting and simply state "We will not comply." this servile relationship most people have with government makes me want to puke. Our founders would throw most of us overboard with the tea!

-- Posted by ClayPrepper on Thu, Jul 19, 2012, at 1:27 AM

Well i blame all of you for the mess someone said up top change of power and this always happens well guess what all you that voted brought this on your selves and i personally laugh at you . I see where everyone said oh bring Brain in he is good and new well guess what he is was an car sales men and you how they are. Tell you the car is in good shape and then you buy it and drive it off the lot and not even 100 feet from lot it brakes down now guess what your stuck with it . So now Brazil is stuck with him for 4 years that will teach you people to bring someone in you do not know. OMMFAO.

-- Posted by oknow on Thu, Jul 19, 2012, at 11:21 PM

"Brazil Mayor Brian Wyndham said he understood Jorgensen's hesitance of making responsible pet owners pay the yearly fee, but that fees are a part of life, like paying a premium at stores because of shoplifters."

Really!? Fee's are a part of life? So that makes it okay to keep creating new ones? That is the most asinine statement ever Mr. Mayor!

-- Posted by MFurryasse on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 2:06 PM

Stray animals are not caused by responsible owners, they are caused by irresponsible people who may or may not even be citizens of the area and they are not problems to just those who own animals, as a matter of fact owning a dog generally restricts the number of stray dogs and cats in your yard, the animal problem is everybody's problem. So why a pet "user fee" instead of a tax or fee paid by every property owner, even if such a fee was added to the water bill for animal control as is done with trash service. Wouldn't animal control be a like service?

Second, far more people adopt strays off the street than ever go to the Humane Shelter, partly because of the high fees charged by that institution to meet its requirements for adoption and partly because no child has ever been followed home by an animal that has been in the clutches of the shelter and said "Look at what followed me home, can we keep it?"

Given that, what the disparity in the fees practically guarantees is that pets that are adopted will, most likely, NOT be reported and registered or that animals that are clearly capable of breeding will remain strays. While there is no such thing as a free puppy (or kitten), I just do not see people rushing down to City Hall to hand the mayor money for a dog tag, especially $50 every year for possibly 10 or more years!

Quite frankly, everyone in city government that advocates this ordinance as written or voted to pass this ordinance on the first reading because it basically penalizes those who follow the law and forces people who might otherwise adopt a male animal off the streets but cannot afford a $50 a year fee to do so to push the animal on down the road should be spayed or neutered but they probably have already fouled the gene pool with their dearth of intellect and good sense.

Lastly, I note that city government attempted, once again, to quell public input on this subject, as they have on so many, by moving and voting to pass an ordinance on the first reading. That all too often ploy to cut the public out of government should only be used when action must be taken before the next council meeting can be scheduled to save a relatively great amount of money or to actually save someone's life. Other than that, it is our representatives telling us that we only count on Election Day and the rest of the time they are not interested in our opinions and will do whatever they want!

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 8:10 AM

It appears as though Mr. Jorgensen is the only one that has the citizens in concern regarding this matter. An avid pet lover and owner, I would be willing to pay a ONE TIME fee of $5.00. Not an annual fee. I am responsible and had my dog altered.

It sounds like citizens need to be voicing their concerns to their local council person.

-- Posted by Unsolicitedtidbits on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM

Also, why doesn't The Brazil Times post contact information so that the citizens can make contact with their council representative. Make it easy and list their email contact information.


-- Posted by Unsolicitedtidbits on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 8:36 PM

forget a fee for those who have their pets spayed or neutered and are up on their shots and keep them in a fenced yard or owner's home. go after those who let their animals run, don't spay or neuter when you have more than one animal. make the city some money by going after those who choose not to care i.e. letting animals run loose and making babies, messing in yards, biting folks, etc. make the fee so stiff for them and it will make all the money the city needs and also will stop (I hope) the not caring forks by obeying the animal laws.

-- Posted by Tracy Jones on Sun, Jul 22, 2012, at 10:14 PM


Under the previous administration there was a Brazil website. I've tried going there lately, but it says it's "Under Construction". Let's hope this "construction" is completed faster than other construction promised.

-- Posted by My Dime on Tue, Jul 24, 2012, at 1:05 PM

I agree, I hope they make it easily accessible for citizens to contact their representation. That should be a priority for the council. We are who they represent. Thanks again Dustin for waiting and tabling the ordinance, instead of passing it on the first reading. That makes no sense to me... pass it without citizens input?

Oh well, I agree with most of it anyway... except a yearly fee!!

-- Posted by Unsolicitedtidbits on Wed, Jul 25, 2012, at 10:17 PM

Tyler Hutcheson

Brazil City Councilman At-Large



Contact me any time and feel free to share my contact information with others.

-- Posted by TylerWHutcheson on Thu, Jul 26, 2012, at 11:18 AM

Great to see Tyler share his contact information! Excellent councilman!!

-- Posted by Unsolicitedtidbits on Fri, Jul 27, 2012, at 8:40 PM

If the City Counsel Members would give up their free insurance that is paid for by the city, maybe there wouldn't need to be a fee for having a pet in your house.

-- Posted by CAB (Concerns About Brazil) on Sat, Jul 28, 2012, at 9:58 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: