Discussion ensues regarding proposed animal ordinance

Voices were raised and the police were asked to get involved regarding a proposed Medaryville animal control ordinance. 
During the March 16 regular meeting, an ordinance prohibiting livestock in the Medaryville town limits was introduced. Several were in attendance to voice their opinions of the proposed ordinance. 
The ordinance would prohibit livestock including rabbits, pigs, goats and poultry from being raised and housed in the town limits. It includes a grace period of 30 days to allow for residents to remove the animals they may have on their property. There is also a fine of $100 per day for each violation. 
Before the ordinance was read, councilwoman Suzanna Wilcoxon said she has a problem with the proposed ordinance. “This is a town where a lot of the people who live here are poverty level. Some of the people who live here have rabbits and flocks of hens for eggs, food. To deprive them of that would not be in their best interest.” 
Councilman Raymond Saltsman Sr. said the council has no control of whether someone has a horse outside of the town limits. He believes that 90 percent of the residents would not want chickens as their neighbors. 
A resident questioned what right the council has to take food out of his mouth and his families’. The resident said he pays his taxes and there are a lot bigger problems in the town than animals, such as needles at the town park and flooding in the streets, that are not draining properly.
“You need to move out of town and start your farm out there, not in there,” Schultz said.
Schultz said the resident was out of line and asked town marshal Brian Gaillard to get the man “back in line.” 
It was argued that the council was doing as they please. Saltsman Sr. said the council was doing what the residents want. He used the example of one of the properties where there was a chicken ranch that was a mess. 
Schultz read the ordinance and then asked for a motion to approve the first reading. A motion was made by Saltsman Sr. Wilcoxon said she would not second the motion because she does “not agree with this at all.” Schultz seconded the motion. The first reading was approved with opposition from Wilcoxon. 
The ordinance will be read two more times before it is passed.