Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-05-2013 - 5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2013
>
Agenda - 09-05-2013 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 09-05-2013 - 5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2015 2:52:50 PM
Creation date
8/30/2013 10:54:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/5/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5a
Document Relationships
Minutes 09-05-2013
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
18 <br /> 1 Annette Moore said the court system was confused about which ordinances would apply to a case. <br /> 2 The issue was confusing for Animal Services itself, since there are three ordinances in effect in Orange <br /> 3 County. She said the advisory board used Orange County's ordinance as a base and merged the three <br /> 4 ordinances into one; but there were still missing pieces. She referenced examples, such as no set appeal <br /> 5 process and no humane euthanasia plan for suffering animals. She reviewed information from the <br /> 6 ordinance and the abstract below: <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Background: Beginning July 1, 2013, Orange County Animal Services will be providing Animal Control <br /> 9 Services to all parts Orange County except for the portion of Orange County within Mebane. Despite the <br /> 10 increasing integration of animal services through Orange County Animal Services, there are three different <br /> 11 animal ordinances in force (all available onlinhttp://orangecountync.gov/AnimalServices/info.asp). <br /> 12 Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro all have their own ordinances, while Hillsborough has adopted <br /> 13 the County's ordinance. The differences in the local Ordinances have proven to be complicated and <br /> 14 confusing, not only for staff charged with responsibility for regulatory functions and the Court system, but <br /> 15 perhaps most importantly for the residents of Orange County. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Because animal services within the County have become more unified and integrated than they <br /> 18 have been in the past, for the past year County staff has been working on a proposed Unified <br /> 19 Animal Control Ordinance with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 In this context, County staff initiated the effort to create a unified animal ordinance by convening a work <br /> 22 group of staff from the involved jurisdictions. Staff from Chapel Hill and Carrboro have been integral to the <br /> 23 process responsible for the proposed ordinance, and upon County adoption of the ordinance, the towns' <br /> 24 staffs will present the ordinance for consideration by their respective governing boards. <br /> 25 More specifically, the work group has consisted of the staff attorney for the Chapel Hill Police <br /> 26 Department with animal control responsibilities, the Carrboro Police Chief and a Carrboro Police <br /> 27 Captain, the staff attorney for County Animal Services, and the County's Animal Services <br /> 28 Director and Animal Control Manager. Hillsborough staff elected not to participate in the work <br /> 29 group but are fully aware of this project. Most recently, the Town Manager and Police Chief <br /> 30 received a copy of the draft unified ordinance and an invitation to offer comment. <br /> 31 The objectives of the work group were to: <br /> 32 <br /> 33 <br /> 34 1. Create a unified ordinance. The group's work practice has essentially been to compare the same or <br /> 35 similar sections of the three existing ordinances and decide which made the most sense in light of <br /> 36 experience providing effective animal services in the different jurisdictions. The County's current Animal <br /> 37 Control Ordinance remains the backbone for the proposed unified ordinance. In addition, the comparative <br /> 38 methodology assured a finished product that was complete, strong and worthy of designation as a unified <br /> 39 ordinance for the County. <br /> 40 2. Fill in necessary "gaps" in the Ordinance to create the needed authority to assure the public health and <br /> 41 safety and welfare of animals within Orange County. One illustration of such authority would be to have an <br /> 42 animal euthanized for humane reasons in exigent circumstances. Another illustration would be the authority <br /> 43 to hold a vicious animal that has repeatedly bitten or attacked members of the public. While there may well <br /> 44 be a need for new laws under the animal control ordinance, staff did not make any effort to create new laws <br /> 45 but deferred such efforts until it could occur under a unified ordinance. Throughout the process requests to <br /> 46 create new law were resisted to ensure there was no "scope creep". Staff attempted to propose changes to <br /> 47 the existing Ordinances that would not be controversial, refined existing services being provided, and <br /> 48 assured the public health and the safety of animals. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 During the initial process, the existence of"gaps" in the existing ordinances become apparent in <br /> 51 trying to address and resolve the concerns of residents in different parts of Orange County. <br /> 52 Staff has tried to work around the gaps in the Ordinance in close collaboration with staff attorneys from the <br /> 53 County and municipalities to respond to animal control issues and to protect public safety and the welfare of <br /> 54 the animals. In addition to Staff review of the Ordinance changes, the Animal Services Advisory Board <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.