Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
the town manager, the police chief of Hillsborough and the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB). He <br /> said staff met with the ASAB three times this year in developing the ordinance being presented tonight. <br /> Annette Moore said the court system was confused about which ordinances would apply to a case. <br /> The issue was confusing for Animal Services itself, since there are three ordinances in effect in Orange <br /> County. She said the advisory board used Orange County's ordinance as a base and merged the three <br /> ordinances into one; but there were still missing pieces. She referenced examples, such as no set appeal <br /> process and no humane euthanasia plan for suffering animals. She reviewed information from the <br /> ordinance and the abstract below: <br /> Background: Beginning July 1, 2013, Orange County Animal Services will be providing Animal Control <br /> Services to all parts Orange County except for the portion of Orange County within Mebane. Despite the <br /> increasing integration of animal services through Orange County Animal Services, there are three different <br /> animal ordinances in force (all available onIinhttp://orangecountync.gov/AnimalServices/info.asp). <br /> Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro all have their own ordinances, while Hillsborough has adopted <br /> the County's ordinance. The differences in the local Ordinances have proven to be complicated and <br /> confusing, not only for staff charged with responsibility for regulatory functions and the Court system, but <br /> perhaps most importantly for the residents of Orange County. <br /> Because animal services within the County have become more unified and integrated than they <br /> have been in the past, for the past year County staff has been working on a proposed Unified <br /> Animal Control Ordinance with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <br /> In this context, County staff initiated the effort to create a unified animal ordinance by convening a work <br /> group of staff from the involved jurisdictions. Staff from Chapel Hill and Carrboro have been integral to the <br /> process responsible for the proposed ordinance, and upon County adoption of the ordinance, the towns' <br /> staffs will present the ordinance for consideration by their respective governing boards. <br /> More specifically, the work group has consisted of the staff attorney for the Chapel Hill Police <br /> Department with animal control responsibilities, the Carrboro Police Chief and a Carrboro Police <br /> Captain, the staff attorney for County Animal Services, and the County's Animal Services <br /> Director and Animal Control Manager. Hillsborough staff elected not to participate in the work <br /> group but are fully aware of this project. Most recently, the Town Manager and Police Chief <br /> received a copy of the draft unified ordinance and an invitation to offer comment. <br /> The objectives of the work group were to: <br /> 1. Create a unified ordinance. The group's work practice has essentially been to compare the same or <br /> similar sections of the three existing ordinances and decide which made the most sense in light of <br /> experience providing effective animal services in the different jurisdictions. The County's current Animal <br /> Control Ordinance remains the backbone for the proposed unified ordinance. In addition, the comparative <br /> methodology assured a finished product that was complete, strong and worthy of designation as a unified <br /> ordinance for the County. <br /> 2. Fill in necessary "gaps" in the Ordinance to create the needed authority to assure the public health and <br /> safety and welfare of animals within Orange County. One illustration of such authority would be to have an <br /> animal euthanized for humane reasons in exigent circumstances. Another illustration would be the <br /> authority to hold a vicious animal that has repeatedly bitten or attacked members of the public. While there <br /> may well be a need for new laws under the animal control ordinance, staff did not make any effort to <br /> create new laws but deferred such efforts until it could occur under a unified ordinance. Throughout the <br /> process requests to create new law were resisted to ensure there was no "scope creep". Staff attempted <br /> to propose changes to the existing Ordinances that would not be controversial, refined existing services <br /> being provided, and assured the public health and the safety of animals. <br /> During the initial process, the existence of"gaps" in the existing ordinances become apparent in <br /> trying to address and resolve the concerns of residents in different parts of Orange County. <br />