Agenda - 10-01-2013 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

13 Unified Animal Control Ordinance: Attachment 2 An Inventory of Proposed Changes Purpose On June 4, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners ( "Board ") requested that staff bring back to them a summary of the basic changes proposed in the Unified Animal Control Ordinance ( "Ordinance" or "Unified Ordinance ") and to review and provide feedback about concerns expressed by residents about changes to the Orange County Ordinance ( "County Ordinance "). II. Introduction The final form of Unified Animal Control Ordinance reflects the working group's goal to unify the Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro existing Animal Control Ordinances into one unified ordinance; to update the Ordinance to reflect both legal and departmental changes occurring since the adoption of the Ordinance; and to fill critical gaps in the County Ordinance. 1. Unification: Unifying three entirely different ordinances into a single coherent ordinance is complex. Each section of the ordinance is the result of a careful comparison of the pertinent section of the three existing ordinances. This means that elements from town ordinances absent in the current County Ordinance may have been incorporated into the proposed Unified Ordinance. Sections of the town Ordinances may also have been incorporated in the existing Ordinance because they utilized best practices or because they provided clarifying language in the Ordinance. A good example is differentiation between public nuisances caused by dogs and cats, which was in the Carrboro Animal Control Ordinance but not in the County Ordinance (See Carrboro Animal Control Ordinance Chapter 10 §10- 12(e)). 2. Necessary updates: On November 3, 2004, the Board voted to create a separate Animal Services Department, effective in the first quarter of 2005. At the time the Board voted to create Animal Services, the timeline included incorporating changes into the County Ordinance to provide for the new department no later than February 2005; however, changes were not incorporated. As a result, an unavoidable need exists to update the County Ordinance to reflect not only the consolidation of animal control and animal sheltering functions in Animal Services but also to change names and titles to match current organizational realities. 3. Critical Gaps: Gaps in the County Ordinance have become apparent and sometimes painfully so in the nearly ten years Animal Services has been responsible for its application and enforcement. Striking is the absence of an appeal process, whether for a dog declared dangerous or a citation issued for any infraction under the ordinance. Other deficiencies include allowing a provision for the humane euthanasia of animal that is suffering, the absence of authority to seize and impound dangerous dogs not lawfully kept and the authority to require microchipping of dogs declared vicious or dangerous to ensure future positive identification of those animals. Closing such "gaps" as part of the process of creating a unified ordinance seems to be prudent in light of concerns regarding repeated incidents over the years. Staff is keenly aware of the need to have suitable authority to protect both the public and animals and to enforce those protections in a manner completely consistent with the principles embodied in the "rule of law." III. Recommended Significant Changes