Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-04-2014 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 09-04-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 09-04-2014 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2016 10:18:05 AM
Creation date
9/2/2014 11:37:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/4/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6-a
Document Relationships
Minutes 09-04-2014
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
256
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
9 <br /> 1 Chair Jacobs said he wanted to follow up on Commissioner Dorosin's recommendation <br /> 2 by suggesting that appeals could go from the ASAB to the Manager, who would make a <br /> 3 recommendation on whether the case should go before the Board of County Commissioners as <br /> 4 a last resort. <br /> 5 Commissioner Dorosin said his suggestion was regarding the appeals for citations. He <br /> 6 said the vicious dog citation is the one that goes through a quasi-judicial hearing. <br /> 7 Michelle Walker pointed out that the state statute does require the County authority for <br /> 8 animal control to designate a person or a board to be responsible for determining when a dog is <br /> 9 potentially dangerous, and to designate a separate board to hear any appeal. <br /> 10 Commissioner McKee referred to the top of page 9, which states that there were no <br /> 11 strong concerns about the process being quasi-judicial. He said he had no strong concerns, <br /> 12 but he did voice the opinion that it should be a different board. He questions the perception of <br /> 13 this. He said the appeal of a vicious dog can be very highly charged. He still feels that appeals <br /> 14 for a vicious dog declaration should be heard by a different board, separated from the ASAB, <br /> 15 who issued the declaration. He said this would be a better public relations move. <br /> 16 Chair Jacobs questioned who would board would be. <br /> 17 Susan Elmore said currently it is three members of the ASAB. She said there was <br /> 18 previous discussion of not having Animal Services staff involved except in more of an <br /> 19 administrative role. She said they would not be involved in the hearing. She said the hearing <br /> 20 would remain as it is now, with the 3 members of the subcommittee of the ASAB. She said it <br /> 21 can be a very charged process, but so far the process has worked well in reference to vicious <br /> 22 dog declarations. She said there have been times when the declaration has been overturned, <br /> 23 and the process is very fair. <br /> 24 Bob Marotto said it is very important that staff is removed from the process, with the <br /> 25 exception of administration. He said he feels the issue is to have a fair, impartial process. He <br /> 26 said there does need to be work and training on the procedure for the ASAB. <br /> 27 Commissioner McKee said he does not question the fairness. His only concern is that <br /> 28 the greater amount of separation the ASAB can have from the appeals process, the better the <br /> 29 public perception will be. <br /> 30 He said for him, a vicious declaration sounds more dangerous that a dangerous dog <br /> 31 declaration. He wonders if there is a way to indicate in the wording that this is one level below <br /> 32 the state definition. <br /> 33 Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the clarification of the appeals process. She said <br /> 34 she would like to know how many citations are served per year, as this information is important <br /> 35 in considering the workload and the appeals process for discussions in the future. <br /> 36 Commissioner Price asked about the timing and process for an appeal. She asked if <br /> 37 the dog would be impounded. <br /> 38 Bob Marotto said if a dog bites someone and the dog is declared a potentially <br /> 39 dangerous dog, this declaration would be made as soon as possible in order to place <br /> 40 restrictions on the dog. He said if there is a second bite from the same dog in violation of the <br /> 41 restrictions on keeping that dog, the standard practice is to initially impound the dog and <br /> 42 negotiate a written agreement with the owner. He said the agreement would stipulate the <br /> 43 conditions under which the dog will be kept, as well as a stipulation that if these conditions are <br /> 44 not met the dog will be surrendered to animal services. He said there are many variations that <br /> 45 can happen in reality, but this is the process. <br /> 46 Commissioner Price asked if there is a statute of limitations as to when you appeal. <br /> 47 Bob Marotto said under the state statute there is a 10 day time period for the appeal, <br /> 48 from the time of notice. He said the ordinance had suggested 10 days, but this was going to be <br /> 49 designated "working days" to allow more time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.