Agenda - 09-04-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 1 Chair Jacobs noted the time allotted for this item and asked for more concise 2 commentary. He noted that this item would be coming back to the Board, and he asked if the 3 Commissioners responses were being noted. He clarified that there is no vote being taken 4 tonight. 5 Michelle Walker said the ASAB would like to have recommendations tonight so that the 6 attorneys can draft language to move forward. 7 Chair Jacobs said the Board is not voting tonight on whether they agree with one 8 another on these issues. He said the requested information on the amount of citations could 9 potentially have some influence on decisions regarding this process, based on staffing and 10 time. 11 Commissioner Price asked whether the person who was attacked would have to go to 12 civil court if an owner successfully appealed a dangerous dog declaration down to a vicious dog 13 declaration. 14 Annette Moore said this is a separate process, and that person always has the 15 opportunity to go through a civil proceeding. She said appeal is just for the declaration that 16 limits the dog. 17 Commissioner Gordon said she would support the idea of staff being separated from the 18 appeal process. She does not think it is advisable for the Board of County Commissioners to 19 be the appeals board. She said the Board of County Commissioners is a political board and 20 this is a technical appeal. 21 Chair Jacobs clarified that Commissioner Gordon is agreeing with Commissioner McKee 22 that this should be a separate body for this appeals process. 23 Commissioner Gordon said it has to be an independent body, and she is just saying it 24 should not be the Commissioners. 25 Annette Moore said generally in administrative law, the body that hears an appeal has 26 some technical knowledge about the issue. She said this is why this was placed with the ASAB 27 sub-committee, as this group has the understanding of animals that is critical to understanding 28 what happened. 29 30 Michelle Walker combined the next two issues, which involve exceptions to the 31 declarations when a dog bites in its owner's property. These are outlined in the abstract as 32 follows: 33 34 TRESPASS 35 Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-42. - Control of vicious animals; security 36 dogs. 37 1. Develop ordinance language that defines willful trespass more explicitly according to whether 38 there is 39 a. Apparent consent to enter onto the property in the absence of overt or express 40 permission to do so, i.e., the absence of express consent. 41 b. Gross negligence on the part of the bite victim. 42 43 2. Consider further whether there can be ordinance language that discriminates between 44 children and others for the purposes of determining whether a willful trespass has occurred and 45 if so develop such language for Board discussion 46 3. Develop language for a two-step process for "non-severe bites" on the property of the dog 47 owner under the Unified Ordinance's vicious animal provisions 48 a. A citation for a first bite that serves to notify the owner of his or her dog's propensity 49 without declaring the dog vicious in a manner that imposes conditions and restrictions.