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

Browse Search

7 1 or not there would be discretion. She said this language could be added to other areas of the 2 ordinance to make the discretion broader. 3 Commissioner Dorosin said even with discretion, this only relates to the animal control 4 ordinance; but if livestock gets out and destroys a neighbor's yard, the owner can still sue. 5 Commissioner Rich asked if this discretion applies to chickens as well. She noted that a 6 lot of people have chickens now and things can come and wreck the chicken wire. 7 Bob Marotto said they need to have discretion to make good enforcement judgments in 8 all areas. 9 10 Michelle Walker said the next issue is the appeals process. The recommendation is 11 outlined in the abstract as follows: 12 13 APPEAL PROCESS: SCOPE AND FORM (PART I) 14 Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-42. -Control of vicious animals; security 15 dogs; Sec.4-45. - Public nuisance; Sec. 4-54. —Appeals; Sec. 4-71. —Class I kennels. 16 1. Limit the process of administrative appeal in the proposed ordinance to two issues: (1) 17 potentially dangerous dog declarations under state law (such appeals are currently conducted 18 by a committee of the ASAB) and (2) vicious animal declarations. Identify any alternative 19 appeal mechanism for administrative actions that would be taken under the proposed 20 ordinance, i.e., an order to remove a nuisance animal or the revocation of a kennel permit.) 21 2. Define the judicial processes available for the appeal of civil citations for code violations and 22 certain administrative actions in a manner that is readily available to residents. 23 3. Consider in due time whether there is a need for a more general administrative appeal 24 process to be included in the unified animal ordinance. 25 26 27 APPEAL PROCESS: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES (PART II) 28 Affected section of the proposed ordinance: None 29 1. Animal Services staff and the County Attorney should develop procedural guidelines for any 30 administrative appeal processes conducted under the proposed ordinance. 31 2. The procedural guidelines should include delineation of: 32 a. The role of Animal Services staff 33 b. The general structure of hearings 34 c. The swearing in process for witnesses 35 d. A process of indirect cross-examination 36 3. There should be appropriate training for ASAB members and/or others who are members of 37 a body responsible for administrative appeals 38 4. Review of the procedural guidelines and proposed training should be requested from School 39 of Government staff 40 41 Michelle Walker said state statute requires that an appeal be available for any person 42 whose dog has been declared potentially dangerous. She said the County's current ordinance 43 also provides a provision for an animal to be declared vicious. She said in order to be declared 44 dangerous under the state statute a dog on its owner's property has to break bones and inflict 45 incredibly severe injury. She said the County ordinance is intended to provide for an additional 46 designation as a vicious animal for an animal on the owner's property that does bite but does 47 not rise to that severe level. She said this provides for a bit more enforcement ability. She said 48 the impact of this declaration allows for designated fencing and muzzling requirements. 49 Michelle Walker said one hole that the proposed ordinance is trying to fix is having an 50 appeal process for the vicious animal, and they wanted to make it clear what the options were