Minutes 04-08-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner porosin said this discretion applies only to domestic livestock; he asked about a scenario where a storm hits, and a tree takes out fence, and a dog gets out and is at large. He asked if there is any discretion for that situation. Bob Marotto said there can be discretion in all circumstances, but there were multiple strong reasons why this needed to be specifically articulated for livestock. Annette Moore said when you see the designation of discretion in one place and not in another it would typically say to you that the director does not have discretion there. She said this was originally why that language was there, but there were a lot of questions about whether or not there would be discretion. She said this language could be added to other areas of the ordinance to make the discretion broader. Commissioner porosin said even with discretion, this only relates to the animal control ordinance; but if livestock gets out and destroys a neighbor's yard, the owner can still sue. Commissioner Rich asked if this discretion applies to chickens as well. She noted that a lot of people have chickens now and things can come and wreck the chicken wire. Bob Marotto said they need to have discretion to make good enforcement judgments in all areas. Michelle Walker said the next issue is the appeals process. The recommendation is outlined in the abstract as follows: APPEAL PROCESS: SCOPE AND FORM (PART I) Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-42. -Control of vicious animals; security dogs; Sec.4-45. - Public nuisance; Sec. 4-54. —Appeals; Sec. 4-71. —Class I kennels. 1. Limit the process of administrative appeal in the proposed ordinance to two issues: (1) potentially dangerous dog declarations under state law (such appeals are currently conducted by a committee of the ASAB) and (2) vicious animal declarations. Identify any alternative appeal mechanism for administrative actions that would be taken under the proposed ordinance, i.e., an order to remove a nuisance animal or the revocation of a kennel permit.) 2. Define the judicial processes available for the appeal of civil citations for code violations and certain administrative actions in a manner that is readily available to residents. 3. Consider in due time whether there is a need for a more general administrative appeal process to be included in the unified animal ordinance. APPEAL PROCESS: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES (PART II) Affected section of the proposed ordinance: None 1. Animal Services staff and the County Attorney should develop procedural guidelines for any administrative appeal processes conducted under the proposed ordinance. 2. The procedural guidelines should include delineation of: a. The role of Animal Services staff b. The general structure of hearings c. The swearing in process for witnesses d. A process of indirect cross-examination 3. There should be appropriate training for ASAB members and/or others who are members of a body responsible for administrative appeals 4. Review of the procedural guidelines and proposed training should be requested from School of Government staff