Agenda - 12-15-2015 - 7a - Unified Animal Control Ordinance

Browse Search

101 Commissioner Price asked how the ordinance defines the difference between a potentially dangerous versus a vicious animal. Bob Marotto said a vicious animal is determined by a bite, regardless of the severity of the bite. He said that is not how potentially dangerous is determined under state statute. Commissioner Price asked for the definition of a non-severe bite. Bob Marotto said the language of the statute is very specific. He said if a bite does not meet the specific criteria that it resulted in broken bones, disfiguring lacerations, or required hospitalization or cosmetic surgery there are no grounds to declare the dog a potentially dangerous dog under state statute. He said this is why the designation of vicious is important. He said there are going to be many bites that occur that are less severe from a legal definition, and these bites would have no coverage without that ordinance. . Chair Jacobs said he wanted to follow up on Commissioner Dorosin's recommendation by suggesting that appeals could go from the ASAB to the Manager, who would make a recommendation on whether the case should go before the Board of County Commissioners as a last resort. Commissioner Dorosin said his suggestion was regarding the appeals for citations. He said the vicious dog citation is the one that goes through a quasi-judicial hearing. Michelle Walker pointed out that the state statute does require the County authority for animal control to designate a person or a board to be responsible for determining when a dog is potentially dangerous, and to designate a separate board to hear any appeal. Commissioner McKee referred to the top of page 9, which states that there were no strong concerns about the process being quasi-judicial. He said he had no strong concerns, but he did voice the opinion that it should be a different board. He questions the perception of this. He said the appeal of a vicious dog can be very highly charged. He still feels that appeals for a vicious dog declaration should be heard by a different board, separated from the ASAB, who issued the declaration. He said this would be a better public relations move. Chair Jacobs questioned who would board would be. Susan Elmore said currently it is three members of the ASAB. She said there was previous discussion of not having Animal Services staff involved except in more of an administrative role. She said they would not be involved in the hearing. She said the hearing would remain as it is now, with the 3 members of the subcommittee of the ASAB. She said it can be a very charged process, but so far the process has worked well in reference to vicious dog declarations. She said there have been times when the declaration has been overturned, and the process is very fair. Bob Marotto said it is very important that staff is removed from the process, with the exception of administration. He said he feels the issue is to have a fair, impartial process. He said there does need to be work and training on the procedure for the ASAB. Commissioner McKee said he does not question the fairness. His only concern is that the greater amount of separation the ASAB can have from the appeals process, the better the public perception will be. He said for him, a vicious declaration sounds more dangerous that a dangerous dog declaration. He wonders if there is a way to indicate in the wording that this is one level below the state definition. Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the clarification of the appeals process. She said she would like to know how many citations are served per year, as this information is important in considering the workload and the appeals process for discussions in the future. Commissioner Price asked about the timing and process for an appeal. She asked if the dog would be impounded. Bob Marotto said if a dog bites someone and the dog is declared a potentially dangerous dog, this declaration would be made as soon as possible in order to place