Changes and Concerns Regarding Proposed Ordinance

Browse Search

1 WORKING DOCUMENT Unified Animal Control Ordinance: An Inventory of Proposed Changes August 14, 2013 Generally speaking, the staff involved in preparing the proposed unified animal control ordinance sought to defer efforts to create new laws. Their unanimous sentiment was that bona fide amendments should be subsequently considered on the basis of the new unified ordinance. Thus we actively resisted the adoption of new law to ensure there was no “scope creep.” At the same time, staff did elect to propose some changes because of their belief that it made good sense to do so at this time. One reason for this is that there are clearly manifest deficiencies in the current county ordinance. It had not been updated since Animal Services was created as a freestanding county department. Indeed, it had not been considered as a whole for more than [20] years since its adoption in the late [1980s]. Another reason was that staff had become keenly aware of a number of “gaps” in the existing ordinances. They were aware of various omissions as a result of their ongoing effort to address and resolve the concerns of residents. In the absence of duly constituted public authority, they had needed to collaborate with staff attorneys from the county and municipalities to create practical “work- arounds” to effectively protect the public and assure that animals are protected. The basic changes proposed in the unified animal control ordinance are summarized in the following section. As requested by the BOCC at its meeting on May [6], staff has identified concerns that have been raised and provided the rationale for the changes giving rise to these concerns. These concerns are discussed in the next section. Basic Changes In this section, some essential changes are identified and summarized. As they have not been addressed as concerns per se, the rationale for these changes is only briefly summarized. They are as follows: 1. Recognizing and reflecting the changes associated with the creation of Animal Services as a free standing county department in 2005. Changes of this kind include reference to the Animal Services Director (as opposed to the Animal Control Manager) and the very existence of Animal Services as a county entity. 2. Establishing more general due process rights in the form of hearings conducted by the Animal Services Advisory Board. The existing county ordinance provides no appeal mechanism for