Changes and Concerns Regarding Proposed Ordinance

Browse Search

WORKING DOCUMENT 3 Concerns About Changes In this section, Animal Services staff has identified and addressed the comments presented by the public regarding the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance at the May [6], 2013 BOCC meeting. There were seven speakers from the public, as well as two members of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) that spoke. Each heading below has a specific format. It is for the concern to first be identified and then for the rationale for change prompting the concern to be discussed. We believe that this format meets the BOCC request for staff to identify and review the concerns raised at the meeting and their merits. 1. School of Government Involvement: Professor Aimee Wahl, J.D., of UNC’s School of Government was approached by several individuals, who had asked the ASAB to have Ms. Wahl speak to them and staff before going forward with the proposed ordinance. The ASAB Chair and Vice-Chair, as well as the Animal Services Director, previously considered this request and decided that there was not a good reason to invite Dr. Wahl to interact with the ASAB over the process of ordinance unification. They did so without prejudging whether Ms. Wahl’s services would be sought in regard to future ordinance amendment efforts. Since that time, ASAB Chair Susan Elmore, DVM, has spoken with Professor Wahl and has reviewed staff’s methods and the reasoning for the unified ordinance. It is the understanding of staff that given this information, Ms. Wahl has indicated she believes the approach taken has been very reasonable and that it makes good sense. She does continue to be available should staff find there to be a need for her services in the future. 2. Vicious Animals vs. Dangerous Animals: Two individuals expressed concern about the dual designation of dogs as vicious (under county ordinances) and as dangerous (under state law). There was concern over the need for both declarations and over the fact that only the state designation had a process for appeal. In addition, in the proposed ordinance, a dog is automatically declared vicious by the county when it has been declared potentially dangerous by the state, but it was not clear whether the process to overturn these declarations is equally parallel. The proposed unified ordinance already addresses the need for an appeal process to the vicious dog declaration and has written in a process by which an appeal can be granted and issued. This absence of a guaranteed formal appeal process in the county’s existing animal control ordinance is legally untenable and must be remedied. Staff is of the opinion that there is a distinct need for both regulations for several reasons. One is that the state designation alone does not give the county necessary authority by which to regulate (and as