Agenda - 10-16-2018 8-h - Unified Animal Control Ordinance Amendments

Browse Search

3 f. A new section (6) has been added to 4-42(e), excepting "a dog that is defending a person or other animal at the time the injury to or death of a pet or livestock is sustained" from the definition of "dangerous animal." The language regarding "defending a person" was moved to the Exceptions section from the definitions in 4-42(b). The language regarding defending another animal is recommended by the Animal Services Advisory Board and Animal Services staff. g. A new section 4-42(k) has been added, allowing for the Animal Services Director to review dangerous animal declarations annually upon application of the owner, and revoke the declaration should the owner meet certain criteria for revocation, including by providing a professional, third party assessment of the animal. The Animal Services Director would be required to issue written findings when revoking or refusing to revoke the declaration, based on the criteria outlined in section 4- 42(k). There is strong support for this amendment given the experience of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool with appeals of dangerous animal declarations, as the incidents on which these are based vary greatly in intensity and harm. At this time, no fees are being proposed for review of a dangerous animal declaration, taking into account the cost of obtaining the required assessment for review and any costs incurred as a result of the declaration in order to comply with the confinement requirements of the Ordinance. Animal Services will monitor administrative costs and staff time incurred as a result of these reviews for one year following the effective date of this amendment, in order to determine whether a fee for review is recommended to account for staff time, materials, etc. related to review of declarations. 3. Animal Control Officers raised concerns about their authority under the Ordinance to impound animals subject to cruel treatment, as Section 4-41(k), Mistreatment of animals, could be read as allowing for only the impoundment of animals subject to tethering. The language, "[an animal] that is in imminent danger," has been added to the general impoundment authority and process in Section 4-43 in order to clarify this authority. As described in new paragraph 4-38(c) and as required by law, such animals would only be impounded pursuant to consent, a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement. 4. Section 4-51(c)(5) was intended to provide an appeal for citations ordering a public nuisance animal to be removed from the County, as opposed to citations for any public nuisance violation. An 'T' has been added to correct this error, so that the language reads "An Owner or Keeper shall have a right to appeal a citation for removal," rather than "...a citation or removal." Other citations pursuant to the public nuisance sections of the Ordinance are appealable to the Finance Director through the debt setoff process. 5. Section 4-53, Appeals, was intended to provide the process for appeals granted expressly by other sections of the Ordinance. However, the language of this section could previously be read as providing an appeal for every violation of the Ordinance. This language has been amended to identify what appeals are granted by the Ordinance: dangerous animal declarations, citations ordering the removal of nuisance animals, and denials or revocations of kennel or pet shops permits. A new appeal is included for citations issued for mistreatment, where the animal has been impounded and the Animal