Agenda - 11-13-2018 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

11 Commissioner Price asked if the written language can remain simple and easy to read, 1 avoiding legalease. 2 Commissioner Price asked if the costs of an assessment of the certification council are 3 known. 4 Bob Marotto said probably $100-250. 5 Commissioner Price said that is a sizeable burden. 6 Bob Marotto said yes, it could be, but they are considering removing the restrictions 7 imposed on the animal to protect the public. He said there have been children mauled by family 8 dogs, which are serious offenses, and staff is reluctant to remove restrictions absent of 9 thorough professional assessment of the animal. 10 Commissioner Price said she agrees with the assessment being done, but is concerned 11 about the costs for low-income residents. 12 Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if he was agreeable to 438-C. 13 Commissioner Jacobs said yes. 14 Commissioner Burroughs said she was glad to keep the review period at 18 months, 15 especially as this recommendation came from the Hearing Panel Pool and Animal Services 16 staff. 17 Bob Marotto said the Hearing Panel Pool felt strongly that there should be some 18 mechanism to revisit the issue and not have a lifelong sentence imposed on an animal, based 19 on one incident. He said other counties’ practices were reviewed and the 18- month period is 20 the recommendation by all involved. 21 Commissioner Burroughs supports the 18-month period. 22 Commissioner Price referred to the exceptions and the instance of a dog defending an 23 animal or a person at the time of injury. She asked if there is a process to determine when an 24 animal is acting out of defense rather than aggression. 25 Bob Marotto said Animal Services staff would make this determination based on 26 evidence gathered during the investigation. 27 Commissioner Price clarified that the determination is not simply based on the testimony 28 of the owner. 29 Bob Marotto said no, there would be a review of the totality of the circumstances and all 30 available evidence. He said an example would be if a dog was attacking him, and his own dog 31 interceded to defend him. 32 Anne Marie Tosco said that is existing ordinance language, which she moved around to 33 avoid some previously caused confusion. 34 Commissioner Rich thanked staff for revisiting this, and the additional information was 35 helpful. 36 Commissioner Rich referred to Section 4-42 on page 7, and the four reasons listed as to 37 why a dog could be considered dangerous. She said this same language is also on the 38 application for review under Section 2. She said reason number 4 states that an animal can be 39 deemed “potentially dangerous or dangerous in accordance with the NC General Statute, 40 Chapter 67, Article 1-a: dangerous dogs,” and asked if it is known who is making such as 41 determination for the State. 42 Bob Marotto said the Animal Services Director and staff. 43 Commissioner Rich asked if, when the 18-month period passes and a dog is no longer 44 deemed dangerous, does staff also inform the State of this change. 45 John Roberts said the 18-month period applies to declarations under the County’s 46 Animal Control Ordinance (items 1, 2 and 3), and if an animal is declared dangerous pursuant 47 to State Statute, the 18 months does not apply. 48 Commissioner Rich clarified that the dog would remain dangerous in the State, but not 49 in the County. 50