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

Browse Search

7 The Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) adopted the Unified Animal Control Ordinance 1 at its January 26, 2016 meeting. In nearly three years administering and enforcing the 2 Ordinance, Animal Services staff, members of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool, and the 3 Animal Services Advisory Board have identified provisions to recommend be clarified, added to, 4 or removed from the Ordinance. The Animal Services Advisory Board and County Attorney’s 5 Office has reviewed the items identified below and the accompanying amendment language, 6 and along with staff, unanimously recommends that the BOCC approve these amendments: 7 8 1. New paragraph 4-38(c) has been added to the section titled “Animal control program” in 9 order to clarify under what conditions Animal Control Officers may enter onto private 10 property. This language states in writing what Animal Control Officers currently do in 11 practice, by granting them the authority under the Ordinance to enter onto and inspect 12 private property to investigate, impound, and/or issue citations for violations of the 13 Ordinance upon consent, pursuant to an administrative search warrant, or as otherwise 14 authorized for law (for example, pursuant to a criminal search warrant or an exception to 15 the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances). 16 17 a. UPDATE following discussion at October 16, 2018 BOCC Meeting: Based on 18 the Board’s request, language has been added to this section expressly stating 19 that an animal may be in imminent danger due to any of the act described in 20 section 4-41(a)-(k) of the Ordinance (which addresses “mistreatment of animals”), 21 including acts related to animal fighting or baiting. 22 23 2. In Section 4-42, Control of dangerous animals; security dogs: 24 25 a. References to the defined term “restraint” have been removed and substituted with 26 variations of “control” or “confined in accordance with the requirements of this 27 section.” The definition of “Restraint” in section 4-37(bb) is applicable to animals in 28 the County generally, while animals that have been declared “dangerous” were 29 intended to be subject to the higher levels of restraint as detailed in section 4-30 42(d). Changing the word “restraint” in section 4-42 is intended to alleviate 31 conflation of “restraint” generally and the stronger control required for animals 32 declared dangerous, and clarify the requirements for how dangerous animals must 33 be controlled and confined under the Ordinance. 34 35 b. The Animal Services Advisory Board and Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool 36 members determined the language of Section 4-42(b)(3) to be confusing when 37 applied in appeal hearings for dangerous animal declarations. The proposed 38 language clarifies that sentence by moving “defending a person” to another part of 39 the Ordinance (see f. below) and by limiting the provision to apply to animals 40 attacked while “on the land of the attacking animal’s owner or keeper without 41 permission” as opposed to “on the land of another without permission.” This 42 amendment would alleviate confusion raised in matters where an animal attacks 43 another animal on land open to the public but where no express permission has 44 been given for that animal to be there (for example, an attack occurring in Duke 45 Forest). 46 47 c. In 4-42(d), the phrase “controlled by means of a leash, chain, or other like device” 48 has been simplified to “controlled by means of a leash.” While “leash” is not defined 49 in the Ordinance, the dictionary definition of “leash” (“a line for leading or restraining 50