Orange County NC Website
10 <br /> <br />4. Section 4-51(c)(5), was intended to provide an appeal for citations ordering a public <br />nuisance animal to be removed from the County, as opposed to citations for any public <br />nuisance violation. An “f” has been added to correct this error, so that the language reads <br />“An Owner or Keeper shall have a right to appeal a citation for removal,” rather than “…a <br />citation or removal.” Other citations pursuant to the public nuisance sections of the <br />Ordinance are appealable to the Finance Director through the debt setoff process. <br /> <br />5. Section 4-53, Appeals, was intended to provide the process for appeals granted expressly <br />by other sections of the Ordinance. However, the language of this section could <br />previously be read as providing an appeal for every violation of the Ordinance. This <br />language has been amended to identify what appeals are granted by the Ordinance: <br />dangerous animal declarations, citations ordering the removal of nuisance animals, and <br />denials or revocations of kennel or pet shops permits. A new appeal is included for <br />citations issued for mistreatment, where the animal has been impounded and the Animal <br />Services Director has determined not to release the animal back to its owner under <br />Section 4-43(c). Citations for other Ordinance violations are not appealable under this <br />Ordinance, but may be appealed to the Finance Director through the debt setoff process. <br /> <br />Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that the appeals go through the Chief <br />Financial Officer (CFO) and the finance office. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said all appeals of debt to go to Gary Donaldson, CFO. <br />Commissioner Price asked if this only applies to one appealing a debt. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said the person will get a citation for a monetary amount, which can <br />be appealed to the finance officer. She said the CFO reviews the facts to determine if the debt <br />needs to be paid. <br />Commissioner Price asked if this has anything to do with animal control. <br />Anne Marie Tosco said citations can be for public nuisance, and the finance officer <br />reviews the case to determine its merits. <br />Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that appeals do not go to someone in <br />Animal Services. <br />Bob Marotto said it is a two-step process: 1.) an appeal is made to an agent of the <br />County, and the designated agent is the CFO, and the merits of the case are what are at the <br />issue. The agent decides if the debt is to be paid based on whether the infraction is <br />demonstrated by Animal Services; 2.) The Office of Administrative Hearings, which takes it <br />outside of the County, but keeps it in the administrative side of things, as opposed to District <br />Court. <br />Commissioner Price clarified that the CFO is not making a determination on the animal <br />itself, but whether the citation has merit. <br />Commissioner Price asked if the written language can remain simple and easy to read, <br />avoiding legalease. <br />Commissioner Price asked if the costs of an assessment of the certification council are <br />known. <br />Bob Marotto said probably $100-250. <br />Commissioner Price said that is a sizeable burden. <br />Bob Marotto said yes, it could be, but they are considering removing the restrictions <br />imposed on the animal to protect the public. He said there have been children mauled by family <br />dogs, which are serious offenses, and staff is reluctant to remove restrictions absent of <br />thorough professional assessment of the animal. <br />Commissioner Price said she agrees with the assessment being done, but is concerned <br />about the costs for low-income residents. <br />Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if he was agreeable to 438-C.