Minutes 11-01-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 amendment clarifies that animals going to and from a secure enclosure or permitted location (such as a kennel or vehicle) on the owner’s property should be leashed, but need not be muzzled as it is required when off the owner’s property. e. In 4-42(e)(4)b., the word “tort” was inadvertently left out of previous versions of the Ordinance, so the sentence read, “Committing a willful trespass or other, which shall be determined…” The amended sentence reads, “Committing a willful trespass or other tort, which shall be determined by looking at a totality of the circumstances.” 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 their 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. • UPDATE following discussion at October 16, 2018 BOCC Meeting: Based on the Board’s request, language has been added to this section clarifying that all dangerous (or vicious, as was used in prior iterations of the Ordinance) declarations made under this or previous versions of the Ordinance may be reviewed. A concern was raised regarding the 18-month period that must pass prior to review – the current language stating 18 months is to allow for staff to conduct the annual inspection of secure enclosures required by the Ordinance. Under the current scheme, an inspection is made annually beginning one year from the declaration to check for and assure ongoing compliance with Ordinance standards. These annual inspections are critical to confirming owner responsibility and compliance with restrictions intended to protect the public and its pets. Reducing the “wait period” before review from eighteen to twelve months would mean that individuals may request a review prior to their first annual inspection. Also, other jurisdictions that have or are considering review of similar declarations, specifically Wake and