Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-03-2006-9eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 3, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. ~-e.,. _ SUBJECT: Creation of a Tethering Committee DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUB<_IC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Charge To and Composition of Orange County Tethering Committee 'Tethering Meeting Summary Notes INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Marotto, Director, 968-2287 Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager, 245-2307 PURPOSE: To request that the BOCC create a Tethering Committee for the purpose of assessing whether and if so how the County's animal ordinances. should be amended in regard to the tethering of dogs. BACKGROUND: The issue of whether or not there should be more restrictive tethering requirements in Orange County's animal ordinances has come before the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB). The same issue has been raised elsewhere in North Carolina and around the United States, and in some places, there have been ordinance or statutory changes that restrict or prohibit the use of tethers and chains to confine dogs. The issue of tethering was the subject of discussion at the August meeting of the Animal Services Advisory Board. Proponents of more restrictive tethering requirements addressed, concerns with public safety and community livability as well as concerns with the humane care of animals.. Another member of the community favorably compared tethering with other forms of confinement. On the basis of public comments on tethering, and discussion among its members regarding ordinances of this kind in the context of Orange County, the ASAB decided that a Tethering Committee ought to be created. Toward that end, the ASAB selected two representatives to meet and develop an approach in response to athree-pronged charge from the ASAB. First, they were to create a larger committee with across-section of community views; second, to compile pertinent information; and finally, to determine how general public comment ought to be gathered about any possible ordinance amendments regarding tethering. In early September, there was a meeting of the two ASAB representatives to the Tethering Committee..A primary outcome of that meeting was to identify positions for five additional members of that Committee defined as follows: (1) law enforcement; (2) expertise in the area of animal behavior; (3) expertise in the area of animal health and wellness; (4) an advocate of more limited tethering; and (5) an advocate for tethering as a means of confinement. Subsequent to the meeting, staff discovered that only the BOCC could create or authorize the creation of such a committee. Thus the creation of the Committee was referred back to the ASAB at its September meeting and, at that meeting, a motion was unanimously adopted asking the BOCC to either create a Tethering Committee, or to authorize the ASAB to itself create such a committee as described herein. Accordingly, the BOCC will also need to decide whether the additional five pre-defined positions on the Tethering Committee would be filled the ASAB itself ar by the BOCC through its usual application process for volunteers. The Animal Services Department, under the direction of Bob Marotto, will serve as Secretary to the Tethering Committee under each scenario and the recommendations from the Tethering Committee will be reviewed and commented on by the ASAB as a whole before being presented to the BOCC for any possible action. It was discussed during ChairNice Chair agenda review that the BOCC might wish to create the Tethering Committee itself, and with the inclusion of the two ASAB representatives, appoint the five pre-defined positions as proposed along with three additional at-large representatives from the community. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact accompanies the creation of a Tethering Committee. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss options presented relative to the creation of a Tethering Committee and the appointment of its members, and provide direction to staff. DRAFT CHARGE TO AND COMPOSITION OF ORANGE COUNTY TETHERING COMMITTEE OCTOBER 2006 At the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board, and upon recommendation of.the County Manager, the Commissioners are creating a committee to aid in the determination of whether there should be change in the County's animal ordinances as these apply to the tethering or chaining of animals such as dogs. The composition of the committee is as follows: • Two representatives of the Animal Services Advisary Board chosen by that Board. • A law enforcement representative. • An expert in the area of animal behavior. • An expert in the area of animal health and wellness. • An advocate for the restriction of tethering. • An advocate for tethering. • Three at-large representatives (for BOCC consideration) The charge for the committee follows: • To compile in a presentable form pertinent information on tethering and/or chaining as a means of confinement for animals such as dogs, including activities and efforts pursued by other communities. • To obtain general public comment on .any possible ordinance amendments from across- section of the community through suitable mechanisms such as community hearings or facilitated focus groups. • To recommend to the Animal Services Advisory Board any appropriate or desirable ordinance changes with the understanding that the ASAB will itself make any final recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. 4 Animal Services Advisory Board-Tethering Committee Meeting Wednesday, September 6`J`, 2006, 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. Draft Meeting Summary Location: Southern Human Services Center Meeting Room A1B, Homestead Road in Chapel Hill ASAB Members and Staff Present: Kristine Bergstrand, DVM, Jean-Connerat Levine, Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan Members of the Public Present: Pat Sanford, Elliott Kramer, Judith Reitman, Caroline Green, and Susan Roy Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, presented a Proposed Agenda, which was adopted. He also gave an overview of a discussion between him and County Attorney Jeff Gledhill regarding the legal requirements for the meetings of public bodies in North Carolina. It was suggested by Mr. Gledhill that a minimum of 48-hour notice be given to the public and that reasonable efforts be taken to contact members of the public included on a "sunshine list," that is, a list of people we know that maybe interested in any meeting. It was mentioned that this meeting was posted in several newspapers 10 days prior to the meeting date, but it was concluded after speaking to Mr. Gledhill that the 10-day rule is a legal requirement for Board of Commissioners but not of other public bodies. Next there was a review of the charge of the Tethering Committee. The Animal Services Advisory Board assigned three specific responsibilities to the Committee: 1. Create itself on a broader basis involving other community members in such a way to ensure that there is across section of community and cross section of community sentiment. 2. Pull together materials bearing on the issues of tethering. 3. Identify suitable mechanisms for obtaining public feedback or input from the community more broadly than those serving on the committee. More generally, the expectation that the committee will facilitate. some kind of closure for the issue of tethering that has been raised as an issue of policy within our community. In this regard, it was suggested that arriving at such closure may entail a set of or menu of recommendations that go back to the Animal Services Advisory Board for review and deliberation, and that on that basis a similar set of recommendations maybe made to the Board of County Commissioners for their deliberation. Animal Control Manager Irene Paul presented two working documents from Animal Control. One documented the number of tethering complaints and the number of animal cruelty complaints for the period from January 1St, 2006, through July 31St, 2006. The second document is an Animal Control Tethering Inspection Form that is being developed for use by Animal Control Officers in their fieldwork under the existing Orange County Animal Ordinances. Throughout there was a discussion among committee members proper and members of the public of the nature of the policy issue and the sources of information that were required to obtain perspective on that issue. With regard to the policy issue, comments were made about whether tethering was an issue of animal care (or ASAB Tethering Committee Meeting Summary September 6`~`, 2006 Page 2 cruelty), ari issue of public safety, a livability issue (as with respect to nuisance barking)-or all of these at once. With respect to desirable information, there was discussion of whether or not expert opinion and the opinion of officials from other counties were sufficient to provide perspective on the issue of tethering. Committee members stressed the importance ofhaving across-section of the community involved in the discussion at different stages whatever expert input maybe obtained. On the basis of detailed discussion, it was decided that the committee should consist of five members in addition to two ASAB representatives, Dr. Bergstrand and Ms. Convert-Levine, and that staff would initiate the process of recruiting these members in concert with the core committee members. Additional members would be defined in terms of the following positions: • Law Enforcement • Animal Behavior • Animal Health • Advocate for Limitation of Prohibition of Tethering • Tethering Advocate It was agreed that there would be athree-week solicitation period for applicants for these positions, and that advertisement would include public notice with local newspapers, a media advisory, and postings on the Animal Services and County websites. It was further agreed that applicants must be an Orange County resident and that they would be required to submit a letter of interest along with qualifications. Finally, there was discussion of a sequenced review of these applications, with recommendations being made to the Animal Services Advisory Board. Postscript: Subsequent to this meeting it was learned from the Clerk's Office that the Animal Services Advisory Board could only create a subcommittee consisting of its members and that only the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to create a committee of the kind envisioned. Thus, it has been decided that the matter of the form of the Tethering Committee. will be referred back to the Animal Services Advisory Board for discussion at its meeting on Wednesday, September 20`j`, 2006.