HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAB agenda 032118ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Animal Services
1601 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919 - 942 -PETS (7387)
ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD (ASAB)
6:30 to 8:00 p.m.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Animal Services Center
Proposed A egnda
• Review and adoption of meeting agenda
• Review and approval of February 21, 2018 ASAB meeting summary
• Review of public participation guidelines —Molly Mullin, ASAB Vice -Chair
• General public comments on items not on the agenda (3 minute limit)
• Monthly Meeting Attendance Record (confirm completion)
• Introduction of the department's new Customer Service Supervisor — Snobia Stewart
• Animal Services Advisory Board Updates
• Upcoming discussion of ASAB work plan and progress report at Board of County
Commissioner April 26, 2018 Work Session
• Reappointments and new appointments to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool
• Outside Agency Review Update
• Old Business
• ASAB Communication About Animal Services Property Easements
• Continuing Discussion of Abuse/Neglect Charges for Surrendered Animals Policy
• Nuisance Provisions for Cats in Unified Animal Ordinance
• New Business
• Ordinance considerations
• Animal Services Updates
• Information Items
• Select 2017 Animal Services Stats
• Monthly Sheltering Statistical Reports, February 2018
• Monthly Field Service Statistical Report, February 2018
Animal Services Advisory Board
March 21, 2018
Page 2
0 Informal discussion
Accompanying Documents
1. Proposed summary of February 21, 2018 ASAB meeting
2. Original Guidelines for Abuse/Neglect Charges for Surrendered Animals
3. Revised Guidelines for Abuse/Neglect Charges for Surrendered Animals
4. Ordinance Considerations Summary
5. February 2018 Sheltering Statistics
(http: / /www.oran eg countync og v/ departments /animalservices /2018_ monthlyreports.php #)
6. February 2018 Field Services Statistics
(http: / /www.oran eg countync.gov/ departments /animalservices /2018_ field_ statistics.php #)
7. Select 2017 Animal Services Stats
Orange County Animal Services
1601 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919 - 942 -PETS (7387)
ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD (ASAB)
6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Meeting Summary
MEMBERS PRESENT: Maureane Hoffman (Chair), Molly Mullin (Vice- Chair), Judy Miller, Warren Porter, Michelle
Walker, Beth Grooms, and Victoria Hudson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Elmore, Edmund Tiryakian, Diane Obeid, and Heather Payne
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Marotto (Animal Services Director), Andi Morgan (Assistant Animal Services Director), and
Irene Phipps (Animal Control Manager)
GUESTS PRESENT: Jack Donovan
Call to order: 6:33pm
Review and adoption of the Agenda: Michelle Walker made a motion to approve the agenda tabling the discussion
for Abuse /Neglect Charges for Surrendered Animals; seconded by Judy Miller. The motion carried without dissent.
Summary of January 28, 2017 meeting: Molly Mullin made a motion to approve the Summary; seconded by Warren
Porter. The motion carried without dissent.
Review of public participation guidelines: Molly Mullin described the guidelines to the guest.
General Public Comments on items not on the agenda: Mr. Jack Donovan made a presentation: a matter of policy
clarification. He would like clarification of various definitions of Unified Animal Ordinance Section 4 -37, including
vagaries and omissions. He also provided suggested edits to Section 4 -37 and 4 -42.
Animal Services Advisory Board Updates: Beth Grooms position on the Hearing Panel Pool expires March 31, 2018.
Beth Grooms accepted a nomination to continue for another term. Michelle Walker made a motion to appoint Beth
to the Hearing Panel Pool; seconded by Judy Miller. Motion carried without dissent.
Bob Marotto reported on some outside agency funding application requirements. An outside funding review is
required for a particular funding opportunity. The ASAB needs to appoint three members of the board to conduct
the review. Judy Miller, Victoria Hudson, and Beth Grooms volunteered.
Old Business:
(A) ASAB Communication About Animal Services Property Easements: Maureane Hoffman reported on the
letter of comment that was sent to the OCC. She received a timely response from Commissioner
Jacobs. The communication demonstrated a mutual frustration that Duke Power has not shared their
plans yet. The impact to the operations of the OCAS It is not known until the easement construction is
known. Bob Marotto reported that OC Asset Management Services is in contact with Duke Power. He
will gather more information for the next meeting.
(B) Abuse /Neglect Charges for Surrendered Animals: Tabled until March meeting.
New Business:
(A) Nuisance Provisions for Cats in Unified Animal Ordinance: Bob Marotto gave a brief history, prior to the
Ordinance, of the definition of a nuisance cat and the regulation of cats who were observed "off- property."
He also explained the rationale for developing current code that distinguished cats from dogs and used
language from Carrboro's code. Irene Phipps described the nature of complaint calls about nuisance cats
and her communications with various complainants about violations of the Ordinance. There is already
language in the Ordinance that refers to habitual behaviors of the cat that are in violation. Complainants
do question what are the measure and proof for "habitual." The current enforcement includes
administrative penalties in incrementally increasing amounts from$100 -$300; impoundment; and the
implied authority of the Ordinance to remove the animal from Orange County. There is a perceived need to
address nuisance cats causing displaced aggression of another cat toward a human or other animal while
also better defining "habitual" and "at large." A working definition of "nuisance" could be explored in
terms of interfering in the reasonable use and enjoyment of one's property. This needs to be accomplished
under the guidance of the Co. Attorney. Additional discussion will be brought to future meetings.
(8) 2017Statistical Highlights: Andi Morgan gave a report of animal control statistics for 2017. Majority of
calls are for bites and stray animals. This is consistent with most years. There is slight increase in bite/
exposure or neglect. Statistics by township and shelter statistics were presented, including increases in live
releases (90% adjusted) and historical decreases in intake (4486 to 2740) in spite of a growing population
during same time period (2005- 2017). Adoptions are up with 1707 for the year. Euthanasia outcomes are
reduced to 379 (highest was 2008 at 2089).
(C) Animal Services Updates: Valentine's Day Special was ongoing for February. Spay and Neuter Day is the
27tH Work on the continuation budget means no increases in requests for expenditures and that any
increases in costs for staffing have to be absorbed. Some monies have been shifted to offset costs.
Outside agency funding is possible. Bob Marotto met with Adult Care Home Advisory Committee
representative regarding pet placement in adult care homes. Coyote information has been offered. WHUP
interviews are planned on different subjects. There has been a cat cafe inquiry. Proposed fee schedule
increases were presented. Warren Porter made a motion to support the fee increases as presented;
seconded by Beth Grooms. The motion carried without dissent.
Information Items (made available):
(A) Monthly Sheltering Statistical Reports, Jan 2018
(8) Monthly Field Service Statistical Report, Jan 2018
Adjournment and next meeting:
Michelle Walker made a motion to adjourn at 8:15pm; Judy Miller seconded. Motion carried without dissent.
The next meeting is March 21, 2018 at 6:30 pm, Orange County Animal Services Center.
Minutes taken:
Victoria Hudson
Abuse /Neglect Charges for Surrendered Animals:
A. Intentional Harm
In cases of intentional harm identified by visible signs of physical abuse, including suspected
use in animal fighting or as a bait dog for training for fighting, ASAB supports placement of the
individual responsible for the harm on a permanent "do no adopt" list, to the extent such action
is consistent with existing law. This action would not supplant, and would be in addition to,
referral to the District Attorney for prosecution in Animal Services' discretion. Individuals falling
in this category will be notified of the finding and will be given an opportunity to appeal the
finding of Intentional Harm to the Hearing Panel.
B. Gross Negligence
In cases of gross negligence, defined as reckless disregard for the wellbeing of the animal,
ASAB supports suspension of the ability of the owner or keeper of the surrendered animal to
adopt from Animal Services until the individual has completed a consultation with Animal
Services staff regarding community resources for low or no cost medical care. ASAB welcomes
input regarding staff's capabilities for providing such consultations in light of limited resources.
A finding of gross negligence should be made considering the totality of the circumstances,
including:
1. The length of time a condition has been allowed to persist.
2. The severity of the distress to the animal caused by the condition.
3. The costs associated with proper prevention and treatment of the condition.
a. Lower cost should weigh in favor of finding gross negligence; higher cost
should weigh against a finding of gross negligence.
4. Whether the animal was voluntarily surrendered to Animal Services by the owner
or keeper.
a. If the animal was voluntarily surrendered, this factor should weigh against
a finding of gross negligence.
Individuals falling in this category will be notified of the finding and will be given an opportunity
to appeal the finding of Gross Negligence to the Hearing Panel.
Revised as of February 16, 2018 —MMW
Abuse /Neglect Charges for Surrendered Animals:
A. Intentional Harm or Gross Negligence amounting to intent
a. Neglect identified by one or more of the following:
i. Obviously emaciated (based upon a score on an accepted measure of
body condition)
ii. Clear neglect of obvious illness, infection, disease or injury including
severe parasitism and failing teeth
iii. Inadequate care for mothers with puppies or being bred
iv. Fur matting to the skin or embedded collar
b. Intentional harm identified by one or more of the following
L Visible signs of physical abuse, broken bones, or other inhumane acts
(e,g. cigarette burns),
ii. Suspected use in animal fighting or as a bait dog for training for fighting
iii. Traumatic injuries including sexual abuse as well as the above
These incidents should lead to a finding by Animal Services of Intentional Harm or Gross
Negligence and may well result in legal action, including referral to the District Attorney DA for
prosecution, the person being put on a permanent `do not adopt" list, and his /her information
shared with other shelters in the area, and on a FYI basis with surrounding counties' Animal
Services.
Individuals falling in this category will be notified of the finding, and will be given an opportunity
to appeal the finding of Intentional] Harm or Gross Negligence to the Hearing Panel.
B. Unintentional harm or common negligence
1. A significant lapse of vaccinations (i.e., greater than 6 months) or absence of
vaccinations.
2. Overgrown toenails, mild signs of fur matting, minimally underweight; etc
3. Repeated animal surrenders within a period of several years..
These individuals should not face legal action but may be placed on a temporary 12 month `do
not adopt' list, if warranted in the judgment of Animal Services. Animal Services may notify
surrounding counties' Animal Services departments if warranted. Such individuals may appeal
to the Hearing Panel the imposition of a temporary ban on further adoptions.
C. Neglect due to financial hardship.
This group would be identified on a case by case basis by Animal Services at the time of
animal surrender. Financial hardship shall not excuse intentional harm or gross negligence.
These individuals should not face legal action, except in cases of intentional harm or gross
negligence, should be given the option to keep their pet, offered information about low cost /no
cost medical care, and followed up with at regular intervals for the next 6 -12 months.
Parity of Field and Shelter Services
An individual voluntarily surrendering a pet to Animal Services shall face no greater penalties
nor suffer greater adverse consequences than if the pet of that individual had been seized in the
field by Animal Services upon report or suspicion of mistreatment. Conversely, efforts to work
with and support pet owners shall be no different for people who surrender a pet to Animal
Services than they are with residents encountered in the course of providing field services.
Animal Services staff shall make every effort to ensure that penalties and sanctions meted out
to individuals for observable mistreatment of their pets shall not be more or less severe if the
animal is voluntarily surrendered to Animal Services or if the animal is seized in the fieldby
Animal Services.
Do Not Adopt list:
Individuals who are temporarily prohibited from adopting should be required to provide
additional information before being allowed to adopt again. Minimally, this should include
Veterinarian information and a few references in regard to their pet ownership. If and when a
course becomes available, they should also be required to attends under the auspices of Animal
Services on proper treatment and handling of pets.
Upon adoption they should be provided educational information about pet care, medical care for
pets, and the responsibilities of pet ownership, with the possibility of periodic visits by Animal
Services to verify the condition of the newly adopted pet during a probation period of one year
Those who become `repeat offenders' (surrendering regularly) should be placed on a permanent
do not adopt list and the information shared with other shelters in the area, and with surrounding
Animal Services departments in other counties.
Pet Retention Resources
Animal Services and the Animal Services Advisory Board fully understand that pet care and pet
retention depends upon economic and other resources that are not available to all residents of
Orange County. As part of the developing effort in the fields of animal services and animal
welfare, Animal Services is committed to assisting economically challenged pet owners and to
making this commitment a fundamental part of its strategic planning for the future. This
commitment includes availability to needed veterinary care for ill, injured and infirm animals and
food, shelter and other resources as well. This commitment both expresses and supports the
Board of County Commissioner's commitment to social justice.
Revised as of January 18, 2018 —BM, DO, ET
Unified Animal Ordinance Considerations
Orange County Animal Services
March 14, 2018
Below is a current listing of considerations for amendments to the Unified Animal Ordinance.
The first two sections are based upon the experience of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool.
The next two sections are based upon concerns residents have raised with the Animal Services
Advisory Board as well as county staff. The final section is based upon further legal review of
the Unified Animal Ordinance.
Hearing Based Language Clarification
1. Sec.4 -42. (b) (3)
a. Language: "Without provocation has injured, maimed or killed a pet or domestic
livestock, except where such animal has bitten or killed a pet or domestic
livestock that is on the land of another without permission or is defending a
person" (italics added).
b. Issue one: The exception appears to provide a significant gap. One animal may
kill another animal when both animals are off the property of their owner, and if
the victimized animal is in the yard of a third person without permission, no
declaration may be made of the aggressor dog.
c. Issue two: "Injured" as a term may not cover the impact of one dog on another
dog in an encounter. In one case, a large breed dog left its property and pinned
another dog to the ground but the latter dog had no apparent injuries. (My
personal opinion is that this is a very exceptional situation and it may not be
possible or desirable to craft language that applies to this situation.)
General Policv Issue Based upon Heari
Several issues have arisen from the hearing experience about whether the ordinance needs to
be more flexible with respect to the declaration of an animal as dangerous. An ongoing
concern for some members of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool is that "one size fits all,"
that is, that all dogs should be declared a danger on the basis of a single incident and also that a
dog should not necessarily be subject to strict restrictions based upon a single "oops."
The following possibilities are identified for the purpose of facilitating further discussion of this
multifaceted issue:
Offense citation: Instead of proceeding directly to a declaration, a citation may be
issued for the first offense under the ordinance. Accordingly, a second offense would
result in a declaration with associated restrictions. A more refined version of this
approach might allow the declaration for serious first offenses (e.g., severe injury for a
person or a pet).
2. Propensity rather than incident based declaration: One suggestion for addressing the
"oops" incident is to seek to establish a definition based on the dog's propensity to be
dangerous. The idea is that a dog may act aggressively because of an isolated instance
in which an owner does not have effective control (e.g., the fence gate was left open
and the dog got out and chased after a pack of bicyclists) ; or a dog may have ended up
in a situation prompting it for the very first time to be reactive toward others pets or
people and the owner learns from the experience how to manage the dog to avoid such
situations. My own opinion is that it will be hard to have an satisfactory definition of
propensity that is not based upon actual (reported) incidents (which is why there are
regulations that provide notice on the basis of the first incident and impose
requirements based on a subsequent incident). However, others appear to hold a
different opinion and there is thus a need for discussion.
3. Rescinding a dangerous dog declaration: A process could be incorporated into the
ordinance to allow for a declaration to be reviewed and lifted under very specific
conditions. The absence of such is now a significant concern for pet owners who are
generally responsible but have an unfortunate incident in which their dog does
something leading to a dangerous animal declaration. An example is provided by
Minnesota's dangerous dog regulations, specifically, 347. 51 Subd 3a
"Dangerous dog designation review. Beginning six months after a dog is declared a
dangerous dog, an owner may request annually that the animal control authority review
the designation. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's behavior has changed
due to the dog's age, neutering, environment, completion of obedience training that
includes modification of aggressive behavior, or other factors. If the animal control
authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog's behavior has changed, the authority
may rescind the dangerous dog designation."
Amendment of Public Nuisance Provisions for Cats
1. Sec.4 -45. (8) v
a. Language: "Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by
neighboring residents of their property because of its howling, whining, crying,
or other noise making."
b. Alternatives
i. "Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by
neighboring residents of their property." W
a
ii. "Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by
neighboring residents of their property including but not limited to
howling, whining, crying, or other noise making."
c. Issue: That neighbors may be impacted significantly by cats in ways other than
vocalization and that these should be addressed by the ordinance, e.g., habitual
presence on a neighbor's property, causing misbehavior of a resident cat while
on another's property, etc.
d. Context: Two residents of a Hillsborough HOA have met with staff and the
Animal Services Advisory Board to express their concern about a cat that roams
the residencies within the HOA and that on one occasion caused one of the
resident's cats to bite her. They would like the ordinance to address this issue
but it does not because the roaming cat is owned and microchipped (see (8) viii).
The ASAB and staff thinks that one of the aforementioned alternatives is the best
way to address their legitimate concerns.
Dangerous Animal Restraint
The issue of whether Sec. 4 -42 needs to be amended to establish a different form of restraint
for animals deemed dangerous is currently under discussion. The issue has been posed by a
HOA officer based upon concerns with a declared dog in one of the residencies within the HOA.
The issue has been addressed to the County Attorney as well as Animal Services staff and the
Animal Services Advisory Board. The ASAB will be discussing the concerns at their upcoming
(March) meeting.
Appeal Scope
Animal Services staff and staff within the County Attorney's Office are planning to propose an
amendment to Sec. 4- 53.- appeals that more specifically defines what parts of the Unified
Animal Ordinance may be appealed under this section. The original intent was to delimit
appeals to matters for which no other process of appeal was available but the actual language
is broader. (Specifically, (a) says a "person ... may appeal the final decision made by the Animal
Services Direct or to the appeal board..." This was not actually intended and it is simply not
feasible given the administrative burden that would be placed upon Animal Services. In
addition, members of the Animal Services Appeal Panel Pool have not been recruited to review
civil citations, warnings and the like and there are serious questions as to whether the pool
could be managed and sustained with that kind of work load.
Prepared by Robert A. Marotto, MW tZ
Animal Services Director
a
Shelter Activity January - December 2017
Dogs
Cats
Others
Total
In Shelter Custody as of January 1, 2017
27
59
4
90
% of Total
Total Admitted Jan - Dec 2017
1264
1459
93
2816 **
Total Sheltered Jan - Dec 2017
1291
1518
97
2906
Dispositions Jan - Dec 2017
1205
1425
94
2724 **
Remaining in Shelter Custody on December 31, 2017
86
93
3
182
Total Dispositions of Animals
Live Release of Adoptable & Reclaimed Animals
% of Total
% of Total
Dogs
Cats
Others
Total
Dispositions
Dogs
Cats
Others Total
Adoptable
Reclaimed
304
■ 54 8
366
13.36%
304
54
8 366
14.52%
Adopted
618
1040
49
1707
62.30%
618
1040
49 1707
67.74%
Transfers
143
35
32
210
7.66%
143
35
32 210
8.33%
Euthanized
132
226
21
379
13.83% **
1065
1129
89 2283
90.60%
Died
8
68
2
78
2.85%
Other
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Total Adoptable
2520
Totals
1205
1423
112
2740
100.00%
Euthanasia Breakdown
% of Total
% of Total
% of Total
I
Euthanized By
Euthanized By
Euthanized By
Dogs
Reason
Cats
Reason
Others
Reason
Behavioral
81
68.07%
Behavioral
38
17.35%
Behavioral 1
12.50 %
Feral
0
0.00%
Feral
96
43.84%
Feral 0
0.00%
Medical
34
28.57%
Medical
83
37.90%
Medical 6
75.00%
Owner Request
3
2.52%
Owner Request
1
0.46%
Owner Request 0
0.00% **
Time / Space
0
0.00 %
Time / Space
0
0.00 %
Time / Space 0
0.00%
Test
1
0.84%
Test
1
0.46%
Test 1
12.50%
119
100.00%
219
100.00%
8
100.00%
Exposures Investigated
Tested Positive
Rabies Statistics
Dogs Cats
0 3
0 0
Vaccinated at Shelter
Vaccinated at Vet Clinics
Vaccinated at Rabies Clinics
Total Vaccinations
618 999
476 416
1094 1415
Intake Breakdown
Other
Total
76
79
6
6
0
1617
0
0
0
892
0
2509
Animal Control
From Public
Total Incoming % of Total
Strays
Surrender
Strays
Surrender
Carrboro
25
6
55
87
173
6.1%
Chapel Hill
62
15
143
137
357
12.7%
Hillsborough
65
9
62
50
186
6.6%
Orange County
400
86
785
298
1569
55.6%
Other County
4
0
107
111
222
7.9%
Unknown
1
0
305
7
313
11.1%
Total
557
116
1457
690
2820
100.0%
% of Total
19.8%
4.1%
51.7%
24.5%
Strays
2014
71.4%
Animal
Control
673
23.9%
Surrenders
806
28.6%
Public
2147
76.1%