HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAB agenda 051618
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, May 16, 2018
Animal Services Center
Proposed Agenda
• Review and adoption of meeting agenda
• Review and approval of April 18, 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)
• Pets in Adult Care Home Possibilities, Will Lang, Orange County Adult Care Home Advisory
Committee
• ASAB Applicants
• Gina Hahn (at large non-municipal; animal welfare advocate)
• Animal Services Advisory Board Updates
• Report on Board of County Commissioner Work Session (April 26, 2018)
• Other items
• Old Business
• Update About Animal Services Property Easements
• Guidelines for Surrendered Animals (latest iteration)
• New Business
• Ninth Annual Open House
• Animal Services Updates
• Ordinance considerations
Animal Services Advisory Board
May 16, 2018
Page 2
• Information Items
• Monthly Sheltering Statistical Reports, April 2018
• Monthly Field Service Statistical Report, April 2018
• Informal discussion
Accompanying Documents
1. Proposed summary of April 18, 2018 ASAB meeting
2. Guidelines for Surrendered Animals (latest iteration)
3. Ordinance Considerations Summary
4. April 2018 Sheltering Statistics
(http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/animalservices/2018_monthly_reports.php#)
5. April 2018 Field Services Statistics
(http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/animalservices/2018_field_statistics.php#)
1
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, April 18, 2018
Meeting Summary
MEMBERS PRESENT: Maureane Hoffman (Chair), Edmund Tiryakian, Diane Obeid, Molly Mullin (Vice-Chair), Warren
Porter, Susan Elmore, Beth Grooms, and Victoria Hudson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Walker, Judy Miller, and Heather Payne
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Marotto (Animal Services Director) and Andi Morgan (Asst. Animal Services Director)
GUESTS PRESENT:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Call to order: 6:33pm
Review and adoption of the Agenda: Susan Elmore made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Molly
Mullin. The motion carried without dissent.
Summary of March 21, 2018 meeting: Warren Porter made a motion to approve the Summary; seconded by Susan
Elmore. The motion carried without dissent.
Review of public participation guidelines: No guest present.
Animal Services Advisory Board Updates
(A) Recommendations for appointments to the Animal Services Advisory Board: There are five vacancies that will
be open on July 1 in the following appointments: Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, At-Large (non-
municipal), and Animal Welfare Advocate. Applications were reviewed. The ASAB directed Bob Marotto to
send invitations to selected nominees for the May ASAB meeting. There were several suggestions for
nominations and recruitment ideas for filling these appointments and positions also left vacant on the
Hearing Panel Pool. The Town of Hillsborough and the Town of Carrboro will be contacted for
appointments. Edmund Tiryakian made a motion for Bob Marotto to draft a memo to the Town of Chapel
Hill regarding the nomination of a current Hearing Panel Pool member to the ASAB; seconded by Molly
Mullin. The motion carried without dissent.
(B) Upcoming discussion of ASAB work plan and progress report at Board of County Commissioner April 26, 2018
Work Session: Preparations were made for the presentation and possible commissioner questions, and the
work plan is ready.
Old Business:
(A) ASAB Communication About Animal Services Property Easements: The easement by OWASA is nearly
complete. Bob Marotto updated on meeting with Duke Power project coordinators regarding an
impact of the installation by Duke for the distribution transmission lines. The poles will be wood and at
variable height. Impact is planned to be minimal at ground/ grade where dog walking trails will be
groomed. Future conversations could include (1) the responsibility of maintenance and limited
herbicide treatment and (2) the extension of trails the length of the OWASA easement and onto
adjacent county property.
2
(B) Guidelines for Surrendered Animals Suffering from Cruelty or Neglect: A third revision is pending contribution
to the appeals language by Heather Payne. Diane Obeid made a motion to direct Bob Marotto to contact
Michelle Walker and Heather Payne for the final draft, which must be circulated to the ASAB before the next
meeting; seconded by Beth Grooms. The motioned carried without dissent. A vote has been tabled until
May.
New Business:
(A) Animal Services Updates: Bob Marotto reported about the large number of dogs seized as a result of a
criminal investigation. The owner has been charged with animal cruelty and has been given the choice to
pay a bond on each animal or surrender animals. Forensic veterinarian work is upcoming. After all
evidence has been collected, and pending the surrender of the animals, professional dog behaviorists will
be requested to assess the dogs for adoption outcomes. The space limitations and staffing has been very
accommodating while housing the dogs more than 6 weeks. No need for “space euthanasia” has occurred.
Fee recommendations were forwarded into the proposed fee schedule for the 2018-2019 budget. An
increase in the out-of-county surrender fee from $60 to $100 has been suggested additionally. Warren
Porter made a motion to support the proposed increase; seconded by Molly Mullin. The motion carried
without dissent. Andi Morgan reported on the Kitten Shower event and the positive response to recruiting
foster homes.
(B) Ordinance considerations: Tabled until May meeting.
Information Items (made available):
(A) Monthly Sheltering Statistical Reports, March 2018
(B) Monthly Field Service Statistical Report, March 2018
Adjournment and next meeting:
Edmund Tiryakian made a motion to adjourn at 8:24pm; Diane Obeid seconded. Motion carried without
dissent. The next meeting is May 16, 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 in writing of the finding. The notification will include a specific
explanation as to why this finding was made. Individuals 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 in writing of the finding. The notification will
include a specific explanation as to why this finding was made. Individuals and will be given an
opportunity to appeal the finding of Gross Negligence to the Hearing Panel.
Revised as of February 16, 2018—MMW
Pa
g
e
1
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 Policy Issue Based upon Hearings
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:
1. 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
Pa
g
e
2
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.”
Pa
g
e
3
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,
Animal Services Director