HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAB agenda 062018
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, June 20, 2018
Animal Services Center
Proposed Agenda
• Review and adoption of meeting agenda
• Review and approval of May 16, 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)
• ASAB Applicants
• Lisa Wells (retail pet supply sector; Hillsborough)
• Bryan Stuart (Hillsborough)
• Animal Services Advisory Board Updates
• County Commissioner appointment of new ASAB members
• New Business
• Select Ordinance Considerations—Bob Marotto and Anne Marie Tosco, Staff Attorney,
Orange County
• Information Items
• Monthly Sheltering Statistical Reports, May 2018 (forthcoming)
• Monthly Field Service Statistical Report, April 2018 (forthcoming)
• Informal discussion
Animal Services Advisory Board
June 20, 2018
Page 2
Accompanying Documents
1. Proposed summary of May 16, 2018 ASAB meeting
2. ASAB Applicant Applications (Bryan Stuart and Lisa Wells)
3. Select Ordinance Considerations
4. May 2018 Sheltering Statistics (forthcoming)
(http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/animalservices/2018_monthly_reports.php#)
5. May 2018 Field Services Statistics (forthcoming)
(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, May 16, 2018
Meeting Summary
MEMBERS PRESENT: Maureane Hoffman (Chair), Molly Mullin (Vice-Chair), Edmund Tiryakian, Diane Obeid, Warren
Porter, Susan Elmore, Michelle Walker, and Victoria Hudson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Beth Grooms, Heather Payne
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Marotto (Animal Services Director) and Andi Morgan (Asst. Animal Services Director)
GUESTS PRESENT: Will Lang, Gina Hahn, and Evelyn Daniel
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Call to order: 6:32pm
Review and adoption of the Agenda: Molly Mullin made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Susan
Elmore Mullin. The motion carried without dissent.
Summary of March 21, 2018 meeting: Susan Elmore made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Molly
Mullin. The motion carried without dissent.
Review of public participation guidelines: Molly Mullin reviewed the participation guidelines.
Pets in Adult Care Home Possibilities, Will Lang, Orange County Adult Care Home Advisory
Committee: The ACHA Board is looking for opportunities to partner with other groups for the enrichment of the
residents of adult care facilities. Will Lang pointed out that there are some facilities that already allow pets and
therapy animals. He would like to explore opportunities to improve the lives of pets by bringing pets into the
facilities. A pet therapy article on benefits was provided. Bob Marotto will enlist staff to look at opportunities and
logistics with Mr. Lang.
ASAB Applicants:
(A) Gina Hahn was introduced as a candidate for the at-large non-municipal or animal welfare advocate
vacancy. She has resided in Orange County for five years. She participates in foster programs, rescue
programs, and equine programs. Though not currently a member, she has experience with the Hearing
Panel Pool.
(B) Evelyn Daniel was introduced for the Carrboro vacancy. She has been a resident of Orange County since
1985. She has served on various Boards, including several professional associations and the Orange County
Parks and Recreation Board.
(C) Recommendations were sent for the Town of Chapel Hill vacancy.
(D) There is an applicant for pet business owner.
Animal Services Advisory Board Updates
(A) Report on Board of County Commissioner Work Session April 26, 2018: Molly Mullin reported on the work
session where she presented the annual progress, the work plan, and compiling proposed edits for the UAO.
There were a few questions about the easement that were addressed to and answered by Bob Marotto.
2
Old Business:
(A) ASAB Communication About Animal Services Property Easements: There are no updates. Jeff
Thompson, Orange County AMS, will address Duke Power to formalize plans.
(B) Guidelines for Surrendered Animals Suffering from Cruelty or Neglect: Michelle Walker shared the last draft
with Heather Payne. The proposed edits regarded policy on notification in writing and the specific
explanation of the terms of the Notice, including the terms of the appeals procedure. There were questions
from ASAB about the adjudication of appeals. The procedures will require the recommendations of the
County Attorney’s office and a language amendment to include this in the scope of the Hearing Panel Pool.
There was one statement that was requested to be removed, “ASAB welcomes input regarding staff's
capabilities for providing such consultations in light of limited resources.” Susan Elmore made a motion to
forward the final policy draft to the County Attorney’s office as edited for legal review and possible edits;
Michelle Walker seconded. Edmund Tiryakian read a statement during discussion. The motion carried.
Edmund Tiryakian voted in dissent. He requested his statement become part of the minutes:
“Although I agree these Guidelines are a step in the right direction, they are fatally flawed: they fail
to accord to Animal Services the necessary authority to permanently bar an individual who has
displayed an egregious inability to treat an animal with due care. Merely placing someone on
probation whose gross negligence may have resulted in severe, permanent and inexcusable harm, is
wholly inadequate and trivializes the extent of their misdeeds. We should not be substituting our
lofty good wishes for rehabilitation for the real world reality of people whose past behavior
disqualifies them from adopting anew from Orange County Animal Services. Adoption is a privilege,
not a right.
I have never argued that every time a surrendered animal shows evidence of gross negligence the
owner should inexorably be permanently banned from re-adopting; merely that we authorize
Animal Services to make that judgment call after they investigate the matter fully, subject, as
always, to the right of appeal by an owner who feels aggrieved. I note that many of my colleagues
are worried about ruffling the sensibilities of certain members of the greater community. I believe
in the process, we have ignored an equally important stakeholder in this debate, the abused pets,
for which we are stewards. Agency is no excuse for responsibility.
Finally, I find it regrettable that this protocol provides no guidance whatsoever to Animal Services
for the predictably far more numerous instances of a surrendered animal which shows signs of mere
negligent mistreatment? Does Animal Services have authority to impose any conditions on re-
adoption, such as attending a course on animal hygiene, or disease prevention? The guidelines’
failure to instruct Animal Services on proper procedure leaves an unfortunate void, which they will
have to contrive for themselves, without the requested input from the ASAB. For these reasons,
Madame Chair, I must vote no.”
New Business:
(A) Ninth Annual Open House: Andi Morgan reported on the upcoming Open House Saturday, June 2.
Monetary donations and pledges of snacks, balloons, face painting, and other activity supplies are being
accepted.
(B) Animal Services Updates: Bob Marotto reported that there is 100+ cat back log on the barn cat/ free-
roaming cat work. There will be a barn cat SNAP spay and neuter day at OCAS. This will occur on May 21st.
There will be an event on Saturday, May 19th at the Rogers Road Community Center to provide rabies and
microchipping. Dr. Elmore will speak on pet health. There will be ACOs and AC vehicles on site. The Orange
County Citizens “College” featured OCAS on May 15th. Regarding the seized dogs from the criminal
investigation, Bob Marotto stated State law requires any dog that is harbored for dog-fighting be deemed a
dangerous dog. Based on the forensic examination, the seized dogs have been sorted into groups. The
dogs having signs that they have been fought will not be available for adoption (18 dogs). The other dogs
(12 dogs) will be examined by the behaviorists to determine if they are adoptable. The dogs have now been
3
surrendered through the court to OCAS. The DA will make a final motion that establishes that the
defendant does have the right to collect evidence from the dogs before they are disposed.
(C) Ordinance considerations: Maureane Hoffman described the forthcoming changes, amendments, and edits
to the UAO. A list of inconsistencies and unclear policy has been collected during hearings and public
comments:
1. Bob Marotto presented an example of confusing language about landowner permissions as a factor
during an animal attack. Sec.4-42. (b) (3) currently reads, “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.”
2. Several issues have arisen from hearing experiences about whether the ordinance needs to be
more flexible with respect to the declaration of an animal as dangerous. Specific examples were
given where clear exceptions exist versus when propensities exist.
3. Appeals procedural deadlines are not clear to readers.
4. Public nuisance provision for cats as previously discussed was referred for change.
5. 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.
6. The scope of appeals needs clarification.
Proposed ordinance edits will be on the June agenda. Bob Marotto will send the items to be discussed.
Information Items (made available):
(A) Monthly Sheltering Statistical Reports, April 2018
(B) Monthly Field Service Statistical Report, April 2018
Adjournment and next meeting:
Michelle Walker made a motion to adjourn at 8:12 pm; Susan Elmore seconded. Motion carried without
dissent. The next meeting is June 20, 2018 at 6:30 pm, Orange County Animal Services Center.
Minutes taken:
Victoria Hudson
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