The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-12-19 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 1 of 11 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2011 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Chris Bell and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Paul Blikstad, Community Development; members of the Dog Control Board of Supervisors (Norma Brenton of Redmond, Laurel Pierson of Sisters, Judith Parker of La Pine, and Lani Sykes of Terrebonne); and media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Dog Control Board of Supervisors . Erik Kropp said he previously met with two members of the Dog Board who are frustrated with deliberating in public on dog board decisions. He had the members introduce themselves and indicate how long they have served: Norma Brenton, eight years; Laurel Pierson, thirteen years; Judith Parker, four years; and Lani Sykes, eight years. (Member Patricia Moore was not present, but e- mailed comments.) Mr. Kropp stated that he applauds their volunteer work, which is difficult and beyond that of what most volunteers do . Sometimes they visit the dogs that are being held to evaluate their behavior. It is not a typical volunteer position. However, County staff says that this is a public body, representing the Board, and deliberations have to take place in a public setting and executive session does not apply. Counsel researched whether this could be considered a judicial proceeding, but this does not apply. Chris Bell added that this process is not organized by the Courts, which is a State function. Mr. Kropp said that Lane County cites into Justice Court. Jefferson County handles it through a public meeting at their public works office; and Crook County formed a dog board but has not yet used it. Laurie Craghead added that Crook County has no members at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Pages Norma Brenton explained that she is uncomfortable discussing some issues in front of the dog owners. It is a very emotional situation, often with a lot of money involved, and the people may also lose the dog. Most of the people are already financially strapped. In some instances, after the hearing the dog board members had to be escorted to their vehicles by an officer, so there are safety concerns. They want to be able to speak freely about the options, and it is too hard to say what you are really thinking with the people sitting there. Emotions run too high. Laurel Pierson added that if Counsel is worried about fair representation, perhaps someone from the press could sit in during deliberations. She does not want to deliberate in front of the dog owners, or the people whose animals have been chased, injured or killed. She asked what would happen regarding past hearings, if they in fact were done wrong. She feels this has gone too far into legalese, and she will no longer be able to attend if it is done this way. Judith Parker agreed. She said that when they make a determination, they also listen to law enforcement. They help to define what they can and cannot do. In one case, because of the nature of the dog owner and the fact there had been multiple visits, the officer said that they would not let a single officer respond to those calls. That kind of information helps the board make a good decision. Over the years, they have educated and improved the knowledge of dog owners, making for a more responsible public. She added they were not informed that this change was taking place and it put them on the spot. This issue will mean the loss of an important group of people who have done a lot of good for the County. Lani Sykes said that part of what they do is to remind each other of things that were said and to clarify what was said. However, the last meeting was more like a flow chart with answers being a simple “yes” or “no”. She is uncomfortable speaking freely in front of the people, and in some cases would not feel safe doing so. She added that it is a long way to drive here, but she doesn’t mind unless they have to continue exposing themselves to po tential safety issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Pages Chair Baney explained that they meet as the Board’s representative, but she sensitive regarding deliberations. She is elected to do this type of thing. It is different with a pet and in front of the people. She had a discussion with one of the parties involved in a case, and it was an unpleasant experience. She hears what is being said. The difficulty is the Oregon public meetings law. If they had oversight over that, they would make lots of changes, but they have no discretion. Every other advisory body meets in public, and they are all volunteers. She asked if it is possible to make it more judicial. Commissioner Unger thanked the group for all the years they’ve done this. The challenge with pets is that they are like members of the family. He would not want to be put in the same situation. He asked why it could not be like a jury, who can deliberate privately, with some separation. Maybe a hearings officer would be appropriate. Public meetings laws look at the big picture, but like other laws, cause unintended consequences. Commissioner DeBone thanked them also. He is still in a learning phase on this issue, but understands the message. He would like to help figure out the options. Ms. Craghead said she was not aware of the process until recently. This is a learning process for Counsel, too. In a recent Lane County issue, a lot of research was done regarding open meetings law, and she realized these hearings were not being conducted properly. There is a due process issue where people need to be able to respond to the evidence and discussion. She is sorry this was so sudden, but did not know until then how big this issue is. The statute of limitations probably covers most previous dog board decisions. Chair Baney stated that she does not want to see the County being sued for doing it wrong. Ms. Sykes said that everyone already has the information and nothing new is provided. The members used to be able to explain their experience and expertise, but previous Counsel would not allow it. It helps people to know why this group is qualified to hear the issue. She asked if this could be done via conference call. Mr. Bell stated that sometimes they have to weigh evidence based on photos and other information, which can’t be done over the phone. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 4 of 11 Pages Ms. Brenton said they often ask the officers to take photos of fencing, the dead or injured livestock, the dogs, etc. since the members can’t go to the site and look. Ms. Craghead stated that she looked into the group being a jury or tribunal, but this can’t be done because they are not appointed by the courts as quasi -judicial. They act on behalf of the Board. An exception exists in some State agencies where they can deliberate in private, like a parole board. However, this is spelled out specifically in statute. Chair Baney asked about citing into Justice Court. Mr. Bell replied this would go to the court and municipal judge. Chair Baney asked if a judge could establish a dog board. Ms. Craghead said that just a county can do this. Statute is specific about who enforces and makes the decisions. An appointed dog board is one option; a hearings officer is another; or the Board could hear these. The Board is the default option. Chair Baney stated that whether it is the Board or an appointee, they are still bound by public meetings law and ethics rules. Ms. Brenton said that former Commissioner Linda Swearingen and others heard dog cases. They made a controversial decision in one case and it became a big deal. Chair Baney stated that they would not be able to do it justice. The value of the dog board is incredible. The difficulty is that they now know the hearings have been conducted incorrectly. There is no excuse once you know. Ms. Parker said that there are rules on how the meetings are run. Hearings are to be informal and open to the public. She asked how this became part of the ORS. Chair Baney replied that usually the laws are complementary and married with statute. By doing this on behalf of a public body, the group is made part of government. The County can be more restrictive than the State, but not less. If someone was astute to that, and if appealed or sued, the County would be vulnerable. The County’s work could not be done without people who want to be engaged. Some groups are just advisory and don’t have to make decisions, but they still have to meet in public. Ms. Craghead stated that the group heard 27 cases during the past year. Public meetings laws don’t distinguish between formal and informal, just that they are acting on behalf of the Board. They qualify as the public body, the same as the governing body. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 5 of 11 Pages Chair Baney asked if they could be advisory to the Sheriff instead. Mr. Bell replied that he is an elected official, so it would be along the s ame lines. A hearings officer could have authority, but would be appointed by the Board. It’s also the same thing, Ms. Sykes asked if the group could instead just make a recommendation. Mr. Bell replied this would fall under the same laws. Ms. Brenton asked what kind of background the hearings officer would have. Ms. Bell said that this person would mainly look just at the facts. This person would just decode the law. A jury would have various options. Commissioner DeBone asked if the members ever disagree. Ms. Brenton replied that they disagree occasionally, maybe once out of every five cases. They had been able to speak freely and work it out between themselves. Sometimes they don’t all agree even then. Commissioner DeBone said that he is concerned about the public safety aspect. Public meetings can be contentious. Ms. Brenton observed that people sometimes bring in family members, children crying because they lost livestock projects or might lose their dog. One woman actually brought in a dead chicken, a 4-H project. Law enforcement often just comments and leaves. Chair Baney asked if they would need more time to deliberate. Ms. Craghead said that she is concerned about crossover between being a judge and a witness. Quasi-judicial is difficult if you testify as to your experience. It is more rigid. Ms. Pierson stated that they try to counsel people after a decision, especially regarding dog behavior or invisible fence issues, or how to keep their livestock safe. Chair Baney said that this could still be part of the meeting, but may have to make these comments off the record as an individual. Ms. Craghead stated that the decision has to be signed to be final, so these kinds of comments have to be on the record. Ms. Pierson said if it is that cut and dried, no expertise is needed. Mr. Kropp stated that they have to weigh evidence. Ms. Craghead added that they have to answer the questions on the flow chart. Commissioner Unger noted that they bring humanity to this part of the law. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Pages He asked what the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife does if this involves wildlife. Ms. Craghead replied that it is against the law to harass protected wildlife, or to let dogs chase deer, but she did not know how they handle these cases. Ms. Brenton said they try to find out if there were previous instances of dogs at large. Mr. Bell stated that they have discretion when it comes to penalties. Commissioner Unger asked what the cities do. Ms. Craghead replied that the cities generally deal with dog bites, and cite this into court. Livestock issues are specifically given to the County to decide. Chair Baney said she wants to retain this valuable board. She asked if there are things that could be adjusted. Ms. Pierson stated they want people to reali ze that they know animals and have expertise in this. Chair Baney stated they need to be able to deliberate more. They also need to have a law enforcement person who stays during the process. Some people can be a concern. She asked if they can try to do this, knowing what the law is. Ms. Brenton said it is worth a try, but the major concern is being able to have a free discussion, difficult in front of emotional people. It is up to Counsel to control the flow and the witnesses. Chair Baney added that Counsel also needs to provide guidance and expertise. Mr. Kropp said that they could perhaps hold the hearings downstairs in a more formal setting. Ms. Parker stated that open deliberations are very difficult in any case. One person involved had a felony record and was worrisome. It does not matter where it takes place, they would be uncomfortable in many cases voicing their opinions. Chair Baney stated that it appears they can retain a hearings officer; cite into Circuit Court, have a dog board deliberate in public, or the Board can hear these. Tammy: hearings officer, cite into circuit court, or have dog board deliberate in public, or the Board would have to hear these. Ms. Pierson noted that the courts are jammed, and it is important to get the dog out of the kennel as soon as possible, due to stress and other factors. This can cause irreparable harm. A hearings officer may be better. Moreover, the cost to kennel the dog continues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Pages Commissioner Unger asked if there is a choice as to which ones can be cited to court, based on what the officer says. Ms. Craghead said it is easier to collect the fines through a hearings officer. They would have to rewrite Code to set up objective criteria. Ms. Pierson said that sometimes the cases are easy. The neighbors may have already worked it all out, but because there was a police report, they still have to have the hearing. The Deputy has to respond if anyone calls, even a neighbor. Sometimes the livestock owner does not show up because they are concerned about the dog owner’s behavior. In addition, she does not think that chickens should be included as livestock anyway, especially free -roaming chickens. Mr. Bell stated he would research as to whether a hybrid can be created. Commissioner DeBone said that public meetings laws have to apply. He would rather see it handled consistently. These people have a lot of history and knowledge. People might behave differently if there was a dais used in a more formal setting. Chair Baney added that it is important to have an officer stay if it is contentious. Ms. Brenton said that sometimes they bring in friends or relatives, and the officers might know the people already and know if there is trouble brewing. Sometimes it is a neighbor issue that is brought to a head by a dog situation. Ms. Pierson added that most of them are not like that. Usually it involves people who are emotional and upset. Ms. Brenton stated that so many do not know that dogs are supposed to be licensed or not at large. The Humane Societies need to do more since they get most of the money, but are not getting the message out that dogs are not supposed to run at large and need a license. Mr. Bell said that they had a request for reconsideration today and a continued hearing. This is very rare, though. Discussion occurred regarding how to proceed. Chair Baney recommended using the downstairs meeting rooms where there is more separation. Ms. Brenton said that the group would talk about this and get back to the Board. She would like to meet the new County attorney to talk about how to conduct the meetings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 8 of 11 Pages 2. Other Items. Before the Board was Consideration of Resolution No. 2011-146, approving the initiation of the formation process for the 911 Service District. DEBONE: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. At this point, all left the meeting with the exception of the Board, Mr. Kropp and Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. 3. Discussion of Calendar Year 2012 Chair, Vice Chair Designations, and Committee Appointments. Commissioner Unger said that he would be okay with being Vice Chair for 2012, as he is running for reelection and is heavily involved in various groups. Commissioner DeBone stated he would like to see Commissioner Unger as Chair. Commissioner Unger said he’d prefer it if Commissioner DeBone was Chair, which would be good experience, especially with a new Administrator coming on board. Chair Baney noted that it does not take that much more time to be Chair; mostly just presiding over meetings. Commissioner Unger added that the Chair needs to make sure documents have been properly reviewed and that things flow as they should. Commissioner DeBone said that they have equal votes, but he wondered about expectations on the vote of the Chair. Chair Baney stated that the Chair does not have to forward a motion, but it is the will of the Board. The Chair can abstain or ask, where do they go from there. Commissioner Unger added that it appreciates each explaining their position and send a message that they are working at it. He appreciates it when the Chair does not indicate that his or her opinion is that of the Board. They just need to have a consensus. They can speak individually with a personal opinion. Mr. Kropp added that the Chair can ask for additions to the agenda, but usually the others are aware of this anyway. UNGER: Move that Commissioner DeB one be Board Chair for 2012. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Abstain. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. BANEY: Move that Commissioner Unger be Vice Chair for 2012. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney spoke about the importance of regional health reform. These efforts would have been railroaded for Deschutes County had no one been there. It is taking a lot of her time. It is an issue of statewide concern. Other states are asking for guidance on this issue as well. Commissioners Unger and DeBone encouraged Chair Baney to stay with this. Chair Baney added that they need to retain a voice and a vote at the state level. Some counties want to be advisory and not decision-makers. Preventative measures are the only way. At this point, the group discussed 2012 appointments and assignments. Chair Baney said that the Board has been asked to consider an Ironman event designation. The World Triathlon group is working with G2 strategic of Lay It Out Events to bring a west coast Ironman event to Deschutes County. The routes would not necessarily be in Bend. The Oregon Sports Authority may grant funds, but this is not linked to the State. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 19,2011 Page 9 of 11 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 10 of 11 Pages She knows some of the parties involved. It is a big deal if it can come here. The lead agencies would be the two event groups, and they make the application. It would be for five years and is the only Oregon application. The closing date for submission was December 15 but was delayed until January 15. COVA is already in agreement to provide financial and other s upport. This could bring in millions of dollars to the community. It is a big deal in Hawaii. The request is to assist with traffic control and security services. She is not sure if they have to be uniformed officers. They would have to find 200 volunteers to do this. A permit is needed, the same as any other event. Commissioner Unger noted that they will need to deal with garbage containers, pickup and cleanup. Chair Baney said that they could perhaps work with the Baileys or others in the business. She asked if the permit would have to be for an outdoor mass gathering. The event itself is in Bend but the courses are in the County. Mr. Kropp said that 500 or more is a mass gathering. He will find out the cost and the risk involved. Commissioner Unger would like to go through the list and see how services will be provided. Chair Baney said that they need the City of Sisters involved and a lot of community involvement. Mr. Kropp stated that they will need community support and involvement in th e grant application process. Commissioner Unger said that if they are making a profit, they need to pay expenses. The County and cities can provide other support. Chair Baney noted that if this is for economic development, a contribution could be made an d they could figure out how to use it. They asked for $25,000 from COVA and the Oregon Sports Authority. Commissioner DeBone noted that the first year is the big one for this kind of event. Commissioner Unger said that partners need to be contacted who have more experience in this type of thing. Chair Baney will find out more. ___________________________ Commissioner DeBone will attend the NACo legislative conference in 2012, in late February and early March. Chair Baney will be there for AOC about the same time. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. 2-0 (1 --~+-~----~r------M'll for the air ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 19, 2011 Page 11 of 11 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2011 1. Discussion of Calendar Year 2012 Chair, Vice Chair Designations, and Committee Appointments 2. Discussion of Dog Control Board of Supervisors -Erik Kropp 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS I 92.66O(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2Xd), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners .meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend. unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting. please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TIT. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. - r ~_ "Q) ..0 E Q) u .... Q) .... o~ >10 "'0 C o I I I I I I - 4o I Date: December 14, 20 II To: Board of County Commissioners From: Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator ~ Re: Dog Board Background The Deschutes County Animal Control Board of Supervisors ("Dog Board") is a five member volunteer board. The Dog Board is appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to determine the disposition of dogs that are cited for wounding, chasing, or killing livestock. The Dog Board performs an important public service and its members face difficult decisions that impact family pets, neighbor relations, and livestock. Issue Recently, after conducting legal research, County Legal Counsel determined that Dog Board deliberations need to occur in public session. Previously, the Dog Board heard testimony from the "complainant" and dog "owner" in open session, deliberated in private, and then issued a determination in public. Members of the Dog Board have expressed concerns about deliberating in public and would like to discuss the matter with the Board. According to ORS 192.610(3) and (4), the Dog Board is a "public body" because it is a board appointed by County ordinance to make a specific type of decision on the County's behalf -it has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the County with regard to dogs that have been impounded pursuant to ORS 609.125 190 for chasing. wounding, or killing livestock. Therefore, the board is subject to the public meetings laws. There are issues that a public body may discuss privately in executive session. However, none of these appear to apply to the board's deliberations in this context. There are also a few exceptions to the requirement of public deliberations set out in ORS 192.690. Unfortunately, none of these would apply either. I r I Legal staff looked into whether the Dog Board deliberations could be considered "judicial proceeding", which allow deliberations outside a public meeting. However, Legal staff determined that 'Judicial proceedings" are related to court proceedings, not proceedings of a county-appointed board. Alternatives Listed below are four alternatives: A. Reaffirm staffs position that Dog Board deliberations must be in a public meeting. B. Use an alterative to the Dog Board: 1. Board of County Commissioners 2. Appoint staff from Legal Counsel to serve as the hearings officer 3. Hire a hearings officer Recommendation I recommend reaffirming staff's position that Dog Board deliberations must be in a public meeting and discuss the ramifications of this decision with current Dog Board members. John Brenton From: Itcfarm@earthlink.net Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11 :01 AM To: Bonnie Baker; 'nbrenton@bendbroadband.com'; 'sumrwind@crestviewcable.com'; 'mahomaset@aol.com'; 'Isykes@cocc.edu.or'; 'goatiegat@gmail.com'; 'dsimenson@cocc.edu' Subject: Re: Monday Dog Board meeting Hi~ 1 cannot attend the meeting today so 1 wanted to voice my concerns and feelings. 1 do not feel comfortable deliberating in public with the "complainant" and "dog owner". There are times where these hearings are hostile with both parties. 1 feel that 1 am intimidated discussing the outcome of the dog/dogs in front of all parties. 1 believe the rest of the board feels the same way. Please let me know the outcome of the meeting today. Thanks Patricia Moore -----Original Message---- >From: Bonnie Baker <Bonnie.Baker@deschutes.org> >Sent: Dec 16 J 2911 3:92 PM >To: "'nbrenton@bendbroadband.com'" <nbrenton@bendbroadband.com>~ "'sumrwind@crestviewcable.com'" <sumrwind@crestviewcable.com>J "'ltcfarm@earthlink.net'" <ltcfarm(iilearthlink.net>J "'mahomaset@aol.com'" <mahomaset@aol.com>J "'lsykes@Cocc.edu.or'" <lsykes@cocc.edu.or>J "'goatiegal@gmall.com'" <goatiegal@gmall.com>J l'dsimenson@Cocc.edu'" <dsimenson@Cocc.edu> >Subject: Monday Dog Board meeting > >HiJ >Erik Kropp asked me to send you this memo and the agenda for the Monday discussion regarding the Dog Board hearing process. >1 hope 1 have the right e-mail addresses because Connie is not around to verify. >There is one item ahead of yours but Erik feels it will only take a few minutes. >ThanksJ >Bonnie > > I I [ 1 I Bonnie Baker From: Itcfarm@earthlink.net Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11 :01 AM To: Bonnie Baker; 'nbrenton@bendbroadband.com'; 'sumrwind@creslviewcable.com'; 'mahomaset@aol.com'; 'Isykes@cocc.edu.or'; 'goatiegal@gmail.com'; 'dsimenson@cocc.edu' Subject: Re: Monday Dog Board meeting Hi, I cannot attend the meeting today so I wanted to voice my concerns and feelings. I do not feel comfortable deliberating in public with the "complainant" and "dog owner". There are times where these hearings are hostile with both parties. I feel that 1 am intimidated discussing the outcome of the dog/dogs in front of all parties. I believe the rest of the board feels the same way. Please let me know the outcome of the meeting today. Thanks Patricia Moore -----Original Message---- >From: Bonnie Baker <Bonnie.Baker@deschutes.org> >Sent: Dec 16, 2011 3:02 PM >To: "'nbrenton@bendbroadband.com'" <nbrenton@bendbroadband.com>, '"sumrwind@crestviewcable.com''' <sumrwind@crestviewcable.com>, "'Itcfarm@earthlink.net'" <Itcfarm@earthlink.net>, "'mahomaset@aol.com'" <mahomaset@aol.com>, "'Isykes@cocc.edu.or'" <Isykes@cocc.edu.or>, "'goatiegal@gmail.com'" <goatiegal@gmail.com>, IIIdsimenson@cocc.edu'" <dsimenson@cocc.edu> >Subject: Monday Dog Board meeting > >Erik Kropp asked me to send you this memo and the agenda for the Monday discussion regarding the Dog Board hearing process. >1 hope I have the right e-mail addresses because Connie is not around to verify. >There is one item ahead of yours but Erik feels it will only take a few minutes. >Thanks, >Bonnie > > 1 ?H(l:;!':;."*"'''''l'',~,<Il',~Yl!, -""-~,.,...--f<¥Q9","~~%)I;L;:S ;;;; MM'Il;:Pto""'JM ;A¥kU;.~U,,",)UJ~' ih ;.<A. 4£A#A% ~,''I<l)llM$,'''' () "Mlast $( "'P::iJlP u ·4ii\Mi!iiiZSiQ&id' i." ;' ... .~' f Exhibit A .C. If the 'board determines that the dog has not 6.12.060. Headng. been so engaged, (he dog shall be released to . its owner. In such cases, if the dog wasA. If a dog is impounded pursuant to DCC impounded upon receipt of evidence from a 6.12.050, the owner or keeper of the dog shall compJainant, the complainant may bebe entitled to a hearing as follows: required to pay the costs of keeping and1. The owner or keeper of a dog shall be . testing ofthe dog during the impounding. serVed with actual notice of the hearing not less than three days prior to the D. If the board determines after a full and fair hearing. If the owner or keeper of the hearing that a dog has engaged in k:illing, dog cannol be found, notice shall be wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the given by mailing a certified or registered board shall take action in accordance with the letter to the owner's or keeper's last following guidelines: known address' at least, five days before I. If the dog has engaged in chasing tile date of the hearing, or, if no last livestock and has not previously killed, known address is known to the County, wounded, injured or chased livestock: by 'publication at least five days before a. The board shall take reasonable the date of the hearing. measures, to prevent a recurrence. 2. The owner shall be afforded the Reasonable measures include, but are opportunity to present evidenc~ 10 the not limited 10, requiring that the dog board during such hearing. Other owner lake specific measures to individuals ma.y present. evidence at the adequately confine the dog and hearing. The owner or keeper of the dog provide a notarized written pledge sholl have a final opportunity to' rebut that the owner wiJl prevent the dog any evidence submitted by others and from chasing livestock again; and shall ,be entitled to cross examine b, The board may impOse a civil witnesses. penalty ofnot more than $500. 3. The hearing 'conducted by the board 2. If the dog has engaged in chasing . 'pursuant to Dee 6.12.060 shall be livestock and has previously killed, informal and open to the pUblic, All wounded, injured or chased livestock, or relevant evidence shall be considered by if the dog has engaged in wounding or (be board: injuring livestock and has not previously 4. The board may establish reasonable killed, wounded, injured or chased parameters for the conduct of the hearing livestock, the board shall impose a civil .to ensure an orderly and complete penalty of nol Jess than .$250 and not presentation of the evidence. The board, more than $1,000. In addition to on reasonable grounds, shalt continue the imposing the civil penalty, the board hearing to allow the owner or keeper of a may: dog sufficient opportunity to prepare a a, Require the dog owner to surrender defense. , the dog for adoption by a new owner B. After completion of, any ,tests as are approved by the' board; administered pursuant to DeC 6. 12.050(B), b. Require the owner to remove the dog the board shall convene a hearing to to a location where, in the opinion of detennine w4ether the dog has been engaged the board, the dog does not present a in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing threat to livestock; or livestock. Chapter 6.12 1 (1012001) Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" to Ordinance 2002·036 (11113/02) S:\Lqa.NlOCC Or<hnc"uOOl\Orol. 2001·0" £0" 0. &.12,OOO.doo " \ " . Exhibit A c. Require that the dog be put to death I. The dog has not previously engaged in in a humanef'. i~:iiner. Before chasing livestock; and .requiring that a dog be put to death 2. The livestock suffered' no injury. 111is under this subparagraph, the board shal! be established based upon a written shaH make specific findings on the report signed by a veterinarian approved record that· other measures are not by Ihe livestock owner, who at the dog available, are not adequate to remedy owner's expense examined the lives took the, problem or are otherwise immediate1y after the chasing incident Unsuitable. and again tWa weeks later for signs of 3. 'If the dog has engaged in wounding or any injury; and .. injwing livestock and has previously J. A responsible person, Who may· be the ~lIed: wounded, 'injured" or chased dog owner, .has agreed in writing to' livestock, or if the dog has engaged in accept irrevocable ownersh:ip and killing livestock and has not previously custl?dy of the dog in a location and aren killed livestock, the board shall imp'ose a approved by the board; and civil.penalty of not less than $500 and 4. The dog owner has tendered payment of not more than $1,000. In addition fo a $500 fee as a.penalty, payabJe to the imposing the civil penalty, Ihe board Deschutes County dog fund to be used shall: exclusively for the activities set forth in a, Require the dog owner to remove Ihe DCC 6.12; and dog 10 a location where, in the 5. TIle dog owner agrees to pay fOT aIJ.d opinion of the board, the dog does have an identification chip implanted in not present a threat to livestock; or the dog or the dog's lip tattooed with the b. Require that the dog be put to death word "chaser" prior to the dog being 'in a humane mantler. ~. released. The license records of the dog 4. If the dog has engaged in killing livestock and Ihe dog's license shall be clearly lind the dog has previously killed marked "livestock chaser" and data livestock, the board shall impose a civil regarding the chip or tattoo shall be penalty of not less than $500 and not retained by the County, more than $1,000. In addition to If at the lime of lhe hearing, the boardimposing the civil penalty, the board linds Ihat the dog could potentiallyshall require that the dog be put to death qualify Ie be released under DeCin a humane manned. In establishing ,6.12.060(C) except that two weeks time the history of a dog for purposes of Ihis has not passed to allow a secondsection, or the' ruslory of an owner for examination 'of the livestock by apUrposes of ORS 609.163, a board shall veterinarian, the owner may requ~t aconsider all known determinations cQntinuance to allow for the secondinvolving the dog or owner by any court, examination to occur, during which timo or by a governing body, official or the dog shall be boarded at a privateagency of any local or state government, kennel at the expense of the dog own~.without regard to where or when the The board may require the posting of aincident occurredE. Notwithstanding bond to assure compliance with DeCDCC 6.12.060(B), at the dog owner's 6.12. request at the .time of the hearing, a dog found to have chased livestock may be 'P. In lieu of payment of the $500 fee as a released if' the board finds by a penaJty under DeC 6.12.060(C)( 4), the board preponderance of the evidence thaI: may consider a petition of indigence and all Chapter 6.12 2 .(1012001) Page 200 EXHIBIT "A" to Ordinance 2002-036 (11113/02) S:\Lq:M\llOCC OrdinancallOO2lO<4. ,0Ill .0)4 ex" Ch Il.ll~,doc , \}.'" , , '. ...,". Exhibit A other relevant circumstances and allow credit for con1JTllll1ity service at ..~pi!e· of $10 per hour for each hour' of cOOunllnity service perfomled. G. Notw{thstanding Dee 6.16.010, a dog impounded pUrsuant to DeC 6.I6.060(A) or DCC 6.16.060(C) shall not be released until a determination is made by the board pursuant to DCC 6.12.060. (Ord. 2002-036, § I; Ord. 97-0q § I, 1997; Ord. 95-031 § 1,1995; Ord. 90-019 §.1, 1990;) ***** Note: U***"'*" denotes current code language not depicted in this exhibit that is not being amended by Ordinance i002-036. . Chapter 6.12 3 (lonoo!)Page 3 of 3 EXRIBIT "Au to Ordinance 2002-036 (11113/02) s:\UglNloccOrdilWcsl2JlO1\OnL 2002·036 I!x A 06.12.00&.<10<