HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_1077Dr. Brad Rutledge, a member of the Animal Control Grievance Committee for the
past 12 years, said that prior to March of this year, or the adoption of the new ordinance,
the appellate board members "had some room to evaluate each case." Rutledge said the
members could evaluate the situations to determine if an animal was a "threat to the
community." Dr. Rutledge said he couldn't in good conscience uphold the new law, and
he was "temporarily resigning from the committee" until it was revised. He said the
ordinance was too general in what constituted a dangerous dog. Rutledge recommended
that a ten-day period be inserted in the ordinance for a quarantine period. He suggested
that a committee be formed to re-evaluate the ordinance, and that prior to the adoption of
revisions to the ordinance, the appeals board be given some latitude in evaluating the
cases. Rutledge recommended for the committee to be composed of representatives from
the board of commissioners, the animal control department, the appellate board, and the
humane society, to allow for a "good balance of ideas."
Commissioner Madison said he understood the ten-day quarantine period for a bite
was a State law.
Attorney Pope said this was correct.
Madison said that under State law, a dog could not be destroyed for ten days after it
bit someone. He said this would give a three day appeals process, and ten days to hold a
hearing. Mr. Madison said he also understood that in March, when the ordinance was
being reviewed, that the appeals board members would have the discretion to apply
common sense to the judgment of a dangerous dog and adjudicate accordingly.
Commissioner Madison said that basically the only thing the commissioners changed from
Mr. Weisner's proposal was the definition of a "severe bite." He said Mr. Weisner's
proposal defined a severe bite as one that required stitches, cosmetic surgery, or something
of that nature. Mr. Madison said the reason behind changing the definition was that if an
animal bit a person, inflicting several deep puncture wounds, the animal could miss being
classified as dangerous due to no cosmetic surgery being obtained.
Rutledge said he didn't feel like he had the latitude or leeway to make judgmental
decisions in the cases.
Attorney Pope said it appeared the term "broken skin" needed some clarification.
He said the definition of severe injury was "any physical injury that resulted in broken
bones or broken skin." Pope said the animal grievance committee, or appellate board,
was a quasi-judicial board, and the members had the authority, within certain parameters,
to interpret the cases presented before them.
Rutledge recommended that some method be found to disclose to the public that
monetary fines would be incurred for ordinance violations.
OTIO by Chairman Johnson to appoint the Chief Animal Control Officer,
Commissioner Marvin Norman, Dr. Brad Rutledge, and two members of the humane
society, to an ad hoc committee for the purpose of reviewing the ordinance and to make a
recommendation to the board of commissioners in the future.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Dr. Rutledge said he desired to withdraw his resignation from the animal control
grievance committee, if "leeway" was being given the members to evaluate each situation
on a case-by-case basis.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Johnson declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Consideration of an Economic Incentive Grant for Chip Ganassi Racing with
Felix Sabates: Economic Developer Melanie O'Connell Underwood said the Ganassi
Racing team was landlocked and needed to expand. She said the company planned to