The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM120814So� cJI�i O C' �4 i District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of December 8, 2014 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner David Sullivan. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: • The Mayor of Port Townsend expressed gratitude for the County's decision to repair the roof on Memorial Field; • A citizen thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for making repairs to the Memorial Field roof; and • A citizen stated the proposed Animal Responsibility Code is unnecessary and explained why. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Chairman Austin moved to delete Item No. 8 regarding a Letter Extending the Comprehensive Plan Update Deadline, and approve the remaining items as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 3 re: 2015 -2016 Auditing Services; In the Amount of $5,000; Jefferson County Auditor; Jefferson County Rural Library 2. AGREEMENT re: Design and Engineering Services, Rick Tollefson Memorial Trail Phase One, County Project No. 1801815; In the Amount of 550,760.20; Jefferson County Public Works; Legacy2012, LLC, dba Nakano Associates 3. AGREEMENT NO. 13 -1221C re: Duckabush Floodplain Acquisition; In the Amount of $329,309; Jefferson County Public Health/Environmental Health; Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) 4. AGREEMENT re: Washington Conservation Corps Members to Perform Restoration, In- Stream and Habitat Maintenance Projects; In the Amount of $12,450; Jefferson County Public Health/Environmental Health; North Olympic Salmon Coalition 5. AGREEMENT NO. HBE- 075 -05, Amendment No. 2 re: In- Person Assister Services for Washington Health Benefit Exchange; Additional Amount of $800.30 For a Total of $13,604.65, Not to Exceed $14,404.95; Jefferson County Public Health; CHOICE Regional Health Network 6. AGREEMENT, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) re: Medicaid Administrative Claiming; In the Amount of Fee for Services; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials (WSALPHO) Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 Xw:,� 7. Final Short Plat Approval re: ORCA Short Plat, Pederson Short Subdivision SUB 12- 00012/MLA12- 00162; To Divide 7.48 Acres into Two (2) Residential Parcels; Kirie, Celia and Lisa Pedersen, Applicants 8. (DELETED) Letter Extending the Comprehensive Plan Update Deadline re: Two (2) Year Extension to Adopt an Updated Growth Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive Plan; Deadline is June 30, 2018; Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services (Approved later in Minutes) 9. Advisory Board Resignation re: Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC); Environmental/Conservation Representative Alternate, Jill Silver 10. Two (2) Advisory Board Reappointments re: Jefferson County Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee; 1) Four (4) Year Term Expiring December 8, 2018; Jefferson Land Trust Representative, Sarah Spaeth; and 2) Four (4) Year Term Expiring December 8, 2018; District No. 3- Citizen Representative, Elijah Christian 11. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated December 2, 2014 Totaling $1,115.48 Consent Agenda Item No. 8 Letter Extending the Comprehensive Plan Update Deadline: Chairman Austin moved to approve the letter with a correction to the signature line. Where it reads "President of the Board of County Commissioners" it should read "Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners." Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Attended a Drug Court graduation ceremony last week where Prosecutor Scott Rosekrans received appreciation for his work on that program. - Attended an Olympic Consortium Board meeting last week. Congressman Derek Kilmer was in attendance and stated he supports economy on the Peninsula. - Will be attending a JeffCOM 911 meeting and Tourism Coordinating Council meeting this week. Commissioner Johnson - Attended a Marine Resources Committee meeting last week where Clallam County Commissioner Mike Doherty received an environmental award. - Announced that the Washington State Auditor's Office concluded its audit on Jefferson County and we received no findings and 3 recommendations. Commissioner Sullivan - Attended a Resource Conservation and Development (RC &D) meeting. RC &D joined the Peninsula Development District (PDD). - Attended local craft fairs and toured the Brinnon Food Bank last weekend. - Noted a correction to his calendar: This week he will be attending a Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting and not a Tourism Coordinating Council (TCC) meeting as posted. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 K, DELIBERATION re: October 6, 2014 Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 Marijuana Moratorium: Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith and County Administrator Philip Morley were present for the deliberations. County Administrator Morley stated that the purpose of the deliberation is to acknowledge for the record that ample opportunity has been given to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to review the comments made in regard to the marijuana moratorium. County Administrator Morley noted that they are not recommending any formal action, and no formal action is necessary. DCD Director Smith stated that by concluding deliberations, it does not affect future decisions. Commissioner Sullivan moved to conclude deliberations on the public testimony from the public hearing held on October 6, 2014. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. He added that although he was not present at the initial hearing, he has had time to review the audio and comments from the hearing. All three Commissioners reviewed the written commentsreceived as well. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion which passed unanimously. DELIBERA TION re: Adoption of 2015 Jefferson County Budget: County Administrator Philip Morley and Budget Consultant Anne Sears were present for the meeting. It was noted that there are a couple minor changes from last week's 2015 Jefferson County Budget presentation. The Prosecutor's Office will not be receiving D.A.R.T. grant funding this year and the County Fair is changing to a County department, so it has been added to this year's budget. Ms. Sears stated that the budget for 2015 is very stable and she believes this is due to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) taking action 5 years ago to assist the budget. Because of good decision making, we are able to have a balanced budget. There are no anticipated cuts this year. County Administrator Morley pointed out that there are two resolutions before the Board for consideration. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 58 -14 Adopting the 2015 Budget for the General Fund and Other Funds, and the 2015 Jefferson County Road Construction Program and 2015 County Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. He noted that the graph on the 2015 Budget shows how the County has spent Prop 1 funds and that the County has held up it's promise to fund things that they said they would. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion which passed unanimously. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 59 -14 Adopting a Salary Schedule for the FLSA and Union Exempt Management and Professional Employees for 2015. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 9:36 a.m. and reconvened at 10:01 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 E4ic; HEARING re: Animal Responsibility Ordinance: County Administrator Morley stated that the proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance is still a work in progress. He recommended that the Commissioners not take action today so they have a chance to deliberate on the written record and possibly direct staff for future refinements. The proposed ordinance would repeal in entirety, the existing County Code Chapter 6.05 pertaining to animal responsibility and replace it. County Administrator Morley noted that the Animal Control Officer, Sheriff, s Office and JeffCOM 911 receive calls regarding animals on a regular basis. The current section of the County Code regarding barking and howling dogs is not enforceable as drafted. The ordinance was proposed to help resolve neighbor issues. He added that over time, the administration of animal shelter and licensing has evolved. Currently, the County has a contract with the Humane Society to be the operator of the Animal Shelter. They conduct animal licensing and kennel licensing. There has been a change between City and County regarding animal control. Refinement to kennel licensing provisions, establishing some specific standards for the design and operation of a kennel shelter and animal welfare facilities has been addressed. A technical tune -up of the remainder of the code has also been done. Details have been cleaned up and revised. Copies of the proposed changes were distributed to members of the audience. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Larry Crockett: He stated he got an email from his wife who is in Moscow, Russia who told him that he had better testify. She has already replied through public comments. The ordinance is very arbitrary and totally unenforceable as written. There are others in the room that can testify they are strong supporters of the local Animal Shelter. Up until recently, we had four rescue dogs in our house, we have three now. One has passed away. We have been doing this for many many years. We also have a couple cats, so suddenly I'm illegal. We are not a kennel, we are a house. The dogs sleep where you would expect, in front of the hearth, next to a bed. We have no metal cages, kennels or anything like that. We are not commercial. We just take care of animals. He stated that he doesn't know where the arbitrary number of five dogs and or cats came from. Thank you. Joe Nole: He stated he is the Undersheriff of the Jefferson County Sheriff s Office. He reviewed the proposed ordinance and in his opinion, the ordinance brings us closer to having a more objective and fair way to deal with animal control issues from the Sheriff s Office standpoint, so he supports it. Andrew Johnston, Jefferson County: He stated that he has been told that he is the only licensed breeder of livestock guardian dogs in the County. That's one place that isn't affected, with some exceptions. A lot of those rules for commercial kennels are written for people who are running commercial businesses. They are different than having dogs out in the fields with livestock. Exceptions were made. He stated it is not clear to him if the County is now intending to throw all that out? When the County says "replace that whole section," he isn't sure which section. There have been exemptions that were granted in the past, but he is not really sure what is driving this. He has heard the explanation, but it seems like there is a lot more to it. Being the only guy in the County raising these types of dogs, it is concerning to him. Another thing that got his attention was that there was no distinction made for how much space the animals have. It's "X" amount boundaries, period. Whether you are on an eighth of an acre in Hadlock or you're on 40 acres in the country and the animals are spread out. It makes a difference as far as your Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 neighbors are concerned. If you've got 10 dogs close to a bunch of people, or if you've got them spread out, it makes a difference. If you've got them in zones 1 to 20, it can be very different, but there doesn't seem to be any distinctions being made for the density of the animals on a given property or within the zoning. That does not make a lot of sense. I'm sure there's a reason behind that. He stated that someone with 40 acres would have to be treated the same. Well it's not the same to the neighbors. He stated he was not prepared to speak, but that he had sent his written comment to the Commissioners beforehand. It is not clear to him what is being changed. He stated that in one of the drafts of the ordinance, it looked like "Sheriff s" was eliminated. If that is the case, who will be doing inspections then? If it is the volunteers at the animal shelter, he has an issue with that. Chairman John Austin asked Mr. Johnson what he raises? Mr. Johnston replied he raises livestock guardian dogs. Heidi Brewig: She stated she has a couple concerns and is happy the Board is addressing this issue in the County. She worked on the original animal ordinance, probably 25 years ago and is glad it is being readdressed. She has a few issues concerning the wording of the ordinance. A lot of work had been done on definitions, but they still need some rework. She lives in Port Ludlow with a great trail system and walks her dog off leash. The ordinance defines "running at large on public property," but the wording was changed from "walking a dog under control' to "walking on a leash or under control by a competent person." She would like to know who would make that judgment call as to whether or not someone is competent. That is something that needs to be addressed. It could jam the courts up, because a judge would have to decide if someone is competent or not. These ordinances put a lot of pressure on the County's Animal Control Officer. He is going to have to make a lot of judgment calls on defining things that are outlined in the ordinance. She pointed out that some of the definitions should be re- looked at to make it easier for a Control Officer. If some of these judgment calls need to be made by the Animal Shelter, they may not be qualified to deal with all the aspects of this ordinance. Tom Thiersch: He stated he had a couple suggestions for the Board. It is interesting that a lot of this came about because of the absence of one word in the existing County ordinance which is "unreasonable." The ordinance used to contain that word. The definition of hybrid should be looked at. It is entirely too broad. He is sure that was not the intent, but right now it includes things like mules, ligers and any other cross species. He is sure that the intent pertained to mostly dogs. He addressed the issue of license requirement for dogs. If a person doesn't license their dog for a number of years, and then that dog gets impounded and the owner goes to redeem that animal, the only thing they have to pay is a redemption fee. They don't have to pay for those years where they didn't pay their license fee. They only have to pay for the current license fee year. That means that they are basically being allowed to get away with ignoring the law. They ignore the law for however many years they owned that dogs with no license. He does not think that is appropriate. They should be forced to pay the license fee when picking up their animal. Either a license is or is not required. To him, "required" means you have to pay for it, period. Let's not be ambiguous. In Section 440, 450 and 460 it talks about infractions. Under Section 450, the way that the process is described, why all the special rules regarding infractions? It seems redundant. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 Joe D'Amico: He stated he had several concerns when looking at this ordinance. It reminds him of the roundabout in Port Townsend, which resulted in unintended consequences. This ordinance will be put on the Sheriff's Department. The noise ordinance affects people concerned about pickle ball court issues. The same thing will happen with dogs. As soon as a dog goes across the street, the Sheriff s Department gets a call and the County gets billed $28. Deputies get dispatched when the Animal Control Officer is on vacation. He can see this as being very expensive for the County. He handed out a document. On Page 10 of that document, it outlines an exemption for law enforcement canine dogs. For a law enforcement dog in a kennel in Port Ludlow, how will he be treated? Another exemption should be for guide dogs, which are talked briefly about on Page 10. He suggested that the term "armored car service" be changed to "licensed private security firm." He stated that the handout shows that his company, Security Services Northwest, is licensed with the State Department of Health and is allowed to store narcotics and have drug dogs. Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez asked what section Mr. D'Amico was looking at? Mr. D'Amico replied that he is referring to Page 10, Section 6.07.110. He is not sure why the topic is underneath that section, it talks about entering food establishments too. He stated it could be a misprint. He re- stated that "licensed private security firm" should replace "armored car." If you say "licensed" than not just anybody can claim they are private security so their dog could be exempt. He is concerned about items on Page 8 affecting the character of Section 6.07.050; Running at large on public property. He believes this section is the result of people coming from Bellevue, who have all these laws. They come here and go camping, and go throw their stick out in the water in Fort Worden and let their dog fetch it. The ordinance would prevent throwing sticks in water for your dog to fetch. This really needs to be looked at. Where does public property start? If you throw your stick into the water, even though you own property at Adelma Beach, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns the water. He believes this issue needs to be looked at. Debbie Rennick: She stated she lives in the Bridgehaven area. One of their issues in that neighborhood is the howling and barking of dogs. She is happy to see that this ordinance is coming back and something can be done about it, other than the neighbors arguing about nothing happening with the dogs that are causing problems. They have six neighbors and one dog that is causing a problem. They called recently about it and were told that the County couldn't do anything for them because there was no ordinance in place. She supports 6.07.090 regarding howling and barking and believes it is well written. It is understandable and probably quite enforceable. Amy Rose Dubin: She stated that she is particularly concerned with Section 6.07.090 pertaining to livestock guardian dogs. She does not see how it can be measured when a dog is barking, particularly a livestock guardian dog. She does not know how it can be determined that a dog is "actively defending a herd." It is arbitrary based and vague. Livestock guardian dogs should be treated differently than domesticated dogs. She stated she sent link to the Board previously regarding livestock guardian dogs in many other states and also other counties in Washington State. They are there for a job. If they are barking, it is for a reason, and that is to protect the herd. She stated that her dog has barked to protect their herd and since they no longer have that dog, they have had attacks. She believes they would not have attacks, had they had a barking livestock guardian dog. Their livestock is their livelihood and family business. They have seen cougars, bobcats and they are a risk. She urged the Board to consider M, Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 treating the livestock guardian dogs separately and there would be some real accountability and a way to measure how long the dog is barking. The dogs are trained to sound off the alarm, that is what they do. They don't just bark for a little bit. Francis Rosnev: She stated she supports the Humane Society and all the folks that work with them. She just recently had to seek services from the Humane Society. They are to be commended for not only the way they manage the operation, but for their compassion. With all the changes that are proposed, she hopes that they maintain the support of the community and enforcement support. She thanked everyone and gave kudos to the Humane Society. Paul Becker: He stated that he is a member of the Humane Society. He commended County Administrator Philip Morley and his team for addressing a very difficult ordinance. The proposed ordinance will provide significant improvement in the Code for the protection of dogs in the County. It will also provide a significant amount of recourse for people who find that owners of dogs are mistreating their dogs or allowing them to do things that they shouldn't be doing. This is a very difficult subject and he believes it has been addressed very well. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Undersheriff Joe Nole thanked everyone for attending the hearing. It is important for the public to attend hearings and voice their opinion. Commissioner Johnson stated that he questions the title of the Animal Responsibility ordinance. He thanked everyone for bringing their concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Sullivan stated this is about animal owner responsibility. He looks forward to suggestions and verbiage changes. He added that this is something that is geared towards a small number of people who are not working things out with their neighbors. Most people can work things out, but we do not always have incidences where they can be worked out. Commissioner Sullivan stated they have been receiving complaints throughout the County by neighbors of animal owners. Since this issue is not one that can be addressed by the Planning Commission, this can be a back and forth type of thing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to extend the deadline for submitting written comments on the Animal Responsibility Ordinance to December 31, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez stated that Commissioner Elect Kathleen Kler will need to review the testimony and make a decision in 2015. County Administrator Morley clarified other comments raised in regard to guardian dogs, barking and howling dog exemptions, "competent" persons, license fees and back fees for animal owners with limited means, and rabies vaccinations. The meeting was recessed at 10:45 a.m. and reconvened at 11:00 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 t Etc HEARING re: Two Alternative Ordinances for Expanding the South Coyle Peninsula No Shooting Area: County Administrator Philip Morley stated there is a question on whether or not to expand the existing South Coyle no shoot zone. This came before the County in the form of a petition in 2013. Subsequently, the Auditor's Office, which certifies petitions to see if they meet certain criteria, found that there was not the required number of registered voters to move forward. Under the authority of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), the Board brought forward another alternative. County Administrator Morley reviewed two large displays at the hearing. One depicted a map of the original petition's proposed no shoot expansion. Another display showed a map of the County's proposed no shoot expansion area. The main difference between the two proposed extension areas is the section of land owned by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In the County's proposal, DNR lands are exempt, but a 200 foot buffer along Zelatched Point Road and Coyle Road would be kept to protect cars and others along the roadway. The two proposed ordinances are basically the same, but the map and legal descriptions are different. He added that under state law, which allows for no shoot areas, and under County Code, there is a requirement for the BOCC to make a finding through the hearing process and based on records, that there does in fact constitute a safety concern in the area that is being considered. In that regard, with the assistance of Undersheriff Joe Nole, a records search was done to see if there have been any complaints in the area in question. In the past five years, there have been no complaints. He added, however, that there are some individuals present that may be able to shed a different light on that history. As laid out in County Code, the County actively solicited input from nearby Treaty Tribes. The County contacted local tribes who were the signatories to the Point No Point Treaty and the Point Elliot Treaty, both from the 1800's. County Administrator Morley noted that comments were received from some of the tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe referenced they prefer there be no further expansion of the no shooting areas. If there needed to be an area sectioned off for public safety, they stated they could understand that, but that DNR lands be kept open and available for shooting. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Dennis Schmidt: He thanked the Commissioners for carrying out this process, allowing residents to voice their concerns of safety and their wishes in that area. He has followed this process and was the person that gathered the petition signatures. He provided 25 signatures on the first application. 20 are required by the process. The County came back and requested specific signatures of which he fulfilled seven of the ten requested signatures. Some people in the family were concerned or had fear about signing this type of petition. He knows that the Board will consider the request of the people that live in this area. He stated that those that live in the area are looking at their safety. Zelatched Point runs from the very bottom corner of the map all the way to the Navy base. They call this area " Zelatched Mile." People walk, ride bikes and jog throughout the year. This is a year round activity. It is a pleasant walk for people to take. He stated that people who signed the second petition, are people who live close to this area and are in support of the proposed expanded no shoot area. The establishment of a no shoot in this area will also increase the ability to enforce the no shoot zone. Hunters gather on Zelatched Road, which is the road commonly walked on, and they leave behind a lot of debris. There is concern by people who are riding or walking, that they may be in the hunter's line of shot. The animals are coming across the road from the shoot zone, into the no shoot zone, which is cause for concern. People would like to have protection from that. Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 Ez Ms. Schmidt: She stated that while there may not be many complaints about shooting in that area, they are concerned about the abuses that happen in regards to the shooting activity in that area. The concern mostly comes from hunters who hunt along the road. They are at the road with their firearms, and they are flushing deer across the road. She made a 9 -1 -1 call the previous year. She stated that she called because she was riding her horse back home in the evening, along Zelatched Road and after the sun had gone down. Her two dogs were with her and she saw a man in a tree stand. She made the comment to him "Isn't it sundown ?" The man accused her of harassing him and began to verbally threaten her. He told her not to leave, that he was coming down out of the tree. She was not so much as frightened, but she was angry. She does not scare easily, but she thought of the many people that use that road, and had he cussed at others in the manner at which he cussed at her, it would have been extremely detrimental to them. Although that is not a recurring concern, it is a concern. Another concern is regarding parking. The hunters do not park across the road. If citizens that try to gather information to report a violation, it is viewed as harassment and they come under threats. She cannot stop all that. She is concerned that people in South Coyle believe that law enforcement will not do anything to back them up. When she called 9 -1 -1, two police cars came to her aid and she is very proud of our law enforcement. She wants the Coyle community to know that everyone should report offenses. We should not be intimidated by those who threaten. There are many from her area that would not attend the hearing today, because they are intimidated. George Greenwood: He stated he lives on the Coyle Peninsula. He does not believe this should be a shooting or non - shooting issue. It is a property rights issue. He would never consider telling the Schmidts, who are very nice people, what they could or could not do on their own property. At the same token, he expects them not to tell him what to do on his property. If he wants to go to the top of his road and shoot tin cans, that should be his business. He is the one who pays the taxes on his property. If they want to have horses on their property, that's none of his business. Law enforcement has gone back to look at the records and reported that there were no incidents of any person or livestock being shot. This is a non - issue. There is nothing to tackle. He talked to the Schmidts yesterday and believes they are very nice people. They don't like hunting. They don't like shooting. They don't really live in a no shoot zone. He does not believe that expanding a no shoot zone is going to make a difference. He believes the proposed expansion is an attempt at resolving a problem that is not there. He urged the Board to reject any expansion of a no shooting zone and not consider any alternative. It is high time we start repealing the existing no shoot zone. If people are violating the law, that is up to the Sheriff s Office or Fish and Game to deal with, not imposing a no shoot zone. A few years ago there were a rash of burglaries in and around the Coyle, most of the targets being summer homes. The community held a meeting and at that meeting, a good friend of his suggested expanding the no shoot zone. He asked his friend how that would address the issue of burglaries? His friend replied that it wouldn't. He then asked why expand the no shoot zone? His friend replied with "Why not ?" He believes the proposed expansion is a mistake and thinks there must be another way to appease the residents who are concerned, rather than imposing a draconian move on the whole community. Mr. Fulton: Decided not to speak. Beckar Nowicki: She stated she supports the extension of the no shoot zone for a variety of reasons. She does not dislike hunting and she loves game meat, but she has lived on the peninsula since 2006 and has been coming to the area since 2002, and she has noted that the area has changed. It is not what it was when she first starting coming to the area. There are a lot more permanent people and children who now live in the area. There is also a number of older folks who have remained out there. Zelatched Mile is the only place for people to walk. They have teenage foster children. Last year one of their foster children Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 was training for cross country and he came into contact with hunters. They often have foster children who run into hunters while they are on horseback. She has talked to past Sheriff Tony Hernandez about this in the past. The hunters are walking on Zelatched Point Road in fatigues with flip flops on. This indicates to her that the hunters have no intention whatsoever of going into the underbrush to hunt anything. The area along Zelatched Point Road needs to be protected, not so much for the hunters, but for the beer cans and garbage that is discarded in the street. People use that area. Mark Stratton: He stated he lives on the Coyle and he does not have any problem with people hunting. His concern is where the bullet goes when it's shot and how far it travels. He drives the Coyle Road two to three times a day. During hunting season, the hunters used to pull into a parking spot and go into the woods. Now they are parking on Coyle Road and just walk up and down the road carrying their guns. If they want to shoot, they should go into wherever it is they are going to shoot. He does not know if 200 feet is enough to stop a bullet from hitting someone on the road. He is concerned where the bullet will go and it bothers him that people are walking up and down the road with their guns. Joe Nole: He stated he is the Undersheriff of the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office. He thanked everyone for coming in and making their opinions heard and stated that is what government is all about. He clarified that when he was asked by County Administrator Philip Morley to check the stats, he was only concentrating on gun shots, noise complaints and stray bullets. In those categories, there was nothing found in the last five years. Jacob Holton: He stated he lives in Port Ludlow, but that he grew up on the Coyle. He walked and road his bike down the main road of that area. He has never had any issues with hunting, shooting or anyone being cross. He does not recall anyone having issues with anyone else in that area. He does not understand why people are saying there is garbage along the road. He still visits the area every week and he has not had any kind of issue. As far as hunting, if they close it to shooting, there is still archery available in that area. It is illegal to shoot on or from or across any roadway. If there are people shooting across the roadway, from or on the roadway, he does not believe that establishing a no shooting zone will stop them. It doesn't make sense. Mason Crowell: He stated he just bought 40 acres on the Coyle. He does not understand the expansion, he opposes it. It will not help anything. As another commentator stated, shooting from the roadway is already illegal to do. Establishing a no shooting zone is not going to change anything. If people are already doing what they are worried about, they are already breaking the law. He feels this is a waste of government resources. Dan Toenyer: He asked for clarification on the 200 foot buffer. On the eastern and western portions of the proposed buffer, is that Washington State Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) property? County Administrator Morley replied yes. Mr. Toepper asked how it was that the County could enact a 200 foot zone above the property like that? Signage would be misleading to the public as to an inaccessible area to hunt. Where does the guidance come from the State to put that 200 foot buffer around there? To him, it looks like it would be deceptive to people who may not give due diligence and research. On a piece people may know is public property, they may not be aware of what is accessible and what is part of the no shooting zone. He suggested clarification on that to avoid possible litigation issues in the future. Trying to post signs where you are not able to post, seems like an issue on two sections of the proposed buffer. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 Joe D'Amico: He stated he is from Jefferson County and is also representing Security Services Northwest (SSNW). He considers himself a subject matter expert when it comes to gun ranges and shooting and velocity of guns. He basically agrees with the tribe on not wishing to see an expansion of the no shooting zone. The County is wishing to deviate from the ordinance, and that is concerning to him. The ordinance states you have to have so many registered voter signatures, and the Board is deviating from that. It makes him a little nervous. He stated the Board is also setting a precedence to other areas in the County. His other concern is regarding the DNR property that would be left open for hunters. The state says "Where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property be jeopardized..." You have to really look at that. There are already laws on the books regarding people shooting over highways, or endangering people or property. He believes the Sheriff s Department is doing a find job of responding to those concerns. A lot of people get nervous, but Washington is an open carry state. This means that he can walk right downtown Port Townsend, with a gun exposed, or a gun over his shoulder if he wanted to. A lot of people think that because people are carrying guns, they may not intimidate you, but if that person is not demonstrating or pointing that rifle at somebody, they can take that up with the Sheriff s Department if they don't like it. When he looks at the maps of the proposed expansion areas, he sees high density and some areas that are one acre parcels. He is not sure if that is something that needs to be revamped down the road. When he looks at the map he wonders if the Jefferson County Sportsman's Club would fit in that area? Where the club is located, they are allowed to shoot there. The people who bought property on the Coyle, who may want to have a shooting area, will they be able to shoot? Tom Thiersch: He stated that he does not care one way or the other if the no shoot zone is expanded, but he is concerned about the alternatives that are presented. The 200 foot buffer, how will that be signed so people actually know what the boundary is? This issue came up and was discussed by the Planning Commission years ago when no shooting zones were being debated. There is a whole issue of properly designating an area in terms of meets and bounds. That appears to be addressed in the draft ordinance. Posting so that people know where the area starts and stops is problematic. It is also potentially expensive. If you've got dense and forested areas, it's pretty hard to find where those signs are unless you post them very close to one another. He stated that people tend to tear signs down too which becomes a maintenance issue. When the signage isn't visible, you have an enforcement issue because a person would have a reasonable excuse to say they didn't see anything posted. He believes this issue may lead to law enforcement time being wasted. The 200 foot alternative is not a good idea. He proposed an Alternative 3 which would be the same as the DNR lands being a shoot zone, but with the exclusion of the 200 foot buffer. It would be more enforceable and less expensive to put in place. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. County Administrator Morley thanked everyone for their comments. He explained that as the Commissioners deliberate their choices are to either: 1) not adopt any new ordinance and leave the existing South Coyle No Shoot Area as it stands; 2) Adopt one of the two alternatives as presented; or 3) Direct staff to prepare a different alternative with the input of staff and citizen suggestions. Commissioner Johnson thanked everyone for their testimony and stated it is a difficult situation for him. He finds it difficult to understand people moving to a remote wooded area and building a house there, then asking people not to hunt in that area. He noted that he understands the concerns and is tom on this decision. The 200 foot buffer does not make a great deal of difference overall. When he hears there has not been any complaints in five years, and after reading all of the testimony, he finds himself very supportive of the hunters. He added that the County is also overrun by deer. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 Commissioner Sullivan stated that the County has been asked to subdivide land in the past and this affects property owners. Common sense would dictate that you shouldn't shoot near neighborhoods, but that is not always the case. He pointed out that due to zoning issues, people have lost a lot of hunting area and not realized it until much later. People are not just hunting using archery or shotguns and he stated he is concerned with bullet travel distance. Although there may be difficulties with signage on DNR lands, it provides a good compromise with the 200 foot buffer. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 12- 1208 -14 In the Matter of Expanding the South Coyle Peninsula No Shooting Area as outlined in Alternative 1. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion for further discussion. Commissioner Johnson stated it is a compromise. He asked about the tribe's response. County Administrator Morley stated that in the tribe's written response, they are opposed to the expansion of a no shoot area. He read an excerpt from a written comment received by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe which states: "Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is sensitive to issues ofpublic safety and protection ofproperty regarding the discharge off rearms in areas of increasing population density and acknowledges the need to protect humans, domestic animals and private property. ...These lands have all been important hunting areas for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal members prior to the increases in population densities and creation of no shooting areas. Ofparticular concern to the tribe, is the designation of DNR tracts as No Shooting Zones. The tribe considers the designation of these open and unclaimed lands as No Shooting Zones, as an imposition of the Tribe's Treaty Right to hunt on all Open and Unclaimed Lands... " County Administrator Morley explained that the tribe opposes inclusion of the DNR lands within an expanded no shooting zone, however, the letter does not address the buffer. The buffer was not noted in the email, but in speaking with the tribe's representative by telephone, it was indicated that the buffer would be acceptable, as a matter of safety. Commissioner Johnson stated that he understands and feels for residents of the area. He withdrew his second on the motion. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. He stated that hunting is a legitimate right, covered by the Bill of Rights, but we need to be sensitive to the requests of citizens for their own concerns of safety. Sheriff calls are not required to validate their concerns or peace of mind. Chairman Austin indicated that Commissioners can initiate a No Shoot Zone without having a complete gathering of signatures. There may be a complication with signage regarding the 200 foot buffer of Zelatched Point Road and Coyle Road, but he does not believe that it is an impossible task. Commissioner Sullivan stated that as referenced in the ordinance, there are exemptions that cover people's right to protect themselves. Chairman Austin noted that public testimony is closed and called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Sullivan and Chairman Austin voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Johnson voted against the motion. The motion passed. The meeting was recessed at 11:47 a.m. and reconvened at 1:34 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Miscellaneous Items: • Noise Ordinance continued deliberation. Staff will attempt to bring a revised draft to the December 15, 2014 County Administrator Briefing Session (CAB). Staff is still researching what status the ordinance needs to have as to Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) action before sending it to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). • Hargrove Fund: Discussed the November 26, 2014 letter from Judge Harper and Judge Landes, and the December 2, 2014 meeting with the judges and Juvenile Services Director Barbara Carr. • Secure Rural Schools (SRS) reauthorization. Chairman Austin will call Jim McIntyre. • Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) partial (115`h) funding. • Jefferson County representative and Co -Chair to the E rep (& co- chair) to the Ecosystem Recovery Network (ERN). Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) Leadership Council - Ecosystem Coordination Board (made up of all the Local Integrating Organizations (LIOs). ERN is the LIO for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Jefferson County BOCC appointment will wait until Kathleen Kler is takes office. Commissioner Johnson is tentatively interested in serving. • Next Regional Support Network (RSN) and Olympic Consortium Board meeting is February 20 2015. Jim McIntyre, Charlotte Garrido, Liz Muller (Jamestown Tribe). Olympic Consortium Board (OCB) will fund one Commissioner from each county to attend 2015 National Association of Counties (NACO) Conference in Washington, DC. • December 10, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. there will be a meeting of the Brinnon Parks and Recreation District. Joy Baisch attending. • Capital program and Courthouse security. • Process for late written testimony for public hearing record. Staff will report back with a recommendation for handling written testimony that is delivered to the office up to the end of the public hearing. Calendar Coordination: • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a City Council meeting regarding the Transit rezone on December 8, 2014. • Commissioner Johnson will be attending a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting on December 10, 2014. • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) meeting on December 10, 2014. • Chairman Austin and County Administrator Morley will be attending a JeffCOM meeting on December 11, 2014. • Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on December 16, 2014. • There will be a Board of Health meeting on December 18, 2014. • The BOCC will only hold a morning session. There will be a recognition and farewell party for Chairman John Austin on December 22, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers. • The Jefferson County Courthouse and County facilities will be closed on December 25, 2014 in observance of Christmas. • The Swearing in of Elected officials will be held on January 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2014 NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:44 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. �GY 4 ATTEST: Carolyn very /J Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John ustin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member David Su1�Member Page 14 III w JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST_,--------- TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance ! I'j� Tod" \6 "'L i " s / DATE and TIME: Monday, December 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS Not Required CITY (Not Required ) Testimony?, YES NO MAYBE tV 9 ❑ ❑ �> h 4 ❑ ❑ ❑ �Gr -JJ K-r Rt 7 zi Ff-- f" ❑ ❑ 1 cl'I) J i+' J1(: JS ❑ ❑ 35 �o;> P 1_ El El Nr JZ�C i" u k vl (" L l V%A ^n [ v� I, 17� 1 ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ �/ IN ❑ -5 2 v" ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:44 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Request for review comments on draft county Animal Responsibility code Attachments: animal laws.docx Please enter the attached Word document and Ms. Penhallegon's email into the Public Hearing Record for the Animal Responsibility code Hearing. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sara Penhallegon [mailto:sara @centervalleyanimalrescue.orgj Sent: Sunday, December 07, 204 3:27 PM To: Philip Morley Subject: Re: Request for review comments on draft county Animal Responsibility code Here is all my input in writing, hope it is helpful. On Fri, November 7, 2014 6:47 pm, Philip Morley wrote: > Dear Center Valley Animal Rescue, I am writing to invite Center Valley > Animal Rescue's input on a draft county Animal Responsibility code. > The draft for your review is in the PDF file attached to this email. > Once finalized and adopted, it would replace the county's existing > Animal Responsibility regs, now in Chapter 6.05 in the County Code. > > Staff seeks your input by email on the enclosed draft on or before > November 14 to allow staff to make appropriate revisions, before we > issue a new draft for a public hearing, sometime in December. > Please email your comments to me at: > pmorley @co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto :pmorley @co.jefferson.wa.us> on or > before November 14. > > Under my signature below is a list of just some of the more > significant changes. However, please review all sections of the > attached draft, as there are changes in almost every section. > I appreciate your expertise and your thoughtful review of this draft > code. > Philip > Philip Morley > Jefferson County Administrator > pmorley@ co .jefferson.wa.us <mailto:pmorley @co.jefferson.wa.us> > (360) 385 -9100 x -383 • This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be • subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. • Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and • archived by Information Services. • Here are some of the more significant changes. However, please review • all sections of the draft, as there are changes in almost every section: > * Defines the Animal Shelter, Animal Welfare Facilities, > Commercial Kennels and Private Kennels > * Delegates different roles to Animal Control, the Shelter > Operator, and the Licensing Agent, allows the County to > * Fees in the Fee Schedule are revised to reflect current > practice of which fees are set and charged under County authority, and > deleting from county code those that are established by a Shelter > Authority > * New provisions pertaining to dangerous dogs and potentially > dangerous dogs. > * .020 many new or amended definitions > * .05o revises prohibitions for running at large on public > property > * o8o New Howling and Barking regulations, including provision > for livestock guard dogs > * .25o Dog license requirements are clarified > * .36o Kennel license procedures are detailed, including legal > use status (DCD) and kennel inspection by Animal Control or Licensing > Agent. > " .38o Standards for Kennels, Shelters and Animal Welfare > Facilities - brand new for our county, based on standards from other > counties. There is a process for existing facilities to come into > compliance over 6 years. Sara Penhallegon LVT www.centervalleyanimairescue.org sara @centervalleyanimalrescue.org 360-765 -0598 6.07.010 (12) Yes wolf hybrids should be included (15) Euthanasia should be defined more, add a list of suitable methods (23) Make sure these dogs are being treated and cared for as well as other dogs. This may allow for a loop hole and allow these dogs to be neglected or be a nuisance. (29) the "over 6 months' may make a loop hole for breeders/ puppy mills, they may have dozens of dogs and as long as they sell or rehome them by 6 months rules /laws would not apply. 6.07.030 Livestock should be added to this definition also. It may also need to state impounded animals go to the Animal shelter or animal welfare organization as we take these animals for animal control also. Also in PT can't the city police seize animals also? What about an animal in imminent danger when animal control is off duty? Can a deputy from the sheriff's office or city police step in and seize and animal? 6.07.080 (5) Livestock dogs should live by the same rules as other dogs do, there is no reason they would be barking continuously, just long enough to chase away a predator. 6.07.120 These dogs should have fencing requirements 6.07.160 Unless held for 5 days or with the authorization of the owner, no animal should be euthanized without a vet examining the animal. There are not employees at the shelter with medial training so this would give them a loop hole to euthanize any animal they want without giving the owner time to claim them. Maybe such animals could be held at a vet hospital or animal welfare organization, this way proper medical care could be given. 6.07.180 (2) We have never been required to have licenses for our dogs /cats at our rescue and are not set up to sell licenses here. If this goes into effect we will would need to be authorized as a location to sell a license. If we are selling licenses here we also will need to be one of the beneficiaries of the licensing fees. 6.07.220 (3) Veterinary consultation should be mandatory! There is no other way that the shelter operator can know if the animal is diseased. Many diseases are treatable and not contagious and others would need to be quarantined, I assume the shelter has a quarantine? These animals should be housed in quarantine until a vet exam can be done. 6.07.260 Ferrets should be added here also since they are included in the State law 6.07.290 1 don't believe anyone does tattooing for licenses in this county, may be able to take this part out 6.07.380 Are these standards just for dogs and cats or all animals, livestock too? Maybe a separet section for livestock and horses? Shelters and animal welfare facilities should be inspected regularly also. (c) Define shelter. Maybe 3 + sided structure, weather proof roof and floor, holds heat in and out and allows animals to stay dry. In extreme heat 80+ animals must be provided complete shade at least 2x there body size and access to clean water 24 hours a day. Plastic dog houses and other like structures do not count as shade as they magnify the heat. In extreme cold below freezing animals must be given bedding to lay on in a weather proof area to help them keep heat in? This also may be a good place to add something about tethering animals. Such as animals cannot be tethered with choke chains, metal or chain collars. Other laws I have seen on tethering are: No tethering at all, No tethering for more than 5 hours at a time, No tethering between 10pm and 7am or tethering is only allowed in the presence of the animals owner or supervising guardian. (d) 6 years is way too much time to get kennels into compliance. Should be 30 days for some violations and 6 months for total compliance. That should be plenty of time, these standards are not set very high and if they can't comply with in 6 months they should not be housing animals. 6.07.390 Why reduce, suspend or defer penalties for the 2nd or P violation. It seems these fees could be put to good use by the county. What about penalties for abuse and neglect? Maybe those should be better defined. Jail time, fees, ban on owning or caring for like animals for life...... 6.07.480 (3) Instead of using the word "recommend" I would change it to "Require" that reasonable conditions be imposed upon the owners or keeper as condition... It has a much stronger meaning. (d) Why 15? Why not 18? Fee schedual: What if owner can't afford the $25 surrender fee? I have had people contact us because they don't have the $25 fee to pay and the shelter refuses to take their animal. This forces people to dump or neglect their animals. Redemption fees: After the 3rd time with an intact animal it states the owner must pay the fee plus the spay /neuter cost this should be added into the code. I would personally think after the second impound this should be done. Board: Why should fee be waived? If they can't afford the fee they can't afford to feed their animal. The shelter can use this fee to offset the cost of caring for the animal. Livestock should have a boarding fee also: $50 a day since it is normally us that take these animals in. Impound fees and transport should also apply. Trapping Nuisance wildlife: You need to check with Fish and Wildlife on these laws ( I have not had time to look them up for you) It is illegal for people to trap most wildlife. There really should be a section for livestock /horses that includes proper shelter (not a tree line), proper feed not moldy or wet or rotten, access to water 24 hours a day, hoof care and vet care. I can help if you want come up with more specifics if you want. Alex or Dr Jan Richards may be a good resource for you also on farm animals. Let me know if you need more help or advise on any of our input. Thanks, Sara rrom: rnwp iwuricy Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 6:29 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Joe Nole Subject: Hearing Record on Animal Responsibility Attachments: RE: Animal Responsibility Ordinance - ver 1.doc; code proposal RE: A few details on Animal Responsibility Please enter the enclosed 11/25 and 11/26 emails from Animal Control Officer Alex Mintz into the Hearing Record. Thank you Philip jeffbocc From: Alex Mintz Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:00 AM To: Philip Morley; David Alvarez Cc: Joe Nole Subject: RE: Animal Responsibility Ordinance - ver 1.doc In definitions, #14 it says: (14) "Enforcement Officer" means a person authorized by the Sheriff to enforce the provisions of this Chapter, said authority being limited to the issuance of civil infractions. The Sheriff, or any commissioned Deputy of the Sheriff, shall automatically be designated as an Enforcement Officer. However, the authority of an animal control officer is not limited to civil infractions. There are also misdemeanors as well as felony animal cruelty that fall under the animal control authority. We also do search warrants, seizure warrants and have the authority to make arrests. From: Philip Morley Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 4:06 PM To: Joe Nole, Alex Mintz Cc: David Alvarez Subject: FW: Animal Responsibility Ordinance - ver 1.doc Joe and Alex, I meant to include you both in the email below. A BIG thanks to Alex for his excellent comments in helping get us to this point. Your further suggestions welcome as this goes into a Public Hearing on Dec. 8. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorley @co.iefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Philip Morley Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 4:03 PM To: Commissioners; David Alvarez; CAO Staff Subject: Animal Responsibility Ordinance - ver 1.doc Commissioners, David A, Carolyn, Julie and Leslie, Enclosed is a proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance that I intend to share during the 11/24 Regular Agenda setting the hearing notice. David A, please feel free to make corrections to the Ordinance, if you find any are necessary. I am also enclosing a separate file that shows what changes have been made to the code since the BoCC was briefed on the prior Public Review Working Draft. jeffbocc From: Alex Mintz Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:30 PM To: Philip Morley; David Alvarez, Jared Keefer; Carl Smith Cc: Joe Nole Subject: RE: A few details on Animal Responsibility code proposal 020(9) & (26) Commercial Kennel & Private Kennel: What about households who do animal rescue from kill shelters, then recoup costs by donation or by adoption fees? Is that commercial? Contrast to a breeder. Reconcile with JCC 18.10.080 & 18.20.060(2)(a) [coordinated w/ DCD] I would say they are commercial, unless they were keeping the animals as pets. I would expect that a private rescue looking for donations and charging a fee would incorporate as a non profit. Many times animal hoarders call themselves rescues and the animals live in horrendous conditions (often so do the humans in those situations). Then there are the people that buy a kennel license to avoid having to license each dog. 250 Redemption of Animal: If the dog or cat needs to be vaccinated for rabies, does the Shelter or AWF have the ability to require /do that and charge for the vaccine? Only Veterinarians or Veterinary clinics can obtain rabies vaccine and vaccinate for rabies. 290 Vaccination. Failure to provide = failure to provide: This is a tautology. Is there a consequence for not providing proof? There isn't really a consequence spelled out here, in Clallam, for example it's a misdemeanor to not have dogs, cats and ferrets vaccinated. Under the WAC it's a requirement, but there are no consequences that I know of attached to it. Generically, any violation of our animal code is an fraction, unless spelled out otherwise. 320 Issuance of License: Date of expiration would allow better enforcement than year of issue. I'm not sure how we would put the actual date on each tag as the tags are pre purchased from a manufacturer. Normally if there's a question the shelter is contacted. 380 Tag: Date of expiration would allow better enforcement than year of issue. Kennel licenses are always from January 1 to December 31. Unless the shelter wants to start doing so, we have never issued a separate tag for each animal in a kennel. It might be a good idea to issue a tag for each dog in a kennel. That's probably something the Humane Society might want to work out logistically. Fee Table: Livestock impound, board and transportation: Who charges this? Under what JCC code? We would charge a fee as in the fee schedule for livestock impound, transport and boarding, but I don't know if there's anything codified somewhere else, I don't see it in the animal code. The Sheriff or Animal Control Authority would charge the fees. We would have to pay a boarding fee to whatever facility they were being kept at. In our case it's usually Center Valley Animal Rescue. Here's from the Kitsap code: (e) Redemption of Impounded Animals. (2) Livestock may be redeemed upon payment of an impound fee, a boarding fee, and, if impounding requires special transportation, a special transportation fee. All fees shall be charged per animal handled by the animal control authority. Such fees shall be established no more often than once annually by resolution of the board of county commissioners. This may occur concurrently with the contract with the animal control authority. We might consider a simple rewrite of 6.07.250 to add livestock. 6.07.250 Redemption of animal. (1) The owner of any domesticated animal, including livestock which is impounded, may redeem it subject to the following conditions: (2) Livestock may be redeemed upon payment of an impound fee, a boarding fee, and, if impounding requires special transportation, a special transportation fee. All fees shall be charged per animal handled by the animal control authority. Such fees shall be established no more often than once annually by resolution of the board of county commissioners. This may occur concurrently with the contract with the animal control authority. Also, in the livestock portion of the fees we might consider raising the impound fee (Which is not a daily charge) to $75 and the boarding fee of $25 per day add Or actual cost. Livestock Impound fee $54.00 Per day (Delete per day, it's a one time fee the boarding fee is a per day fee) Board $25.00 Per day {add} Or the actual cost Transportation $54.00 The greater of $54.00 or actual cost That's all I have. Respectfully, Deputy Alex Mintz Deputy Alex Hmtz, Anima/ Control Officer #40 Jefferson CountySherifl's Office 79 FAms Road Port Hadlock, Washington 98368 (360) 3853831 EA535 Voicemad (360) 379 0513 Fax amintz @co.kRerson. wa. us From: Philip Morley Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 4:15 PM To: David Alvarez; Alex Mintz; Jared Keefer; Carl Smith Cc: Joe Nole Subject: A few details on Animal Responsibility code proposal 2 Colleagues, here are the major remaining issues in the Animal Responsibility code draft I am aware of that might get addressed in this next Public Hearing phase: 020(9) & (26) Commercial Kennel & Private Kennel: What about households who do animal rescue from kill shelters, then recoup costs by donation or by adoption fees? Is that commercial? Contrast to a breeder. Reconcile with JCC 18.10.080 & 18.20.060(2)(a) [coordinated w/ DCD] 110 Food establishments: What about farmers' markets, or outdoor seating areas for restaurants? Consult w/ Env'I Health. 250 Redemption of Animal: If the dog or cat needs to be vaccinated for rabies, does the Shelter or AWF have the ability to require /do that and charge for the vaccine? 290 Vaccination. Failure to provide = failure to provide: This is a tautology. Is there a consequence for not providing proof? 320 Issuance of License: Date of expiration would allow better enforcement than year of issue. 380 Tag: Date of expiration would allow better enforcement than year of issue. Fee Table: Livestock impound, board and transportation: Who charges this? Under what JCC code? Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorlev@co-mefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. 020(9) & (26) Commercial Kennel & Private Kennel: What about households who do animal rescue from kill shelters, then recoup costs by donation or by adoption fees? Is that commercial? Contrast to a breeder. Reconcile with JCC 18.10.080 & 18.20.060(2)(a) 110 Food establishments: What about farmers' markets, or outdoor seating areas for restaurants? Consult w/ Env'I Health. 250 Redemption of Animal: If the dog or cat needs to be vaccinated for rabies, does the Shelter or AWF have the ability to require /do that and charge for the vaccine? 290 Vaccination. Failure to provide = failure to provide: This is a tautology. Is there a consequence for not providing proof? 320 Issuance of License: Date of expiration would allow better enforcement than year of issue. 380 Tag: Date of expiration would allow better enforcement than year of issue. Fee Table: Livestock impound, board and transportation: Who charges this? Under what JCC code? I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments John Austin Monday, December 08, 2014 7:40 AM Carolyn Avery sara@centervalleyanimalrescue.org FW: animal laws animal laws.docx Carolyn, please add this to the official record of testimony on the animal responsibility ordinance.. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sara Penhallegon [mailto: sara @centervalleyanimalrescue.org] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 3:29 PM To: John Austin Subject: animal laws Here is everything in writing. Thanks, Sara Penhallegon LVT www,centervalleya nima lrescue.org sara@centervalleyanimairescue.org 360 - 765 -0598 Thanks, JA F -, 6.07.010 (12) Yes wolf hybrids should be included (15) Euthanasia should be defined more, add a list of suitable methods (23) Make sure these dogs are being treated and cared for as well as other dogs. This may allow for a loop hole and allow these dogs to be neglected or be a nuisance. (29) the "over 6 months" may make a loop hole for breeders/ puppy mills, they may have dozens of dogs and as long as they sell or rehome them by 6 months rules /laws would not apply. 6.07.030 Livestock should be added to this definition also. It may also need to state impounded animals go to the Animal shelter or animal welfare organization as we take these animals for animal control also. Also in PT can't the city police seize animals also? What about an animal in imminent danger when animal control is off duty? Can a deputy from the sheriff's office or city police step in and seize and animal? 6.07.080 (5) Livestock dogs should live by the same rules as other dogs do, there is no reason they would be barking continuously, just long enough to chase away a predator. 6.07.120 These dogs should have fencing requirements 6.07.160 Unless held for 5 days or with the authorization of the owner, no animal should be euthanized without a vet examining the animal. There are not employees at the shelter with medial training so this would give them a loop hole to euthanize any animal they want without giving the owner time to claim them. Maybe such animals could be held at a vet hospital or animal welfare organization, this way proper medical care could be given. 6.07.180 (2) We have never been required to have licenses for our dogs /cats at our rescue and are not set up to sell licenses here. If this goes into effect we will would need to be authorized as a location to sell a license. If we are selling licenses here we also will need to be one of the beneficiaries of the licensing fees. 6.07.220 (3) Veterinary consultation should be mandatory! There is no other way that the shelter operator can know if the animal is diseased. Many diseases are treatable and not contagious and others would need to be quarantined, I assume the shelter has a quarantine? These animals should be housed in quarantine until a vet exam can be done. 6.07.260 Ferrets should be added here also since they are included in the State law 6.07.290 1 don't believe anyone does tattooing for licenses in this county, may be able to take this part out 6.07.380 Are these standards just for dogs and cats or all animals, livestock too? Maybe a separet section for livestock and horses? Shelters and animal welfare facilities should be inspected regularly also. (c) Define shelter. Maybe 3 + sided structure, weather proof roof and floor, holds heat in and out and allows animals to stay dry. In extreme heat 80+ animals must be provided complete shade at least 2x there body size and access to clean water 24 hours a day. Plastic dog houses and other like structures do not count as shade as they magnify the heat. In extreme cold below freezing animals must be given bedding to lay on in a weather proof area to help them keep heat in? This also may be a good place to add something about tethering animals. Such as animals cannot be tethered with choke chains, metal or chain collars. Other laws I have seen on tethering are: No tethering at all, No tethering for more than 5 hours at a time, No tethering between 10pm and 7am or tethering is only allowed in the presence of the animals owner or supervising guardian. (d) 6 years is way too much time to get kennels into compliance. Should be 30 days for some violations and 6 months for total compliance. That should be plenty of time, these standards are not set very high and if they can't comply with in 6 months they should not be housing animals. 6.07.390 Why reduce, suspend or defer penalties for the 2nd or 3'd violation. It seems these fees could be put to good use by the county. What about penalties for abuse and neglect? Maybe those should be better defined. Jail time, fees, ban on owning or caring for like animals for life...... 6.07.480 (3) Instead of using the word "recommend" I would change it to "Require" that reasonable conditions be imposed upon the owners or keeper as condition... It has a much stronger meaning. (d) Why 15? Why not 18? Fee schedual: What if owner can't afford the $25 surrender fee? I have had people contact us because they don't have the $25 fee to pay and the shelter refuses to take their animal. This forces people to dump or neglect their animals. Redemption fees: After the 3rd time with an intact animal it states the owner must pay the fee plus the spay /neuter cost this should be added into the code. I would personally think after the second impound this should be done. Board: Why should fee be waived? If they can't afford the fee they can't afford to feed their animal. The shelter can use this fee to offset the cost of caring for the animal. Livestock should have a boarding fee also: $50 a day since it is normally us that take these animals in. Impound fees and transport should also apply. Trapping Nuisance wildlife: You need to check with Fish and Wildlife on these laws ( I have not had time to look them up for you) It is illegal for people to trap most wildlife. There really should be a section for livestock /horses that includes proper shelter (not a tree line), proper feed not moldy or wet or rotten, access to water 24 hours a day, hoof care and vet care. I can help if you want come up with more specifics if you want. Alex or Dr Jan Richards may be a good resource for you also on farm animals. Let me know if you need more help or advise on any of our input. Thanks, Sara 7, 0 LQ CD to V N L t s y r. L .� Q1 N L. d .a m tm O Im L HEAP"v,,, nFCORD w+ v N cc U O J v L 0 o to z to y U: CD C v O N � U 3li w o� O N t4 �' X �[1 W C 0 O m N W O R W c W W Z 0 z co z W U 7 H J � Q FZ- t� W {r T A\ W c E o O .0 z Co to C L CD C 0 � � a) O cu N Cl) r U) C. �= 0 C V^, C. v'Ww + cn cu 7, 0 LQ CD to V N L t s y r. L .� Q1 N L. d .a m tm O Im L HEAP"v,,, nFCORD w+ v N cc U O J v L 0 o to z to y U: CD C v O N � U 3li w o� O N t4 �' X �[1 W C 0 O m N W O R W c W W Z 0 z co z W U 7 H J � Q FZ- F r; e nl N 0 LL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D.C. 20537 DEA REGISTRATION THIS REGISTRATION FEE NUMBER EXPIRES PAN) RS0391057 02 -28 -2015 $244 SCHEDULES BUSINESS ACTIVITY ISSUE DATE 1,2, CANINE HANDLER 01 -13 -2014 e ; SECURITY SERVICES NC 3501 OLD GARDINER HW SEQUIM, WA 98382 -0000 I THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TRANSFERABLE ON CHANGE OF OWNERSt MD IT IS NOT VALID AFTER THE EXPIRATION DATE. Sections 304 and 1008 (21 USC 824 and 958) of the Controlled Substances, Act of, 1970; as amended, provide that the Attorney General may revoke or suspend a ragis"tign to manufacture, distribute, dispense, import or export acontrolled substance. 'IP, CONTROL, LOCATION, OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY, I :Dr DWUM UI ISIaDUBW IDDA IIUJQns'9 e... _ 41r From: Alden Johnson <aldenbj @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 1:22 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments: Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance Revisions Section 6.07.090 (1) a. has the phrase: ...during the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am... which seems to imply the two separate and disjoint one hour periods of 10:00 -10:59 pm AND 7:00 -7:59 am. I believe the intent is more in line with the similar phrase in the next subsection: 6.07.090 (1) b. and I suggest a phrase such as: ... during the hours of 10:00 pm TO 7:00 am... Alden Johnson 491 S. Bay Way Port Ludlow, WA 98365 aldenbj�;amail.com From: Louis W Bohannan <lwbohannan @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:24 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Responsibility Regulations for Jefferson County RE: Animal Responsibility Regulations for Jefferson County There are many good aspects to the Animal Responsibility Ordinance that is currently being considered by the county commissioners. However, I do have a problem with section 6.07.110 "Entry into food establishments'. That portion of the ordinance is written on a cursory level and allows a lot of latitude in interpretation by the health department beyond what I would consider their jurisdiction. It appears from the section that the health department would have the ability to regulate the presence of dogs in an al fresco dining situation in an attempt to protect the health of the diners. But, isn't this protection superficial? Certainly in alfresco dining environments, I have been subject to birds flying over, landing in the eating area and scavenging for food scraps. Additionally, I have experienced insects in those areas and noted rodents waiting for the opportunity to retrieve food scraps. So, prohibiting dogs, which offers less of a protection than prohibiting other animals and insects, seems to be unfounded. Allowing canines, if deemed appropriate by the food establishment, in al fresco dining venues has actually a positive benefit for the community. Over the years more and more people are traveling with the pets. Using the internet and reading books helps them determine where they are going to spend their vacation dollars. Asa pet owner, I enjoy al fresco dining that can be shared with my canine. I also plan vacations where pets are welcomed as opposed to areas where pets are prohibited from various activities. For a more local example, if the weather is perfect for eating outdoors, I would always travel to Kitsap county (where there are eating establishment that are pet friendly) to spend my money than go to Port Townsend as example, where my pet might not be welcomed. Mendocino County in California spent a substantial amount of money promoting pet - friendly establishments letting pet owners know that there was lodging, attractions, wineries, and restaurants that were pet - friendly. The county also utilized the services of a Cairn terrier in ads, at travel shows, special events and promoting those establishments in a blog written from the terrier's view point which has been read by over 40,000 potential tourists. Realizing that this was adding incremental revenue to the county, the county has continued to invest in promoting pet friendly establishments. The county's pet - friendly brochure has been one of the most popular hand -outs at travel shows and in places where such brochures are available to the public. believe it would be prudent on the part of the county commissioners to not preclude incremental revenue in the county which could be a result of a zealous interpretation of the ordinance section that relates to food establishments. I would recommend that the food establishment be allowed to decide whether al fresco dining may include the patron's four - footed best friend. Louis W Bohannan 180 Greenview Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360 - 774 -0027 Animal Responsibility Code Written Comment Period Extended County staff is working to develop a new Animal Responsibility Code pertaining to dogs and cats, and requiring dog licenses in unincorporated East Jefferson County. If a new code is adopted by the Commissioners, it would replace the County's existing Animal Responsibility regulations (now in Chapter 6.05 of the County Code). The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a hearing on the Animal Responsibility Code on December 8, 2014. The Board concurred extending the deadline for submitting written comments to 4:30 p.m. on December 31, 2014. Please email your comments to the BOCC office at: jeffbocc/a7co.jefferson.wa.us or mail to P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 on or before 4:30 p.m. December 31, 2014. Thank you for helping improve the County's Animal Responsibility code v J -1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed No Shooting Area Ordinance - South Coyle S CT DATE and TIME: Monday, December 8, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS Re uired CITY Nat Required) Testimony? YES No MAYBE (Not j LZ l ❑ ❑ t" Ltir' .1 V C � ❑ ❑ rr jc CGS f'L�� 1 c U ��! LJC�tU u f{ LfJtlIUit/ �{ ❑ ❑ L� ❑ 0 ❑ K)o LL- i rzr Lx, "IL41 , ❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ ❑ El 11 ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑ 11 El ❑ El El ❑ El El ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑11 ❑11 11 From: mey joroan <niey.jora%agman.corn- Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 9:23 AM To: Philip Morley Cc: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson County Code 8.50 No Shooting Areas Exemptions and Enforcement follow up. Mr. Morley, I am writing today to follow up on our telephone conversation of Wednesday July 23, 2014, in which we discussed the need for clarification and/or additions to the Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.50 No Shooting Areas sections 8.50.20 - Exemptions, and 8.50.70 - Enforcement Officers and Procedures. Reference the recorded official minutes of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners public hearing held July 21, 2014. In my testimony regarding the possible adoption of the Tala Shore No Shooting Area proposal, I had concerns with the language of these sections of the code itself. I testified that section 8.50.20 Exemptions should be revised to include compliance with Washington State RCW 77.36.030, as well as WAC 232.36.050. Both of these state laws give a property owner the legal right to kill wildlife on their property that pose a threat to personal safety and or property. The exemption should also clearly state that it would be legal to discharge a firearm within a No Shooting Area in the humane dispatch of a sick, diseased, wounded or predatory animal. 1 also testified about my concerns with section 8.50.70 Enforcement Officers and Procedures, that one could be cited by registered mail. The commissioners discussed the points that I presented to the board, and stated that "staff' would need to look into this. I have seen the Notice of Public Hearing published in the classified section of ptLeader.com, for the possible expansion of the Coyle Peninsula No Shooting Area to be held Monday, December 8, 2014 at 11 a.m. I have also noted that section 8.50.190 Tala Shore has been added to Jefferson County Code 8.50 No Shooting Areas, but there has not been any revision of section 8.50.20 Exemptions, or section 8.50.70 Enforcement Officers and Procedures. I feel that these concerns should be addressed, clarified and residents made aware of them before any more No Shooting Areas are expanded or established within Jefferson County. Additionally, in our conversation we talked about the installation of the signage for the new Tala Shore No Shooting Area. I had asked, that when the signs were placed on Tala Shore Drive, the county would also install caution signs for Deer and Bear on the street. They pose as great a concern for public safety, and drivers should be aware that they are frequently seen in the street and should use caution. We also discussed signs informing people to clean up after their pets that are walked on the public street as it poses a threat to public health. Thank you for your time and consideration Sincerely, Ted Riley Jordan 878 Copper Ridge Drive Cantonment, F132533 (850) 857 -1335 From: Philip Morley Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: History of 911 calls relating to shooting in south coyle Please enter the email below from Undersheriff Joe Nole into the Public Hearing record for the South Coyle Peninsula No Shooting Area. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorleyc@co-jefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Joe Nole Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 1:56 PM To: Philip Morley Subject: RE: History of 911 calls relating to shooting in south coyle Philip, The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office has received no calls or complaints regarding firearm shooting in the proposed no shooting expansion area in the past five years. Additionally, we have received no such calls on the entire Coyle Peninsula during the past five years. Joe Joe Nole Undersheriff Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 79 Elkins Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 360 - 344 -9747 NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required underthe Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act From: John Gusoskey <jongusosk @aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:44 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting on private property Sir or Madame: Fire arm discharge ordinances are only practical and reasonable in incorporated residential areas where people live in close proximity to one another. This proximity makes discharging fire arms a danger to others. I am opposed to this ordinance because: A. It is not enforceable. That is because it is contrary to the best interests of the majority of the population it affects. A good law does not require enforcement, a bad law cannot be enforced. This is a bad law. B. Any ordinance will infringe on second amendment rights. Whether this infringement is real or perceived is not germane. John Gusoskey From: keith s. howard <k6s6h6 @netscape.net> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:38 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley Subject: Expanding the South Coyle Peninsula No Shooting Area Howard,Keith, S. 13962 Coyle Road Qu ilce ne, WA. 98376 To Commissioners Due to the fact that I am a single working man I can not just take a day off work at drop of a hat like the people that are filing this petition. I was not aware of this petition or this meeting until someone from out side of the area told me about it. I believe that this will effect only few tax paying citizens and that I being one of them should of been notified of this meeting. But do to the fact that I'm against this I know why I was not invited. As a Unite States veteran of two wars I believe that everyone has a right to know what will be effecting their home. I will not stand for anyone's rights to be stepped on. That means mine too. I don't read the paper and or the coyle web. In December of 2006 1 purchased this property and it was not disclosed to me at the time that 3/4 of it was in a no shooting zone. In March 2007 1 was on my out to the property when I noticed a no shooting sign was put up before the fire house. That wasn't there before. Will I guess I was taken on that one. I have tried twice to sell that property on the east side of coyle and when people that aren't from California find out that it is a no shooting zone they don't want it. This is the northwest the last of the open forest country. Hunting and fishing is the way a lot of people make ends meet financially. Out here in this area we have had a large population grow of the deer and they starting to destroy personal property. I know that on the coyle road this year two deer have struck and caused over 4000 dollars damage to my personal truck. They also destroyed half my garden last year and this year. They destroyed my fruit trees so bad that I just pulled them all out.You can not a banned or restrict hunting on public land because this land belongs to everyone in the state to hunt on it, especially down on deer creek where people close the dnr gate and tell hunters that it is privet land go away.This not right in anyway. I do not believe that anytime I want to discharge anything that makes bang I should have to call and ask Mrs Schmitt permission on my own property that I pay the mortgage an taxes on. This is unwarranted because the firsts no shooting zone did thing to stop any discharge of any firearms. What is this going to do but step on the little guy again. I do not believe that out here their should be any type of no shooting zone. If the Sheriffs Department and Fish & game are doing their job and which I believe they are there is no need for this. If you allow this in any form to be enacted this will just be stripping us of more of our native rights.The covle peninsula is mostly forest with few homes per square mile. This is still country living and should be treated as such. Sincerely Keith S. Howard 1 From: Gary <dabobman @comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 9:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Coyle no shooting area As a property owner in the area that is being considered as a no shooting zone I urge you to support the original proposal which includes the DNR land. As a gun owner and hunter I am supportive of the opportunities for people to enjoy the chance to shoot but the lethal hazards that are created when shooting occurs in an area where people are living must be taken into consideration. My property (Parcel 601283023) is next to the DNR land I have become increasingly concerned about the possibility of firearms being discharged by individuals who do not realize that just a few hundred feet beyond the trees there are houses and people that are at risk. When you look at the proposed area please realize that on each lot surrounding the DNR land there are people like myself who are at risk. The last few deer hunting seasons have made me much more concerned about this issue than in the past, as I witness carloads of "hunters ?" cruising the area looking for deer and eager to shoot something. Many of these people appear to be weekend hunters who see a patch of woods and don't realize that the relatively small patch of DNR land is surrounding by people and houses. The DNR will be logging off the land near my property in the near future which will increase access and problems such as those that I have encountered in the past with target shooters with high powered rifles shooting at stumps not thinking about how far a stray bullet will travel or hunters with rifles over their shoulders wandering onto my property and surprised to see that people are there.. Please approve the original no shooting zone as proposed including the DNR land. I am currently serving on Jury Duty and therefore unable to attend the meetings in person so please accept this email as my way of voicing my concerns Gary K Jackson 651 PAYNE Rd. From: Donna Prater <dnaprater @hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 3:52 PM i. „. To: jeffbocc RING Subject: Expanding COYLE no shooting To the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, RE: the proposed expansion of the COYLE no shooting zone We have lived on the Toandos Peninsula 14 years and are year round residents. We moved here to get away from all the CCR's you have to deal with in the city. We ADAMANTLY OPPOSE EXPANSION of the no shooting zone in COYLE. If Mr. Schmidt does not want to hear gun shots of hunters and target shooters, he needs to move .... that is why we live here. I ALSO WOULD SUGGEST YOU RESCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING WHEN US HARD WORKING TAX PAYERS ARE NOT AT WORK! I GUARANTEE THERE ARE MORE OF US WHO OPPOSE THIS IDEA THAN SUPPORT IT AND WE WOULD SHOW UP IN FORCE IF IT WAS AFTER WORKING HOURS!!! Respectfully Submitted, Mr. And Mrs. Neal Prater 163 Toandos Rd. Quilcene 360.765.4ro8 Sent from my iPad From: Philip Morley Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:41 PM ' To: jeffbocc Subject: South Coyle Hearing Record Attachments: PGST Coyle No Shooting Zone opposition_LTR.pdf Please include the enclosed letter from the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe in the Hearing Record for the South Coyle No Shooting Area Public Hearing. Philip Philip Morley County Administrator December Sth 2014 TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE naeq'fyt naysLay'am Mr, Phillip Morley Jefferson County Administrator 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend WA, 98368 RE: Proposed South Coyle No Shoot Area in Jefferson County Dear Mr. Morley I writing in response to the proposed creation of a No Shooting Area in Eastern Jefferson County on the South Coyle Peninsula adjacent to existing No Shooting Zone located south of Zelatched Point Rd. and east of the Coyle Rd south of E. Go Onna Dr. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has hunting and gathering rights on all Open and Unclaimed lands. These rights are reserved for the Tribe through Article 4 of the treaty of Point No Point. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is sensitive to issues of public safety and protection of property regarding the discharge of firearms in areas of increasing population density and acknowledges the need to protect humans, domestic animals and private property. The maps of the proposed Alternative 1 and the original petition show previously designated and new proposed No Shooting zones. These lands have all been important hunting areas for Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal members prior to increases in population densities and the creation of No Shooting Zones. Of particular concern to the Tribe is the designation of DNR tracts as No Shooting Zones. The Tribe considers the designation these open and unclaimed lands as No Shooting Zones as an imposition of the Tribe's Treaty Right to hunt on all Open and Unclaimed Lands. The Tribe maintains a co- management relationship with DNR regarding access to DNR lands for hunting and gathering. The Tribe opposes the inclusion of the DNR lands within an expanded No Shooting Zone. The Tribe opposes the creation of any No Shooting Zone that impacts the Tribes Treaty Rights. The Tribe supports the development of management frameworks that preserves Treaty rights and protects public safety and property. The Tribe is willing to discuss ways to address Jefferson County's public Safety concerns will maintaining that Tribal Treaty. 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 Phone: (360) 297 -6282 Fax: (360) 297 -4791 Thank you, Sinc rely TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE naxwq'iyt naxwskay'am Josh Wisniewski Ph.D. Tribal Anthropologist Archeology /Treaty Rights /Hunting and Wildlife Tribal Historic Preservation Office Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Department of Natural Resources 360 - 297 -6282 (Office) 360- 621 -2299 (Mobile) joshw@pgst.nsn.us 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Phone: (360) 297 -6282 Fax: (360) 297 -4791 Received after Hearing jeffbocc Comment Deadline From: jimsvision <jimsvision @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 12:33 PM This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------ =_N extPart_000_oo8o _ orpo12Er.859 C 5o Eo Content -Type: text /plain; charset = "US- ASCII" Content- Transfer - Encoding: 7bit Dear Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, I am writing to respectfully request that you not take any action on the Two Alternative Ordinances for Expanding the South Coyle Peninsula No Shooting Area until the public that may have an interest and /or be directly affected by the proposed ordinance has enough time and opportunity to review and comment on what is being proposed. I just found out about the proposed ordinance and public meeting this morning; obviously there is not enough time to review the material or any of the background information. I can assure you that there are many interested individuals and organizations that will have an interest in what is being proposed; the problem is, many of them do not know about this public meeting or the proposed ordinance. I read in the Agenda Request that public notices were published on November 19th and November 26th regarding the public hearing taking place today at 11:oo AM. I find it very troubling that the Agenda Request also puts extreme limitations on any future public comment, "Written public comments will also be accepted any time up through the close of the public hearing." I would ask that you allow significantly more time for written public comment which may lead to another public hearing if necessary. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim Goldsmith ------ = _NextPart_oo o_oo8o_o1Do12 Ei.859C5oEo Content -Type: text /html; charset = "US- ASCII" Content- Transfer - Encoding: quoted - printable <html xmins: v =3D "urn:schemas - microsoft - com:vml" = xmins:o =3D" urn: schemas - microsoft- com:office:office" _ xmins:w =3D" urn: schemas- microsoft- com:office:word" = xmins: m= 3D "http: / /schemas.microsoft.com /office /2004 /12 /OMMI" = xmins =3D "http: / /www.w3.org /TR /REC- html40"> <head > <META = HTTP- EQUIV =3D "Content- Type" CONTENT =3D "text /html; = charset =3Dus- ascii "> <meta name= 3DGenerator content =3D "Microsoft Word 15 = (filtered medium)"><style><!-- /* Font Definitions @font -face [font-family: "Cambria Math' panose -i:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;1 @font -face {font- family:Calibri; panose -1:2 15 5 2 Z 2 4 3 Z 4;1 /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal Imargin:oin; margin - bottom:. 000lpt; font- sizem.opt; font - family: "Calibri ', sans- serif; ) a:link, span.MsoHyperlink I mso - style- priority:99 color: #0563CI; text -deco ratio n: unde rl ine; } a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed I mso - style- priority:99; color: #954F72; text - decoration:underline; ) span.EmailStylel7 Imso- style - type:personal- compose; font - family: "Times New Roman ",serif, color:windowtext; font- weight:normal; font- style:normal; text - decoration:none none;) .MsoChpDefault I mso - style -type: expo rt -only; font - family: "Calibri',sans - serif,} @page WordSectiom Isize:8.5in n.oin; margin:l.oin Loin Loin Loin;} div.WordSectiom Ipage: WordSectionl;} - - >< /style > <! - -[if gte mso 9] > <xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext =31)"edit" spidmax= 3D "1026" /> < /xml > <![endifJ-- > <! - -[if gte mso 9] > <xml> <o:shapelayout wext =3D "edit "> <o:idmap v:ext =3D "edit" data =3D "i' /> </ o: shapelayout>< /xml > <![endif] - - >< /head ><body lang= 3DEN -US = link= 3D " #0563CI" vlink= 3D " #954F72" > <div class= 3DWordSectionl > Dear Jefferson County Board of County = Commissioners, <o:p> < /o:p > <o:p >  < /o:p > I am = writing to respectfully request that you not take any action on the Two = Alternative Ordinances for Expanding the South Coyle Peninsula No = Shooting Area until the public that may have an interest and /or be = directly affected by the proposed ordinance has enough time and = opportunity to review and comment on what is being proposed.   I = just found out about the proposed ordinance and public meeting this = morning; obviously there is not enough time to review the material or = any of the background information.  I can assure you that there are = many interested individuals and organizations that will have an interest = in what is being 2 proposed; the problem is, many of them do not know = about this public meeting or the proposed ordinance.  I read in the = Agenda Request that public notices were published on November = 19 th and November 26 th regarding the public = hearing taking place today at 11:oo AM.  I find it very troubling = that the Agenda Request also puts extreme limitations on any future = public comment, & #8220;Written public comments will also be accepted any = time up through the close of the public hearing & #8230;& #8221;.   I = would ask that you allow significantly more time for written public = comment which may lead to another public hearing if = necessary. <o:p> < /o:p > <o:p >   < /o:p > Thank = you. <o:p > < /o:p > <o:p >  < /o:p > Sincerely , <o:p> < /o:p > <o:p >  < /o:p > Jim = Goldsmith<o:p > < /o:p > < /div >< /body > < /html> ------ = _NextPart_000_oo8o_o1D o12 Er.859C 5 oEo -- Untitled x -ASG- Debug -ID: 1418070102- 056f20555418190001- XG2Q5A X- Barracuda - Envelope -From: jimsvision @gmail.com X- Barracuda -RBL- Trusted- Forwarder: 209.85.192.169 Received: by mail- pdO- f169. ggoogle.com with SMTP id z10so5848814pdj.0 for <jeffbocc @co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 12 :21:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM- signature: v =1; a= rsa- sha256; c= relaxed /relaxed; d= ggmail.com; s= 20120113; h= from:to:subject:date: message - id:mime - version:content -type :thread - index:content- language; bh= Ql oosiSMVLn8EWCKvkuOaCZVDQO /nQs6lhNCwxlpgrO =; b= jsYF3Fhg1AU/ BkDIMMGggd5xy/ vjYSbKj11GUMrDHE2yD +qBO +OeBMDW15oIcnBLtpQ dROovubobGxzfLygA/ n/ fQSIGgGDmtulTd/ kA6M jggamGOX +7szM /wdvFIEVschfx9Rg yzu8EgvxpkxUGlAyPcejvj2SuoO841uyxQcouig7000WVEsu8DOopevLPOLxaw6edNax 9obo6Af5YjiItl8gRjMXwnVEGaHdDJDHRFxvynbjxlE9RAlm4wwuCMU +LWLnvOafE2y5 mPg4H5koo/ ez5ehaias2v7RNHiMLSjkml+ 8NJ 7o7X3owxgtkgramf /OOVFwg7oDxgR50 4Myw == x- Received: by 10.70.102.234 with SMTP id fr10mr24045213pdb .145.1418070102189; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 12:21:42 -0800 (PST) Return -Path: < jimsvision @gmail.com> Received: from JHP (97- 126- 94- 128.tukw.gwest.net. [97.126.94.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nc9sm37029505pbc .55.2014.12.08.12.21.40 for <multiple recipients> (version =TLSv1 cipher= ECDHE- RSA- AES128 -SHA bits = 128/128); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 12:21:41 -0800 (PST) From: "jimsvision" < jimsvision @gmail.com> x- Barracuda- Apparent - source -IP: 97.126.94.128 X- Barracuda - BBL -IP: 97.126.94.128 *'Blocked- Reason: Barracuda Reputation Blocklist 97.126.94.128'* That IP address is on the following RBLS: Barracuda Sem Black Spamhaus ZEN G "t q657 _A Page 1 C7 c) a �- u � y m r Q a d s N � c N N Pi O n CD g 7D O cu y� r n fD V i N OND U C m n i] 00000 p p r r r P P q O q f^J m ;>11� n� w D (n y m F c {� N z S Y J r p CL O !q !q C7 c) a �- u � y m r Q a d s N � c N N Pi O n CD g 7D O cu y� r n fD V i N OND U C m n i] P P Iv QD N OJ f^J m ;>11� n� w G d CL O !q !q w 4 o � w � � w r a _1 4 P P @ t0 tF C7 c) a �- u � y m r Q a d s N � c N N Pi O n CD g 7D O cu y� r n fD V i N OND U C m n i] HEARING From: John Adams <2john @earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 21, 20144:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise and Animal Control Ordinances We are very much in favor of any ordinances providing control over noise from neighbors and animals that are a nuisance. We have suffered from noise from loud neighbors, barking dogs and loud automobiles in our neighborhood of Paradise Bay for 15 years. Calls to the police usually end with "there is nothing we can do about it ". So we are left to lie awake until our neighbors finally decide to quiet down. They and their dogs control us and our sleep and there is nothing we can do to stop dogs barking and people being loud outside well after mid -night and sometimes all night long. We have had many exhausted days at work after being kept awake. It is not fair for those who chose not to control their dogs or to make disturbances late at night be able to continue to hassle those of us who would like some quiet at least after 11 pm. Please write and approve an ordinance that will help keep the peace and quiet we have a right too! John Adams 81 West Boat Dr. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 FM From: Sent: To: Subject: frogmountain@olympus.net Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:10 PM jeffbocc Kennel rules This is frog mountains pet care reply to the proposed kennel ordinances. If I seem to be taking very extreme approach to the ordinance that is because in my experience the County takes very extreme approaches to any ordinance. 6.07.380 (ii) Primary enclosures must be placed no higher than 42 inches above the floor and may not be placed over or stacked on top of another cage or primary enclosure. Does this also include cat enclosures? Many industrial cat enclosures are three high and would exceed 42 inches and it is standard for cat enclosures to be on top of each other. (iii) Be heated or cooled to protect animals from temperatures to which they are not acclimated or not suited by virtue of breed health or age. Are you saying all kennels must be air - conditioned? (iv) Be sufficiently ventilated at all times provide for health of the animal and minimize orders drafts ammonia levels and prevent moisture condensation. To be accurate and have clean-air requires 10 air changes per hour. I spent $8000 on having a proper air system designed for a kennel the county stopped me from building. To install such a air system a small kennel such as frog Mountain would be cost prohibitive. (V) Have in interior walls, ceilings, and floors that are resistant to have absorption of moisture or orders. You understand that concrete is porous and will build up bacteria in it if it is not sealed with epoxy? This is one of the steps that I was able to do while waiting to build a new. As to walls the new kennel I designed would cost approximately $4000 per kennel enclosure with especially made materials that would exceed the standards. I have serious concerns that the drywall in my ceiling would not meet your standards. Cinderblock is extremely porous and again would need to be treated with special epoxy sealant. Once more in such a small kennel as Frog Mountain to build a facility in the existing space would be cost prohibitive as the cost would far exceed any one years gross income. Another point is the fact that I have $10,000 of custom cat enclosures that were to go in my new kennel but I'm unable to put in the existing facility without removing a wall to get them in. (vi) Have flooring with a surface that can be sanitized and treated to minimize growth of harmful bacteria, said flooring shall not be constructed with wire or other materials that may damage or irritate animals feet. Once more concrete must be sealed with epoxy or it will grow bacteria we have already taken this step in preparation for building a new kennel. (vii) Have waste collection and removal system facilitates cleaning and permits maintain the facility in a sanitary condition. This could be interpreted to mean the kennels must be washed down with a drain system. I find this particularly funny as I was told by the health department I could not have floor drains or a wash down kennel. Then the health department said it would take my figures on water use per dog of 4 1/2 gallons per day that is for a wash down kennel and use as my water usage for septic but I could not build wash down kennels. (viii) Have sufficient lighting to allow for observation of animals at any time of day or night. I agree fully that lighting is very important however is the county willing to allow outdoor light poles for dog yards? Currently to stay within County code all my light fixtures for outside dog yards are attached to a building. I had originally planned to have more lighting in the yards but was told I would have to get a new variance. (ix) Available washroom with sink for hot and cold running water and? Currently we use the kitchen area of the kennel with a sink for hot and cold water washing. Once more does this require a full bathroom? That would also have to have handicap access! I was told by the health department that I needed to remove the upstairs bathroom from my kennel as any bathrooms in a kennel would make it a living area in the eyes of the health department. This is one of the points that I finally went over the head of the county's employee and threaten to sue on. Then the health department agreed to allow me to keep the upstairs bath. On the topic of handicap access we had to print out the federal regulations on handicap access to show County employees that handicap access is not required inside animal care facilities. However having to install a bathroom would have to be handicap accessible also this would make it prohibitively expensive for small facility. Plus where would I put a new bathroom? (x) Housing facility must have means of fire suppression such as functioning fire extinguishers on premises. I couldn't agree more and appreciate the fact that County stated fire extinguishers were a suitable remedy. As installing a Suppression unit in any building is extremely expensive. (c) Outdoor facilities shall: I will summarize this by asking is this applied to play yard's? If so are trees considered sufficient cover for shade? As I believe dogs cats etc. should be indoors as much as possible during extreme weather. As you can see I have serious doubts that my facility would meet your requirements. To build such a facility is what I wish to do but was stopped for over two years dealing with abstract rules and interpretations by County employees until such time as the County in acted regulations that affected only Frog Mountain pet care. There is also the fact the Jefferson County is arbitrary in its interpretation of rules. As an example I was required to install a chemical waste treatment system with 5500 gallons of tanks while another facility after me was not. Or the fact that a grooming shop was allowed to become a kennel with no septic inspection at the same time I was required to build this massive $35,000 septic system. Frog Mountain was also required to have our operating practices turned in to the County with approval from a local veterinarian this again was never required of any other kennel. Also I have three letters from Plan with different requirements for turning in a building permit as each time I attempted to turn in my plans I was given a new set of requirement. I assumed wrongly that the requirements initially given to me at the preplanning meeting that I paid for by the County would've been correct. Harold Elyea HEARING From: drs98376 @embarqmail.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 5:22 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Responsibility Code Update - comments BOCC I'm glad it's not as intrusive as some have alluded, and with the extension for comments the draft should be linked on your home page again.. However, 1) The scope should be included to include all non agricultural animals.. we have people using pigs, donkeys, monkeys, etc as well as dogs and cats as Companion /comfort animals. These are not service animals, generally these animals are not trained or acclimated to public situations.. these should be banned from businesses where food is prepared and sold as well. It also should be clear that carrying an animal in a non animal area is not an acceptable avoidance of policy. 2) There needs to be provisions for animals licensed in other counties that are visiting, i.e. when my grandkids visit they frequently bring their dogs.. While the dogs are not noisy or out of control, I have a neighbor who would call and complain. So a provision for honoring other licenses should be included (this also affects many of our snowbirds and tourists..) as well as vaccinations etc. 3) We have a local kennel /dog obedience that raises large quantities of ducks as well, the duck are gassed in mass and used for retriever training and trials.. two problems A) they are noisy 24 hours a day, and the corpses have been left in the bay following trials. This activity needs to be considered in the kennel licensing for not only the noise and disposal, but for waste management as well.. Davis R Steelquist HEARING RECORD jeffbocc From: patrona patrona <patrona @cablespeed.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Code WHEN IS THE NEXT MEETING FOR THIS ORDINANCE AND WHAT STEPS CAN WE TAKE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING? WHO IS ON THE COMMITTEE? YOU ARE GIVING TOO MUCH POWER TO THE CURRENT SO CALLED SHELTER. pLEASE RESPOND. jeffbocc From: jeffbocc Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:35 PM To: 'patrona patrona' Subject: RE: Animal Code Thank you for your questions and interest. Please find the requested information on the Jefferson County Webpage at: www.co.iefferson.wa.us Scroll down & find the Title: "Animal Responsibility Code Written Comment Period Extended ". There are no further meetings or Agenda Items set at this time. Please let us know if you need further information or have questions. Thank you, Julie Shannon Executive Secretary I Jefferson County Commissioners Office 3603 85 9100 From: patrona patrona [mailto:patrona @cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Code WHEN IS THE NEXT MEETING FOR THIS ORDINANCE AND WHAT STEPS CAN WE TAKE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING? WHO IS ON THE COMMITTEE? YOU ARE GIVING TOO MUCH POWER TO THE CURRENT SO CALLED SHELTER. pLEASE RESPOND. HEARING From: rose wilde <mysterybayrose @g mail. com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:15 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: dog rules I found them online through a direct search. I also have issue with 2 dogs playing on a deserted beach or remote area being deemed a pack and subject to impound. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:49 AM, rose wilde <mysterybayrosena gimail.com> wrote: hello, the dog rule link is not coming up. I would like to read them. I have concerns about the rules being county wide. One can still find deserted beach areas where it is healthy and not harmful for a dog to be offleash. I would hate to have a law set that this is not permissible by law. Thank you, Rose Wilde 1 jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Cherylann Turner <purpleturner @msn.com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:20 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Dog Ordinances Hello, I don't know what is being drafted on "Barking Dogs ", but we had an issue with a neighbors dog for three weeks, pretty much non stop, this summer. Nothing could be done, we were told, because there was no ordinance for it. It was a very trying three weeks, for the dog, and the whole neighborhood. I believe the owners were gone. Please make it to where something can be done when this happens, it isn't fair to the animals and it shouldn't have to be tolerated by people, either. Thank you, Cherylann Sent from Windows Mail HEARING RECORD jeffbocc From: Fraser Rotchford < frasermcdonoughrotchford @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:36 AM To: jeffbocc ieffboccCfco. iefferson.wa.us December 11th, 2014 To Whom It May Concern, A couple weeks ago I wrote an excessively long letter to the Port Townsend Leader describing the Catch -22 of reporting neighbor's negligence of their animals. As I described in the letter any reasonable law enforcement agent would avoid responding to calls of animal negligence, especially for dogs and cats as doing so would require them to take them to the pound where they would statistically be at greater risk of death and or the owner would be taken to jail and effectively unable to take care of the animals which could also result in death. In my own experience Animal Control did not respond the multiple calls I made to Jeffcom about dogs left out in sub freezing temperatures during the past month. Jefferson County has a hypocritical and double faced standard to the treatment of pets and animals. The Humane Society of the United States' recommendation to report one's neighbors for criminal prosecution is absurd. The Humane Society of Jefferson County's website is inaccurate saying that Animal Control is on call twenty four hours a day. Stealing one's neighbors' neglected animals is not a reasonable expectation of many people witness to their neighbors' animal abuse. If Jefferson County is going to charge for pet licenses then it is obligated to take care of animals without putting them to death. To fail to avoid killing neglected pets who may at one time have been licensed by the County is objective evidence of a lack of credibility on the part of the County government and it's staff as well as apathy among it's citizens. Were many American courts to weigh on the behavior of Jefferson County, they would openly consider capital punishment, or putting the County down. From: Susan Lind <smlind3 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:32 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: animal ordinance Attachments: dog ordinance.doc Hello, Please add the attached email to public comments regarding the proposed changes to the animal ordinance. Thank you. Susan Lind 12/11/2014 To: Jefferson County Commissioners Fr: Susan Lind, Port Townsend resident RE: Comment on proposed changes to animal rules It appears that as the influx of urban residents continues to grow, the County Council has decided to take action on issues these folks want regulated. Why did these people move here? They want to kill the deer that make Port Townsend as charming as it is, even though the deer are healthy and continue to eat only vegetation. We build deer fences, why can't they? They want to tear down the historic buildings to change our way of life, arguing that more young people would stay here if the buildings were more modern — huh? They want to change zoning, making it possible for a big developer to strangle us with houses so close together you can touch them with outstretched arms. I moved here because of the beauty and quaintness of the town, the delightful deer I have the opportunity to see grazing from time to time, and the freedom from excessive regulation. Now it appears you are all going way overboard on the side of regulation. While I appreciate the need to get after the few who allow their pets free reign in crowded areas, the operative here is the few. East Jefferson county residents wonder why you have limited this regulation to this part of the county only. Are you saying the dogs in Forks are better behaved that those in Port Ludlow? This is inequitable law enforcement at best. I also appreciate the definition of aggressive dogs and the remedies therein. However, the people of East Jefferson County are not letter writers — they are farmers who have much too much to do to survive. Why don't you put this on the ballot? Why not have the voices of all county residents heard? Those living in Port Townsend have way too much power when it comes to issues such as these. What happens in Port Townsend does not happen in the country in the same way, and acting on this is disregarding those with not enough education to write to you. Don't you think we are already heavily overloaded with regulations? When does it stop? How far will you go? The following are comments on the proposed ordinance expansion. 1. The definition of "intermittent noise ". Have any of you ever used a chain saw, fired up an air compressor and used it, driven farm equipment, or even started a loud diesel truck? All these items cause very loud intermittent, obnoxious noises, but you want to fine dog owners because their dogs are barking? The focus should be on the owner who abuses his animals, not an owner whose dog barks because coyotes, deer, cougars, or even bears run through his back yard. People in the county can shoot large caliber weapons in their backyards — extremely loud, intermittent noise, and potentially lethal, as many shoot without understanding or regard to where the bullets are going to end up. Why not regulate this? 2. Forcing rabies vaccinations in a county that has found rabies only in bats. There was one case of a cat contracting rabies in 2007. Following that logic, all of us should undergo rabies treatments, regardless of whether or not we were exposed to rabies. Domesticated dogs have as much chance of encountering rabies as do you or I. This is NOT a current public health issue. Proof of vaccination is somewhat akin to "show me your papers" or you will be punished. 3. By defining public property so broadly, you allow frightened people of Port Townsend to extend their fears, whether rational or not, to the entire county. Everyone seems to have a story about a snarling, vicious dog — I have many more stories of crazy, aggressive people getting into my space. East Jefferson County is, as you all know, VERY different than Port Townsend, a more densely populated area. The influx of people from urban areas should not change the very character of the county, but you seem ready and willing to do their bidding. It is impossible to exercise anything other than a toy sized dog on a leash. Do you have anyone on the council that who understands the nature or proper care of animals? 4. A 12 hour a day tether is incredibly inhumane and cruel to the animal. People who understand dogs know a dog tethered or tied up all day is frustrated, noisy, and many times becomes vicious. Go after those who do this kind of thing. Officers will cite based upon complaints, and their ability to document said behavior. Unless officers are going to ride around with their heads out the window listening for dog noises, the enforcement of such is arbitrary and capricious. 6. Who are you to limit how many animals I can have on my property? If I have 50 acres of land, two barns, and livestock, I will certainly need herding dogs and barn cats to keep the rodent population under control. Someone who lives in a small trailer can have 5 animals, but a farmer with acreage can only have 5 as well. Nonsense. No one I know can afford your licensing fees — we are mostly on a fixed income with little to spare. A great source of comfort comes from our pets. Study after study confirms the value of animals in the lives of the elderly, all of whom are on fixed incomes. The fees seem to reflect a desire to raise revenue for the county, as well as to take care of what the more urban deem desirable. What about the rest of us? Thank you for the opportunity to express a popular view of these pending regulations. jeffbocc HEARING RECD From: Mountain View Cattle Company <mvcc @olypen.com> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 10:19 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Ordinance Commissioners, thanks for the opportunity to comment on the animal ordinance. My short comment is below. I am concerned that requiring cats to have a Rabies vaccination may cause a considerable financial hardship for low income or elderly pet owners. Because the rabies vaccination can only be given by a veterinarian, a pet owner will have to pay an office call and exam fee, plus the cost of the vaccine and administration of the shot. Thus, the total cost will be $75 to $100 per cat. Most families that have cats have two, as cats like company and do much better in pairs. That's $200 per family minimum. A low- income program should be available to help owners meet this requirement, or the shelter should be authorized to give the shot at cost. Also, as a lot of cats are indoor only pets, there is no way such cats could contract rabies. Russ Laase HEARING RL10'0 jeffbocc From: Donna Wilkinson <donnawilkinson @embargmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:28 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Dog noise ordinance input My husband and I are retired and live on 5 acres in Chimacum. My husband is a 100% disabled Vietnam combat vet. We are at home most of the time working outdoors gardening and caretaking animals and the land. We had a situation with our neighbors a few years ago when they got a guardian dog and did nothing to train or control it. It barked incessantly during the day and at night although they shut it up at night so it wasn't so loud. This went on for 3 years. We had Alex Mintz from Animal Control trying to mediate and ticket them to no avail. They went to court and had the howling & barking law declared unconstitutional. Finally, I believe the dog threatened their daughter and it was gone. These people live on 8+ acres adjoining us. We're the closest neighbor, but the other neighbors complained about the noise also. I don't feel small acreages are the place for dogs bred to bark to warn owners of predators. These people paid no attention to the barking giving no direction to the dog whatsoever. We considered this situation abusive to us. My husband has PTSD and lives here for the peace and quiet. We both have heart conditions which were exacerbated by the noise. What recourse is there in a situation like this? The law only covers noise at night. Donna Wilkinson jeffbocc NEARING RECCE From: Janolyn Keller <janolyn @olypen.com> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 12:23 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Responsibility Code Hello, I would like to add some input to the Animal Responsibility Code that is in the draft mode right now. I have several things I would like to say. 1. Those in rural areas that never take their dogs or cats off their property should not have to license or vaccinate their animals. If an animal is lost, it would be to a predator. 2, And there has not been a case of rabies in years and years. I object to the fact that you want me to pour poison into my animals for no reason except the profit of the drug companies. I do not vaccinate myself, my children, or any of my livestock. 1 1 believe that we have the right as citizens of the USA to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. 1 object to the fact that an owner has to provide proof of what the livestock guarding dog is barking at. Sometimes it would be possible, other times it would not. What would an owner have to do to provide that proof? And why not have the person who is complaining provide proof that it is not barking at an active threat? 4, 1 also want to comment on the distance of the sound. I live in a little valley. On quiet days I can hear the neighbors a quarter of a mile away talking in a normal voice. I cannot make out individual words, but I can hear it. I can hear music playing over a half mile away. If you limit the sound to 150 feet in all instances, you condemn those of us in this type of landscape for nothing more than being in a valley...... 5. The owners of uncut dogs are usually more aware of the status of their animals..... especially farm owners. I object to the fact that you are charging way more licensing fees for whole animals. What possible purpose is there in that? Sincerely, Janolyn Keller FEARING From: Eva Raczkowski Bennett <evaesq @g mail. com> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 5:31 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment on Animal Responsibility Ordinance To: Jefferson County Commissioners I am hereby commenting on the Animal Responsibility Ordinance being promulgated by Jefferson County. It is distressing that there are no rules defined in this ordinance, other than excessive tethering, to protect animals from abusive and inhumane treatment. First, please reduce the amount of time an animal may be tethered to 4 hour increments. Imagine yourself being tethered in 12 hour stretches. Please include in the ordinance that an animal may be seized and impounded when it is deemed to be treated inhumanely. These rules would apply to domestic animals and would include but not be limited to prohibitions against excessive tethering, forced hunting for food, inadequate food and/or water, unsafe housing including housing with more than 4 other domestic animals, unsanitary housing, beating and excessive physical punishment, being kept in a motorized vehicle or other enclosure including a building where the temperatures may exceed 90 degrees farenheit or be lower than 35 degrees farenheit. The rules that would apply to inhumane treatment of farm animals should be defined as well. I believe that humane treatment of animals should be included in criminal ordinances as well. Thank you. Eva R Bennett 5531 Kuhn Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (907) 957 -7037 jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Philip Morley Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 6:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Comment to Draft Animal Responsibility Ordinance Please add this to the Public Hearing record on the Animal Responsibility Ordinance. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorley @co. iefferson.wa. us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address maybe subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Paul Becker [ mailto:phbecker @cablespeed.com) Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 4:14 PM To: Philip Marley Subject: Comment to Draft Animal Responsibility Ordinance Philip, Could the 6.07,310 Due date paragraph be modified to include a late fee for those who do not purchase a license for their dog within 30 days of the required dog license time frames specified in 6.07.270? Also I did not see the $10 late fee in the fee schedule for dog licenses. Shelter staff spends a lot of time and money in additional mailing and phone call to people who do not respond to the renewal notice we send prior to the expiration date of the licenses. With the addition of the rabies vaccination requirement I know it will become a much greater cost for the Humane Society. We will also be spending time and money in an education and enforcement effort to insure as many people as possible are made aware of the new code and the license requirement. I have asked the Sheriff to meet with me to discuss a joint effort that could include public meetings at all of the community centers and civic service organizations and publications and media ads. I assume that the last sentence of 6.07.310 means that renewal licenses will be valid for two years from the date the old license expired, not when they purchase the renewal license. This prevents people who come in months late to renew a license do not get the benefit of being late to renew. This a a possible change: 6.07.310 Date due All animal licenses shall be good for two years from the date of purchase or a lifetime license shall be valid for the remainder of the animal's life. The County Commission may at its discretion provide for a late fee if a license is not purchased within 30 days of the required date in 6.07.280 or the expiration of the current license. All licensing periods shall be measured from the date the date when the original license was either issued or the date when the original license expired. Paul Becker From: uorene uunn <amouseLnotman.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:15 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Code Comment Greetings, I take issue with the five dog limit per household. l don't think anyone would consider telling people how many children they may have. Many dog owners love their dogs as they might children and placing a limit makes me uncomfortable. Well cared for dogs should not be limited. My current dog sitter /walker is more than competent to have more than five dogs in her home at a time. I'm not sure that should constitute a "commercial kennel." A private home is the best place for a dog to stay short term when owners are away. Small operators should not be required to have the same facilities as the big kennels. Regards, Dorene Molise Dunn From: Randi Briggs <porttownsendgirl @g mail. com> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:05 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed New Dog Rules Please let me know when and where the public hearing will held. It's occurred to me that this proposal was a boiler plate for a much, much larger city. Now, come on we can get more creative than this! I am shocked at some of the new proposals. I moved to Port Townsend mainly because it is considered a "dog friendly" town. This County has changed already from the easy going, live and let live feel to feeling like a police county. (Totalitarian County controlled by a political police force that supervises the citizens' and dogs' activities.) The proposal reads that there will be no changes fiscally but I disbelieve that statement. I also find it distasteful for our county taxes and sheriff resources to be used for the following sections: 6.07.050 = impounding 6.7.150 6.7.160 6.07.360 = impounding Thank you. jeffbocc HEARING RECO n From: Hanna Coate <hannagibsonjd @hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on the Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance Attachments: Animal Control Ordinance Comments 12.29.14.docx Dear Julie or other Commissioner's office support staff: I have attached my comments to the proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance. Please let me know if you need me to deliver a hard copy tomorrow. I made comments to the working draft in Microsoft Word review mode. Please let me know if you are unable to see those comment bubbles in whatever word processing software you are using, and I'll drop a hard copy by before the day's end tomorrow. Warm Regards, Hanna Coate 360 - 774 -0660 s Board of County Commissioners December 30. 2016 P.O. Box 1220 Pon Towna od, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners Johnson, Kler, and Sullivan, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding the proposed Animal Responsibility Code. 1 n. a loe med atimney in the State of Waslangtmn (ria rently o inactive sums), residing in Jefferson County, with an eatenswe background in animal law and animal law enforcement My perspective on the proposed ordinance stems front extensive study, research, writing, and publshmg in the field of animal law, as well as inv experience as a former deputized annul cruelty investigator n Michigan and in developing a sperial'aed animal fighting and animal cruelty task force For the Los Angeles Police Department. I hope to be able to provide some asefid insight with .egard, to the proposal ordinance, in its current form, and would very much like to assist the county staff and Commssurrom with developing an ordinance that will serve the stated goals of `protection of human health, safety and welfare, and to the greaten degree practicable, to prevent injury to property and cruelty to animal life" The old animal control ordimnce is by all aaounrs, antlQmmd and ha due need ofa rehasney I oommund the individuals who possessed the imnative to Commence such an undertaking. However, because this is a rather large elfmc and one not undertaken often in this county, it seems that the new animal control ordinance should be moderm,ed in a manner that reflects a careful and reasoned approach to current roues in animal protection and control If this revision re made with such an approach in mind, the Comouraroners should not need to replace or amend the ordinance again for years - or even decades — to Come.. Unfortunately, the current revised ordnance appears to focus heavily on controlling noisy and unruly (or "dangerous vireo s ") dogs and 6tls to include many necessary aspects of [modern annual ordnanus, including m imal protection pro nmas. One o ucern I would like in express from the onset is that this ordinance include, only infractions. It is ertrernaly communion m see an animal ordinance that re either nmhu silent on animal protection (as this one largely done) or makes no offense against an animal or the public any more serious than an infraction (u this one does) In that screw, the ordinance appears to be incomplete. Typical), modern animal ordinances are divided into three Sections or topic areas: (1) animal control (laws aimed at protecting society from unmly or diseased animals slid irresponsible owners; generally including v cane regdn inert, licensing, requirements santlation recRimmems. atmys, moue limitations, danger us dogs, eWf; (2) animal protection (laws that protect the animals, ioduchrig imift, minimum standards of care — food, shelter, sanitation, veterinary care, bans on cruelty and cruel activities Or procedures; and (3) m+se provisions (including regulation of, or ecaamnmss on animal related activities like keeping dangerous exotic animals as per, public exhibition of wild and erotic animals, circuses, em.). This ordinance lacks a similar organizational structure and fails to include many types of local laws (a few examples are mentioned above) that are customary in modern animal control ordinances. 1 have researched thousands of uty and cintim, animal onmancrs throughout the country and I would be happy to voluntarily 8t,elop a mode ordnance that includes all of the.specs of modern animal control ordinance, which county naffcould amend to suit the local needs In addition m being deficient in cope and cement, I have some concerns about several pro ssom bang ambiguous and/or unenforceable. Also, I think that some of the proposed changes may conflict with state law. l have made several comments as they relate to individual sections below [ recognize that excessive commentary, makes the task of overhauling the ordomr< onerous Accordingly, f ask the Commissioners to table the current proposed ordinance and refrain hour taking am, action until the BoCC can mhrit a comprehensive revision that includes all relevant aspects of animal protection and control ordinances Several overlying concerns for a men mdmamce: (1) .1 ..at c.imply sash state law; (2) it most be clear, specific and enforceable, (3) it must protect mamas— not regulate them; (a) Sara Penhallegods (Center Valley Anneal Rescue) comments on this revised ordinance should be integrated (to the greatest extent possible) into the final proposed ordinance, as she has significant involvement with law enforcement and animal prmtechom in East Jefferson County; (5) itshomld include misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors; and (3) it should reflect a balanced and modern approach to animal protection and regulation. I have attached die proposed ordioknot and my appended commentary below. I look forward to being of- ssslenm to the Commi knooks and county staHm this p,-,,a Kind Regards, Hanna Coate WSBA -38759 hannagibsonld��holma;Lconi 210 Polk Street, Suite <A Pore T— n,k,rd, WA 98368 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson An Ordinance Establishing } Ordinance No. ' Animal Responsibility Regulations ) For Jefferson County } - WHEREAS, Chapter 6.05 of the Jefferson County Code regulates Animal Responsibility and - Section I -030 establishes related fees; and WHEREAS, after reviewing Chapter 6.05 and Section I -030, staff recommends multiple updates to address nuisances; licensing; standards for kennels, shelters and animal welfare facilities; dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs; clarifications to the roles and responsibilities for administering and enforcing the Animal Responsibility code; fee revisions; and a variety of other updates: and WHEREAS, over thirty five citizens and organizations provided input on a working draft of the updated code, which comments were considered by staff in making further revisions and improvements in drafting the code; and WHEREAS, repealing Chapter 6.05 and replacing it with a new Chapter 6.07 would be a clear way of codifying the changes to the Animal Responsibility code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on Animal Responsibility regulations on December 8, 2014; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows Section One: Repeal of Chapter 6.05 Animal Responsibility in the County Code. Chapter 6.05 Animal Responsibility in Title 6 of the Jefferson County Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section Two: Creation of a new chapter in the County Code. There is hereby added to the Jefferson County Code a new Chapter in Title 6 entitled "Chapter 6.07 Animal Responsibility," the text of which is provided in Attachment "A" to this Ordinance and incorporated herein. Section Three: Amendment of Section I -030 Animal Services Fee Schedule in the County Code. - Section 1 -030 Animal Services in the Appendix Fee Schedule in the Jefferson County Code is hereby amended, the text of which is provided in Attachment 'B'to this Ordinance and incorporated herein. 2 of 31 < Section Four: Severability. Should any section or text of the Chapter of the Jefferson County Code entitled "Noise Control" be found to be unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise be deemed unlawful, then all other sections of said Chapter shall. remain effective and in full force - - -- tommeneetllEll:id -a"ma < meTdwhvthb- hen.;.tha Section Five: Effective Date. nab Gy then chat?ffthematemrng This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption to a a ui Catle? athen wero iumi to he a nvenbmty cleusa hen, woultln't chnae ¢sero.the aapa. <eonea aniroe; aeecor, :romp? , APPROVED this day of, 2014. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD of COMMISSIONERS SEAL' John Austin, Chairman David Sullivan, Member - ATTEST: Phil Johnson. Member Carolyn Avery, Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved as to form only. David Alvarez, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 3 of 31 ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. XX- XXXX -14 Chapter 6.07 ANIMAL RESPONSIBILITY 6.07.010 Purpose. 6.07.020 Definitions. 6.07.030 Seizing and Impounding. 6.07.040 Enforcement. 6.07.050 Running at large on public property. 6.07.060 Female in heat. 6.07.070 Hybrids 6.07.080 Harboring vicious or dangerous domesticated animal. 6.07.090 Howling and barking. 6.07.100 Injury to property or person. 6.07.110 Entry into food establishments. 6.07.120 Waste. 6.07.130 Chasing vehicles. 6.07.140 Jumping and barking at pedestrians. 6.07.150 Running in packs. 6.07.160 Animal at large. 6.07.170 Tethered animals. 6.07.180 Releasing stray to Sheriff, Animal Control or Shelter Operator. 6.07.190 Injured or diseased animals. 6.07.200 Quarantine. 6.07.210 Adoption from Animal Shelter or Animal Welfare Facility — Spay /neuter requirement — License requirement. 6.07.220 Shelter Operator — Duties. 6.07.230 Shelter Operator — Employees. 6.07.240 Notice of impounding. 6.07.250 Redemption of animal. 6.07.260 Interference with impounding. 6.07.270 Dog control zone established. 6.07.280 Dog license — Required. 6.07.290 Vaccination requirements for dogs and cats 6.07.300 Animal license — Fee. 6.07.310 Date due. 6.07.320 Issuance of licenses. 6.07.330 Licenses nontransferable. 6.07.340 Lost tags. 6.07.350 Unlawful to remove license tag. 6.07.360 Unlicensed dog— Impoundment. 6.07.370 Kennel license — Required for commercial kennels — Allowed for private kennels 4 of 31 6.07.380 Kennel license -Tag. 6.07.390 Kennel license - Application - Issuance - Fee - Due date. 6.07.400 Kennel inspection. _ 6.07.410 Standards for Kennels, Shelters and Animal Welfare Facilities. 6.07.420 Violations - Penalty. 6.07.430 Violations - Abatement. 6.07.440 Notice of Infraction. - - - -- CommarteA [x27: why 4oesn't ON oMM;in. fil ana 6.07.450 Contesting determination of infraction. MM a.d namrowkb Fio m{.Wameseor: (oW miseemlaa�wr:L 6.07.460 Hearing. 6.07.470 Failure to respond to Notice of Infraction. '. 6.07.480 Payment of penalty. 6.07.490 Fees collected. 6.07.500 Declaration of dangerous dog — Impounding of dog 6.07.510 Declaration of dangerous dog- Notice and hearing 6.07.520 Determination of potentially dangerous dog— Notice, administrative review and appeal. 6.07.530 Registration of dangerous dogs— Requirements — Annual Fee. 6.07.540 Provisions not exclusive. 6.07.550 Disclaimer of liability. 6.07.560 Liberal Construction. 6.07.010 Purpose. It is hereby declared the public policy of Jefferson County to encourage, secure and enforce those - animal control measures deemed desirable and necessary, for the protection of human health, safety and welfare, and to the greatest degree practicable, to prevent injury to property and cruelty to animal life. To this end, it is the purpose of this Chapter to: provide for a dog control zone for licensing of dogs and cats;setj:tandards for the humane use, care and treatmentof animals; control - -- Cammentm [E37e There se vary. aarv+e«wom :Iona _. animal behavior so that it shall not constitute a nuisance; and provide for the enforcement of ,acre: :one minimum sdndaNa oftnatmentfar animals, see county code and state law as pertains to animals. comment E3, above. - 6.07.020 Definitions. In construing provisions of this chapter, except where otherwise plainly declared or clearly apparent from the context, words used in this chapter shall be given their common and ordinary meaning and in addition, the following definitions shall apply: (1) "Abatement" means the termination of any violation by reasonable and lawful means determined by the animal control officer in order that a person or persons presumed to be the owner or keeper shall comply with this chapter. (2) "Animal' means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian. _.- Commented [E11: ruha animah. (3) "Animal control' or "Jefferson County Animal Control' is a function of Jefferson County l government created by the County Commission to administer and enforce the provisions of this - chapter, any applicable provisions of Title 16 RCW, and any other laws or regulations regulating the control and care of animals, said function to be staffed per the 5 o 31 direction of the County Commission. Animal Control shall be considered part of the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office, subject to any subsequent written agreements to the contrary. (4) "Animal Control Officer' is any person designated and duly authorized by the County or - ^. Commented [IllThem seem to b, two categories of -vRto ,.. -fort - --ofad- - in th commissioned by the Sheriff for the purpose of administering or aiding in the enforcement of this identified Inth pytllnanCe: 11) 'Animal Control OnkeY'l and (2) '., chapter, any applicable provisions of Title 16 RCW, and any other laws or regulations regulating the Enfomement officer. The farmer are presumably employees of the gaffersonmunboheriwsoapanment.&Iread xCIIII "Oil control and care of animals, acting solely within the scope of that authorization or commission. The through RCW 1653. 035, me only omerdassificaebn of person who Sheriff, or an commissioned Deputy of the Sheriff, shall automatically be designated as an Animal Y P Y Y g may ,..an muffiderolafgcer lWhame.wirme tyempwyent murt:li)ame silRCienttrainiw (3lhweawrMen'ppoimment Control Officer and may exercise all rights and obligations of an Animal Control Officer authorized from me trustees ofthe Humane society; aM(3)beaumothad by by this Chapter. thesupenor Court. (5) "Animal shelter" or "shelter means a facility which is designated by the County to house or - contain stray, homeless, abandoned, impounded or unwanted animals, and which is owned, operated or maintained by a public body, or by an established humane society, animal welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or other nonprofit organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals designated by the County. - -- COmmented.[E61'. Dupgcatiye wordusaga. (6) "Animal welfare facility" or "welfare facility" means a facility other than an animal shelter that controls, rescues, shelters, cares for, adopts out, or disposes of stray, homeless, abandoned, or unwanted animals, and which is owned, operated or maintained by an organization registered with the Washington Secretary of State's Office as a non - profit humane society, animal welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or other nonprofit organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals. (7) "At large" means physically off the premises of the owner, handler, or keeper, and not secured by a leash eight feet or less in length, or not otherwise under control of a competent person; _ -- Commented CE71: what does this mean? How will this be provided, "at large" does not include dogs exhibited in dog shows, field trials, obedience trials, or anbmwdi Will maaw anforc.rrem agent be retuned to the training of dogs therefore; br the use of a dog under the supervision of a person to hunt, to determine competence at the scene? Will wmWar. be a question formecourse,hen the animarsownersuesthe county chase or tree animals or bird; or the use of a dog to control or protect_ livestock or for Ikgzlseiaure Dialog? Is Itcom arterw <in thetra litional legal predatory game - - - -- property or in other agricultural activities; ore dog when otherwise safely and securely confined or sense tie rwtammor, or lnum0oralsomon whoismmnartamto mamtaincontiolofadeg, aseyldenued bywhetherormethadog completely controlled within or upon any vehicle; or under control in a designated off -leash area; or in 'dually under physical , or yerbal control at me time oftne dogs on duty fora law enforcement agency. sileged orfanse. (8) "Cat" means a domesticated Fells catus. Cgianntted [E6): why is mere an'aceptlon for hunnng but (9) "Commercial kennel "meansa place where five or more dogs (over six months of age) and /or roforomerturn oor recreatbnal admiles like hlklh, mushroom hunting, sac. ?Rls glopl to use dogs to hum many kinds of animals five or more cats (over six months of age), irrespective of duration, am boarded, bred, bought, sold, 1. WA blaok ben, wugar, b ^bmr, lynx dear, elk) exhibited or trained for compensation, but not including a pet shop, animal: shelter; animal welfare facility, or veterinary clinic/ hospital where boarding is incidental to treatment. - -- C— inented[EZ): Therashould be someresWalon on (10) "Dangerous dog" means any dog that (a) inflicts severe injury or multiple bites on a human be ding orreguletron thereefmpeyen[m <operetron of puppy being without provocation on public or private property, (b) inflicts severe injury, multiple bites, or mills wltMn the county. kills an animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner's or keeper's property, or (c) has previously been found to be potentially dangerous, the owner or keeper having received Notice of such and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or animals. If two or more dogs jointly engage in any conduct described in this subsection, thereby rendering proof of the individual dog that inflicted any particular injury difficult to ascertain, then regardless of the degree of participation by the individual dog(s), all such dogs shall be deemed dangerous dogs. A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was 6 o 31 committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. (11) "Day" means a calendar day unless otherwise described. In computing any period of time prescribed in this chapter, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. Legal holidays are prescribed in RCW 1.13.050. (12) "Dog" means a domesticated Canis lupus familiaris. This term includes but is not limited to "livestock guard dogs" (as defined elsewhere in this section) and "adult dogs," which is defined to include any dog which is six (6) months old or older. (13) "Domesticated animal" in this chapter means a dog or cat. 1(14) "Enforcement Officer' means a person authorized by the Sheriff to enforce the provisions of this Chapter, said authority being limited to the issuance of civil infractions. The Sheriff, or any commissioned Deputy of the Sheriff, shall automatically be designated as an Enforcement Officer. (15) "Euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death, or by a method that causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss of consciousness. (17) "Hobby Kennel" or "Animal Hobby Kennel" see the definition of "private kennel" elsewhere in this chapter. (18) "Hybrid(s)" means the offspring of two animals of different species. (16) "Intermittent Noise" is defined as including any of the following: 1) noise of 15 seconds or more duration occurring five or more distinct times within a 30 minute period or 2) noise of 15 seconds or more duration occurring three or more times in 10 minutes, or 3) any quantity of noise in a 15 minute period heard in person by an Animal Control Officer that the Animal Control Officer concludes constitutes an intermittent noise. (17) "Jefferson County" means the unincorporated area of Jefferson County, Washington and within any governmental entity or incorporated area as provided by contract to the extent the entity or city has adopted provisions of this chapter. (18) "Licensing Agent" means Animal Control or those entities or departments designated by the County Commission to receive license applications and issue licenses under this chapter. (19) "Livestock" means horses, mules, jackasses, cattle, sheep, llamas, alpacas, goats, swine, poultry and rabbits, or other such domestic animals kept or raised for use or pleasure. (20) "Livestock guard dog" means a dog demonstrably trained for the purpose of protecting livestock from attack or for herding livestock. (21) "Owner, handler or keeper" means any person, firm, corporation, organization or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in or having control or custody of an animal, regardless of whether the animal is licensed pursuant to the ordinance codified in this chapter. Collectively, these terms shall be known as "owner." (22) "Pack of dogs" means a group of two or more dogs running at large, as that term is defined in this Code. (23) "Pet shop" means legally permitted establishment where animals bred off the premises are offered for sale to the public. hem antend[Hlao Thisraiseen lot hauestiom:Ilis would thence hilrobheel oranmrsemeM?Whateuaughimswould these Imomalshavenanimald. Wouldtcesmelhere some levelcene toff? ememntha, co Would ties same Win of enkmement olfiwrs? Can dx doubly creace its own type M enforcement offlues 4espib the RLWS (sea, q., RCN 1&52.025)? 1 am unsure whether this creates a co diet with state law in terms of enforcement. It seems that the `eMnrcement officer would only be allowed to mace Ntations and would not have any enkmament means as to state law. HowaVan In many come, stab and kcal law will ovaaap and it seems difficult or Impos di to maintain a clear Visa hatween the two.I do rat Ice. 0 other examples of this arrangement in other local oMinancas. Pnmaniy Isecause virtually NI other maosseees ocnbinm &demewkrz and gross misdemeanors, but also baw,ee the local law enornment, animal control officers, and whore aptdicable, humane offcers enkrce the kcal animal control onumm a. The motive behind crertiq this separate enforcement catgory Is unclear to me and not treditional in terms of aMmel control ordinances: (24) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked: (a) inflicts bites on a human or animal either on public or private property, or (b) chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack or (c) any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or animals. (25) "Premises" means the area of land surrounding a house, or dwelling unit or units, and actually or by legal construction forming an enclosure and to which the owner or keeper of a dog has legal and equitable right therein. "Premises" does not extend into areas of common ownership or use in the case of easements, trailers parks, apartment complexes, private communities, etc. (26) "Private kennel" means a place at or adjoining a private residence, other than an animal shelter or animal welfare facility, where five or more dogs (over six months of age) and /or five or more cats (over six months of age) are kept for personal noncommercial purposes and purposes other than breeding as a primary interest, such as for hunting or organized field trials, obedience or confirmation competition. If more than ten dogs (over six months of age), cats (over six months of age) or combination thereof are kept at a private kennel, then there shall be arebuttable presumption such a location or establishment shall be deemed a "commercial kennel," regardless of whether the owner or keeper receives compensation. this term shall also be considered synonymous with "hobby kennel" and "animal hobby kennel" (27) "Proof of vaccination" means a health or rabies certificate or other acceptable proof of immunity against rabies, issued by a licensed veterinarian including the expiration date of such vaccination. (28) "Proper enclosure of a dangerous dog" means, while on the owner's or keeper's property, a dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the animal from escaping. Such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure top and bottom enclosure, and shall also provide protection from the elements for a dog. (29) "Service animal" means any guide dog, signal dog, or any other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. (30) "Severe injury" means any physical injury which results in a broken bone, disfigurement, laceration requiring suture(s) or surgery, or multiple bites requiring medical treatment. (31) "Shelter Operator" means the person, entity, or organization charged by the County Commission with managing and operating the Animal Shelter, said management or operation being subject to any relevant Interlocal Agreement between the County and another city or county. (32) "Sheriff' means the person serving as Sheriff for Jefferson County via election or appointment. (33) "Stray" means any domesticated animal loitering in a neighborhood or public place without an apparent owner or home. (34) "Under control" means the animal, while off of a leash and /or off the owner's premises, is under voice and /or signal control of a competent person so as to be thereby restrained from approaching any bystander or other animal and from causing or being the cause of physical or property damage. 8 of 31 Cu,anente d [E117: There should be no rebuttable presumption. Anyone keeping more than 10 dogs should be considered a on.,cal kenrelso that there Is some oversight regarding the conditions wMen which the animals are kept. It b very, very difficult for a private indlyidual or family to keep more than to dogs /cats under circumstances that rise to the level of humane treatment. It is my understanding Eased upon statements made by eyewitnesses, that there are several boarders In this county who continue to harbor animals. Lack a enforcement is a problem and animab suffer as a result. One of the reason the enforcement Is dMuk is the requirement of gathering probable use for issuance of a search wamnt. Mowry difdcalt to ascertain the condthions under which anima[, are lept if they arc not kept outside and are not allowed! oMid.. 0e. way to address this problem is by making a kennel [keno mandatory for anyone harboring more than 10 adult dogs /pats. A bal kennel license ensures that anther the goewing agent or animal controf offer will have .tows to the facllity to ensure that the Smmals ere being cared for. I Anotheroptionwould be to enact a requirement that any person harboring moo then lO dogA/catsmuat have the written permission oftheanimal opntlol authority, and must comply with reveral mouhemente. Hobbyists end /or enthusiasts with more than 10 saga /pate are subject to earth of the prnnlas, swing c m ein . uwnmelpt of a written complaint alleging a violation of and of the enumerated requirements. (Sea, e, KCC 7.08050 and 7.08.065. _ CCMMWt dEE12]:Whedoestmameani5eewmmant E7, above. 1 CagmvngtM [1113]: What conattutes °approaching" what ifs dog on the beach welding off leash walks in thedretion a. pedeaMen but minutes him/heneff after the owner commands the dog torewrn and beforetha dog actually makesphyskal contact — orcomes, within say, a few feat of the pNeatrian —Is this a violation or not? This is ambiguous. 0.07.0305eizing and Impounding. l._.- :. Commented 1x14]: VAatoom County's animal Ordnance _� All seizing of domesticated animals as provided for in this chapter shall be done by Animal Control. induces a section that Bats tare situations n which an animal maybe tinpoundetl It may be dearer to use thas approach. Seized animals shall be delivered for impoundment to an animal shelter designated by the county. Twc jusmiable drownsterwes for Impoundnentwhich are All impounding of domesticated animals as provided for in this chapter shall be performed by the (1) py en a any aroaal nee been subjected t�roc efty as Shelter Shelter Operator in an animal shelter designated by the county. deMod by RCw 16.52.2D5 am8or to 52.207 anaor the 6.07.040 Enforcement. 'provisions of this chapter, provided, that removal is necessary For the immediate safety and wel6 hg of the animal; and (2) Whenever a power is granted to or a duty imposed upon Animal Control for the enforcement of wren me animal's miner or keeper Is incapable or onsibe to some or all of this Cha ter or local a nforcement rovisions of Title l6 RCW, that owe may be p P P V 0omin ato care for goaceuse of lncacera4dn, seven iwese, �deeth,= fire or other emergency circumstances and an exercised or the duty performed by such persons who are designated and duly authorized by the agent for the owner cannot be readily locead. Thee, aramels county or commissioned by the Sheriff to aid in the enforcement, acting solely within the scope of wn W seamed impounded for safekeeping... that authorization or commission. 6.07.050 Running at large on public property. It is unlawful for the owner or person having control of any domesticated animal to suffer or permit it, whether licensed or not, to run at large in any public property, including but not limited to any public: park, beach, pond, fountain or stream therein, playground or school ground, building, roadway, street, alley, trail or sidewalk. Any animal so straying, entering or trespassing upon such property is declared to be a nuisance and may be immediately seized and impounded; provided, that this section shall not prohibit a person from walking or exercising an animal in those areas when such an animal is on leash, or under control by a competent person, and proper safeguards are taken to protect the public and property from injury or damage from the animal, unless the area is posted that dogs and /or cats are not allowed. This section shall not apply to any real property that is designated with formal signage and demarcated boundaries as an "off leash" area. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the County Commission from establishing for domesticated animals different rules and regulations applicable within one, some or all County -owned parks and other County -owned real property and such separate rules or regulations, if different than this this Chapter, shall apply at those locations rather than the regulations listed in this Chapter. The Animal Control Officer responding to an alleged violation of this Section shall have the option at their discretion to issue an oral warning to the owner of the domesticated animal. 6.07.060 Female in heat. It is unlawful for any owner to keep a female domesticated animal, whether licensed or not, while in heat, under circumstances where the animal is accessible to other animals except for purposes of controlled and planned breeding. Any such animal, while in heat, accessible to other animals is a - nuisance and may be immediately seized and impounded. 6.07.070 Hybrids (a) No person shall possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, give away, acquire, import, export, breed, release, or cause to be released a hybrid, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) No person shall possess a hybrid, except for: 9 of 31 (1) Those hybrids that are owned while residing in the county on or prior to the effective date of this Chapter. (2) Those hybrids born to a mother that was both pregnant with such hybrid and owned in the county on or prior to the effective date of this Chapter. Such offspring may be sold, offered for sale, traded, or given away to anyone not living in the county. (c) All hybrids must have a current county license. (d) All hybrids must bear a permanent identification (e.g., microchip), and such permanent identification must be identified in the hybrid's license application. (e) Owners of hybrids not in compliance with this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and the animal(s) may be impounded by the animal control authority pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. 6.07.080 Harboring vicious or dangerous domesticated animal. (1) It is unlawful for any owner to keep, harbor or maintain on or off the owner's premises in a manner liable to endanger the safety of persons or property lawfully upon the premises, or upon any street, avenue, alley, public or private place, or to allow to run at large within Jefferson County, any og exhibiting vicious propensities. Such animal is a nuisance and may be immediately seized and impounded. (2) At a hearing contesting determination of infraction of this section or a mitigation hearing, the court, as a part of the penalty imposed, may determine in its judgment whether or not the animal is vicious or dangerous and whether or not it shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. The cost thereof shall be taxed as a part of and collected in the same manner as other costs in the case. 6.07.090 Howling and barking. No person may allow an animal to unreasonably disturb any persons) by habitual barking, howling, yelping, whining, baying, squealing, crowing, crying, or making any other noises which by the frequency orvolume unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace of any person(s). (1) The animal noise is per se deemed to have unreasonably disturbed or interfered with the peace of any person if: a. the noise from an animal(s) occurs during the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, the noise is continuous for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or constitutes intermittent noise (as defined in this Chapter) within any period of thirty (30) or more minutes, and may be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing 100 feet or more from the perceived property line where the source animal(s) is /are located; or b. the noise from an animal(s) occurs during the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, the noise is continuous for a period of twenty (20) or more minutes or constitutes three or more separate incidents of intermittent noise (as defined in this Chapter) within any two hour period, and may be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing 150 feet or more from the perceived property line where the source ammal(s) is /are located. 10 of 31 commerrtad (xss7: m +: snoumb dA8 W (2) A violation of this section may still occur if the noise is heard at distances less than those stated above, given the proximity of the houses or structures to one another, or location of the source animal to the location of the complaint but only upon written explanation by the Animal Control Officer of the circumstances that caused the Animal Control Officer to conclude this section has been violated. (3) A violation of this section is a Class I Civil Infraction unless, in the discretion of the responding Animal Control Officer, an oral warning would suffice. (4) Exceptions: a. It shall be an affirmative defense to this section if the animal was intentionally provoked to make such noise, by a person otherthan a person at the residence where the animal resides. b. Lawfully operated animal shelters, animal welfare facilities, kennels, pet shops, or veterinary clinics shall be exempt from this section. c. Noise from a livestock guard dog on property subject to JCC 18.15.095(3), when such noise is produced to actively herd livestock or protect it from an active threat, shall be exempt from this section. Noise from a livestock guard dog that is produced for other purposes other than to actively herd or protect livestock from an active threat is not exempt. The burden shall be on the owner of the noise - making dog to provide evidence to the Animal Control Officer or the court that this exemption should be deemed applicable. (5) Any such animal violating this section shall be deemed a nuisance and may be seized and impounded if the disturbance reoccurs after the owner or custodian of such animal has received two warnings within six months from Animal Control. 6.07.100 Injury to property or person. It is unlawful for any owner to suffer or permit any dog to trespass on private or public property so as to damage or destroy any property or thing of value. It is unlawful for any owner to suffer or permit any dog to bite a person while such person is on public property or lawfully on private property. These acts maybe deemed a nuisance and any such animal maybe seized and impounded. .07.110 Entry into Mod establishments. It is unlawful for anyowner to suffer or permit any animal to enter anyplace, building or hall . where food intended for human consumption is stored; prepared, served or sold to the public; provided, that thissubsection shall not apply . to a guide dog or service animal pursuant to RCW- 49.60.218; to dogs used by armored car services or law enforcement agencies, or to veterinarian offices or hospitals;. or to animal' exhibitions or organized animal training classes.) Commmrred t1111167:thl, is metre y,wowiita Plae,for.ban -------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ 6.07.120 Waste. onammak in food ska ery estebrlshments.rtut its health It is unlawful for any owner or other person with custody of a dog to fail to remove and dispose of Eapartment as. ind is obJactlonabM ewe es a health regulation. m. o..n. aroparotoraPfood: ere. asistnehro.ots should be any feces excreted by the dog from any public place or any private property not owned or leased by allowed to regulate theirown establishments in a manner not the owner or person with custody. The provisions of this section shall not apply to blind persons inoonsbbntwkh tater . dorexampka rertaurntwnar would nice to make the facility dog friendly it should be allowed to who may use dogs as guides. do so to the extent authorized by state law. 6.07.130 Chasing vehicles. 11 of 31 It is unlawful for any owner to suffer or permit any dog to in any manner obstruct, chase, run after or jump at vehicles orb cVcIes lawfully using the public streets, avenues, alleys and ways. The same is a nuisance and any such dog maybe seized and impounded. 6.07.140 Jumping and barking at pedestrians. It is unlawful for any owner to keep or harbor without �estmint or confinementany dog that LC �— onareetrteeg[x171t1sarencesufickm rasereine or _.. frequently or habitually snarls and growls at or snaps or jumps upon or threatens pedestrians or <oMtlxmeMen aumcl.ar bicyclists lawfully upon any sidewalks, streets, alleys, or public places. The same Is a nuisance and any such dog may be seized and impounded. 6.07.150 Running in packs. - It is unlawful for an owner to suffer or permit any dog to run in a pack of dogs. The same is a nuisance and any such dog may be seized and impounded. 6.07.160 Animal at large. (1) It is unlawful for the owner or keeper of any dog whether licensed or not, or any livestock as defined in this Chapter to allow such animal to be at large or to roam, stray or be away from the premises of the owner or keeper, or to enter or be on the private property of another without permission of the owner or lawful custodian of such property. (2) Any dog running at large in the county is a nuisance, and may be seized and impounded. (3) Animal Control may request that a person requesting impoundment under this section first apprehend and secure such animal, provided that the animal does not appear vicious or diseased. 16.07.170 Tethered. animals It is unlawful for any owner or keeper of any domestic animal to tether, stake, tie, or similarly . restrain any domestic animal for more than twelve (12) hours in any twenty -four (24) Mow period, or in such a manner that: it is likely to be frequently "tangled, its chain or tether weighs more than one - eighth of the animal's weight, it is tethered using a choke collar or its breathing Is impaired, R cannot reach or consume food or water; or it cannot access shelter for protection from weather, .. -- Coftanxrttea[x ;a): mere shouidbe minimum length :waned 6.07.180 Releasing stray to Animal Control or Shelter Operator. tarUSaeertartse° It shall be the duty of each person who shall take into his possession any stray animal not placed in his possession by the person having lawful ownership, custody or control thereof, to notify at once Animal Control or the Shelter Operator. It is unlawful to refuse to release such animal to Animal Control or the Shelter Operator upon demand, and there shall be no charge or fee for notification or release of such animal to Animal Control or the Shelter Operator. 6.07.190 Injured or diseased animals. Any animal suffering from serious injury or, disease may be destroyed by Animal Control or the Shelter Operator; provided, that if the owner is known Animal Control or the Shelter Operator 12 of ----- eummmteA[ x193:-serous miun, orasease' is ambiguous. _ 31 Veterinanr eonsuhatam should M mandatory —and no animal shouldbe eunramxed uMerthNsectlm without a forma process vataiidery tnlMng aiM as such are not qualifiedW maYea deterndnatbm atinh nature. Arn, less stringent or formal process for <uther es is Will expose the o"Unly to tort Nobility for wrongful death of mmpanbn an mils. Those suits art be costly. Some recent •ettMmems end awards hwo eusu dad$40 000. shall notify the owner prior to destruction, and if the owner is unknown, shall make all reasonable efforts to locate and notify the owner, prior to destruction. Oeasonable veterinary consultation and treatment may be acquired at discretion of Animal Control or the Shelter Operator. ` - - -- COMMU 0 [x207; vatannan =onaakatlen anoWe x� 6.07.200 Quarantine. infli° ay. (1) Any animal that bites or otherwise breaks the skin of any person, regardless of whether that person be on public or private property, may be impounded and quarantined for at least 10 days to determine whether the animal is infected with any disease that may have been transmitted to the victim. If approved by the Sheriff or Animal Control, the owner or keeper may quarantine the animal on his /her premises. It is a violation of this chapter to refuse required quarantine of an - animal which has broken the skin of any person. (2) Kennel fees for the quarantine period and any unpaid fees for a current license are to be paid by the owner of the animal and release of the animal is conditioned upon payment of these fees. - Ownerless animals may be humanely destroyed and referred to the local health department for analysis. 6.07.210 Adoption from Animal Shelter or Animal Welfare Facility — Spay /neuter requirement— License requirement. (1) Any person adopting an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat from a designated animal shelter or - from any animal welfare facility in Jefferson County shall have the animal spayed or neutered before taking custody, or on or before the date to be specified in a written adoption agreement. However, if a licensed veterinarian states in writing that the date specified in the adoption agreement is inappropriate for the animal in question, the adoption agreement may be modified accordingly upon submission of a written statement from a licensed veterinarian to the officer at the shelter or welfare facility who is responsible for ensuring compliance with this section. (2) Any dog being adopted from an animal shelter or animal welfare society in Jefferson County by a person residing in unincorporated East Jefferson County shall be licensed upon adoption, and said - person shall pay any unpaid fees for a current license before taking custody. (3) A Shelter Operator or animal welfare facility may set and collect fees for adoption from its facility, and for spaying or neutering a dog or cat. 6.07.220 Shelter Operator — Duties. - The Shelter Operator shall accept custody of all animals subject to impounding as prescribed by county ordinance, and shall also accept custody of stray and abandoned animals from unincorporated East Jefferson County delivered to it by the public. There shall be no charge for accepting custody of stray and abandoned animals, however the Shelter Operator may charge a kurrender fee to an owner that is relinquishing their animal (see fee schetlule)� Such animals shall -.. CommaNea (x217: snare uu s. iwree roavmeMer an be provided with proper care, food and water while confined. The Shelter Operator shall provide for or animal. cnan&I afee enK urwa ahaMo mmtortmuhr to WtenilalNanttiuwhaa mmmaualamoNer ed awld ma anenar the redemption, adoption, licensing and disposal of such animals`as authorized by law, and shall fea: perform other duties assigned to it under this Chapter and such other duties as may be delegated to ------ Cornlnan0eatx327; Thxa anwid Lea amhlbium onaemnrar it by the County, The Shelter Operator may charge applicable fees pursuant to the Fee Schedule of - enrrare rins anlawa to uauadaarra Iwho »n ror«earcn the Jefferson County Code and as may be authorized by the 13 of 31 racnnea), ana on aelh�dlra=nyroeesaarch naieiea. county. The Shelter Operator shall dispose of dead animals collected by the county from public lands in unincorporated East Jefferson County and delivered to the shelter, and if the animal's owner is known a fee may be collected therefrom for such services pursuant to the Fee Schedule. 6.07.230 Shelter Operator — Employees. Designated employees of the Shelter Operator over the age of 21 years may be made Special Animal Control Officers by the Jefferson County Sheriff and charged with the duty of enforcing certain ordinances of Jefferson County and statutes of the state of Washington relating to the care, treatment, control, impounding and licensing of anini A specia I deputy sheriff commission shall be issued to such employees by, and at the discretion of, the Sheriff of Jefferson County and may be revoked at the will of the Sheriff, and when so revoked, such appointment shall cease and be null and void. 6.07.240 Notice of impounding. When any animal is impounded under the provisions of this chapter, Animal Control or the Shelter Operator shall as soon as feasible notify the owner, if the owner is known, of such impoundment and the terms upon which the animal can be redeemed. If the owner of the animal so impounded is unknown, then Animal Control or the Shelter Operator shall make all reasonable efforts to locate and notify the owner of the impounding of the animal. Any animal so impounded shall be held for the owner at least five days. 6.07.250 Redemption of animal. (1) The owner of any domesticated animal, which is impounded, may redeem it subject to the following conditions: (a) Payment of an impound fee (see fee schedule); (b) Payment of any unpaid fees for a current license if the animal is a dog (see fee schedule); (c) Payment of a redemption fee for the return of the animal to its original owner (see fee schedule), provided that for animals impounded for the first time, the Shelter Operator may waive or refund the impound fee: (i) for any spayed or neutered animal based on ability to pay or extenuating circumstances, and (ii) for any animal which is not already spayed or neutered if the owner volunteers the animal for spaying or neutering, deposits the fees for the spaying or neutering with the Shelter Operator, and the animal is spayed or neutered on or before a date specified in writing by the Shelter Operator; and (d) Payment of a board fee (see fee schedule) per day or part thereof for board of the animal during the impound period, which may be reduced or waived based on ability to pay or extenuating circumstances. 14 of 31 -". Commented [E23J: flcw 16.50.025 -the shaker e a humane ',. society., as such lmpbyeet murt adhere to the repvirements set forth In the RCW's. This secudn faits to miude those requirements, including co"I"oss of treating, appointment by the trustees of the humane society end uthdmeti.n by the superb, Court.. (2) If said animal is not redeemed by the owner within five days, the Shelter Operator, after complying with JCC 6.07.240, may take the following action: (a) Hold the animal for an additional length of time for the owner; - (b) Sell or adopt the animal as a pet to another person; or - i(c) Destroy or otherwise dispose: of the animal. -- - commaite0 [X241: mere shbvm be a prohibition m milinr or —- ---. (3) if the animal is diseased such as to be an imminent threat to the public health or other and mat s, fadiflerrirgAnemia n will d irmidao ms(ahsentities. icn es. hNget and on ulnala, the animal may be immediately destroyed; provided the Shelter Operator has made a reasonable ' odMtorenPendoinarb in thecaaeofevtAanaaa; a"Wsoewm pemobamM :noun be attempt to locate and notify the owner. Veterinary consultation shall be at the discretion of the afl w ho, daganulraU.Centel, othe, nn.fl,ods, mdvdinr carton Shelter Operator. inonomb"hembers are not humane. 6.07.260 Interference with impounding. Any person who interferes with, hinders, delays or impedes any officer in enforcement of the impounding provisions of this chapter commits a violation punishable as provided in JCC 6.07.420 et seq. and /or RCW 9A.76.020. 6.07. 270 Dog control zone established. A county dog control zone is established pursuant to Chapter 16.10 RCW to provide for the licensing of dogs, including the following territory: All unincorporated areas within East Jefferson County, Washington. 6.07.280 Dag license— Required. It is unlawful for any person to own, keep or have control of any dog over the age of six months in the County Dog Control Zone unless said person, firm, corporation, organization or department has procured a license therefore as provided in this chapter. A person may license a dog six months or less in age, a dog in other portions of Jefferson County, and cats, and shall pay the license fees as provided in this chapter and the Fee Schedule. The requirement to procure a license shall not apply under the following circumstances: (1) The owner has been a resident of the County Dog Control Zone for 30 days or less; or (2) The owner has owned, kept or been in control of the dog for 30 days or less or the dog, at the time of application for license, is less than six months of age. These exceptions do not apply to licenses required at the time of adoption or redemption from an animal shelter or animal welfare facility in Jefferson County. 6.07.290 Vaccination requirements for dogs and cats All dogs and cats six months of age or older shall be vaccinated against rabies. If the animal is being licensed, the owner of such dog /cat shall provide the licensing agent with proof of vaccination of such dog/cat. This section shall not apply to any animal when a licensed veterinarian provides a statement that the animal is not able to be vaccinated because the animal has health issues that prevent vaccination without the further risk to the animal. An owner who refuses to provide proof of such vaccination or veterinarian's statement upon 15 of 31 - request by the licensing agent or his /her designee shall be deemed to have failed to provide such proof. 6.07.300 Animal license — Fee. The following fees shall be paid for animal licenses under this chapter: (1) For each dog or cat spayed or neutered (upon proof of spaying or neutering), see fee schedule; (2) For each dog or cat not spayed or neutered, see fee schedule; Provided, that licenses and tags shall be provided free of charge by the Licensing Agent to hearing aid dogs properly trained to assist the hearing impaired and to guide dogs properly trained to assist blind persons when such dogs are actually being used to assist the hearing impaired or blind person in the home or in going from place to place; to dogs being currently trained for such purposes in a school or program approved or accredited by a professional organization or association, either for profit or not for profit; and to young dogs being raised, to be trained on reaching maturity as guide dogs, under the 4 -H program known as "Guide Dogs for the Blind." Licensing agents, in writing such licenses, shall insert the words "Hearing Aid" or "Guide Dog" in the space allotted for, and in place of, a stated fee. 6.07.310 Date due. All animal licenses shall be good for two years from the date of purchase, and a lifetime license shall be good for the remainder of the animal's life. The County Commission may at its discretion provide for a late fee if renewal of a license does not occur within 30 days of the expiration of the current license. All licensing periods shall be measured from the date when the original license was either issued or the date when the original license expired. 6.07.320 Issuance of licenses. It shall be the duty of the Licensing Agent to issue licenses to persons applying therefore upon payment of the license fees as provided in this chapter and the Fee Schedule, and to issue a metal tag for each animal licensed. The license shall be dated and numbered and shall bear the name of Jefferson County, Washington, the name and address of the owner or keeper of the animal licensed, and the date of expiration. The tag shall bear the name of Jefferson County, Washington, a serial number corresponding with the number of the license, and the calendar year issued. The Licensing Agent shall keep a record of the animal's breed, color, sex, name, chip number (if any), and rabies vaccination. It shall be the duty of every owner or keeper of a dog in the County Dog Control Zone to keep a substantial collar on the dog and attached firmly thereto the license tag for the current year; provided, that this provision shall not be maintained to apply to a hunting dog in a controlled hunt by a competent person or to show dogs on the show grounds or to dogs engaged in formal obedience training. As an alternative to a license tag, an animal may be identified as licensed by being tattooed on its inside ear or on its inside thigh or groin with a permanent license number approved and on file with the animal licensing agent. The Licensing Agent shall perform other licensing duties as may be delegated to it by the County. 6.07.330 Licenses nontransferable. 16 of 31 Animal licenses as provided in this chapter shall not be transferable from one animal to another; provided, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent a license being transferred from one owner to another. 6.07.340 Lost tags. Lost tags may be replaced by a substitute identification tag upon payment of a fee as provided in the fee schedule, to the Licensing Agent. 6.07.350 Unlawful to remove license tag. It is unlawful for any person other than the owner or keeper to remove a license tag from any dog licensed under the provisions of this chapter. 6.07.360 Unlicensed dog— Impoundment. All dogs in the County Dog Control Zone not licensed as required herein are in violation of this chapter and may be seized and impounded. All dogs in the County Dog Control Zone off the premises of the owner, handler, or keeper not exhibiting a valid current license as required herein are in violation of this chapter and may be seized and impounded. 6.07.370 Kennel license — Required for commercial kennels — Allowed for private kennels It is unlawful for any person to own, maintain or operate a commercial kennel in the County Dog Control Zone unless said person has procured a kennel license. However, for a private kennel, the owner shall either obtain a kennel license, or shall obtain licenses for individual animals as otherwise required in this chapter. 6.07.380 Kennel license — Tag. The kennel license shall contain its date of expiration and shall be prominently displayed at the place of operation. At the time the kennel license is issued, the person receiving same shall also provide all necessary information for individual license tags to be issued for each adult dog or cat, and each juvenile dog or cat owned or possessed for sale. This tag shall bear the name of Jefferson County, Washington, a unique serial number, and the calendar year issued. The Licensing Agent shall keep a record of the animal's breed, color, sex, name, chip number (if any) and rabies vaccination. No further licensing is required for such animals until the license expires. It is the responsibility of the licensee to transfer to the licensing agency the new owner information at the time of sale or transfer of ownership. Individual kennel license tags shall not be issued for individual dogs or cats boarded on a limited time basis (30 days or less) at a recognized boarding kennel. 6.07.390 Kennel license — Application - Issuance — Fee — Due date. (1) Kennel licenses shall be issued by the Licensing Agent. (a) A kennel license applicant shall submit a license application for each kennel in a form prescribed by the Licensing Agent, including but not limited to: 17 of 31 (i) Name, address, and telephone number of the owner or operator of the kennel and the name and address of the facility; (ii) Whether the kennel license is for a commercial or private kennel, and a brief description of the magnitude and nature of the contemplated operation; and (iii) A written statement from the Jefferson County department of community development verifying that the kennel is a permitted use or a legal nonconforming use under the County's Unified Development Code (Title 181CC). Such written statement shall be kept on file by the Licensing Agent, and a new statement shall not be required for renewals in subsequent years unless the location of the kennel has changed. (b) License Issuance. The Licensing Agent shall issue the license or renewal thereof upon: (i) Submittal of a license application consistent with subsection (1)(a), (ii) Payment of the applicable license fee, (iii) Submittal of a compliance verification statement from the department of community development or reference to such statement on file with the Licensing Agent, and (iv) An inspection by the Licensing Agent or Animal Control finds that the kennel operation or contemplated operation meets the requirements of JCC 6.07.410. (c) For license renewals, the license applicant shall meet the above requirements no less than thirty calendar days prior to the date of expiration of the existing license. (2) License fee. A flat fee (see fee schedule) shall be paid for a kennel license for a commercial kennel or a private kennel under this chapter, regardless of the size of the kennel operation. However, for a private kennel, the owner shall either obtain a kennel license, or shall obtain licenses for individual animals as otherwise required in this chapter, and pay the corresponding fee. (3) Due date. All kennel licenses granted under this chapter shall be due and payable the first day of January of each year. If the kennel license fee is not paid on or before February 28th of each year, the applicant shall pay a penalty fee (see fee schedule) in addition to the regular fee as stated above; provided, the applicant shall not pay the penalty fee if the applicant has owned, maintained or operated the kennel for one month or less. 6.07.400 Kennel inspection. Prior to the issuance or renewal of any kennel license, or during the term of the kennel license, the Licensing Agent or Animal Control may, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., upon Notice, enter the kennel premises of the applicant and make an inspection to ascertain the number of dogs or cats maintained by the applicant, and to determine if the kennel complies with the standards in JCC 6.07.410. (Entry for such Inspection shall not constitute a trespass. 18 of 31 Ccannented[E2S]: The kernet should also hays to mrnplywhh the requirements set forth in law 1652.nO If it is a hreeding facility for dthere are n least 10 unaltered does on site). Also, if the facility is USDA llansed deader or breeder (or h required to be so licensed), it must be required to wmplywA those pnoylsbns as a co ditlon precedent for county Ifcansure. "Substantial compliance" as proposed Wow cannot be authorized forcompllaMa with state and federal 1. and! is very, very amhq..s. Upon issuance of the kennel license and throughout the term of the license, the kennel premises of the licensee maybe subject to inspection upon the same conditions as above, for the same purposesjl Failure by the license applicant or holder to aIlow a kennel inspection pursuant to this commented[ex4II M,ro,Wawe omces>mus[be,ueharzearo -" with -i - dso .the prem&eam nrtlermdetermine whetMer[he kennel is chapter or failure to comply with the standards in JCC 6.07.410 may cause the kennel license to be ,o compu >MCewtth >�iKenro,e>,e denied or revoked by the Licensing Agent. 6.07.410 Standards for Kennels, Shelters and Animal Welfare Facilities. (1) Facility requirements for Kennels, Shelters and Animal Welfare Facilities for dogs and cats: (a) Indoor and outdoor animal housing facilities shall be in good repair, protect the animals from injury, and shall provide sufficient security to contain the animals while preventing entry by unwanted animals, and meet breed - specific requirements including, but not limited to, temperature, humidity, and light, and provide exercise areas appropriate to the animals' size, breed, and characteristics. (bJ Indoor facilities shall (i) Provide the animal with adequate space for movement and ability to sit, lie, stand, and stretch without touching the sides or top of housing. For cats and dogs, the primary enclosure for each animal shall meet or exceed the space requirements of 9 CFR Ch. I §16(b)(1) and (c)(1) (1 -1 -00 Edition); (ii) Primary enclosures for dogs must be placed no higher than forty-two inches above the floor and may not be placed over or stacked on top of another cage or primary enclosure; (iii) Be heated or ventilated to protect the animals from temperatures to which they are not - acclimated or are not suited by virtue of breed, health, or age; (iv) Be sufficiently ventilated at all times to provide for the health of the animals and minimize odors, drafts, ammonia levels, and prevent moisture condensation; - (v) Have interior walls, ceilings, and floors that are resistant to absorption of moisture or odors; (vi) Have flooring with a surface that can be sanitized and treated to minimize growth of harmful bacteria, said flooring shall not be constructed with wire or other materials that may damage or irritate animals' feet; (vii) Have sufficient lighting that may be turned on to allow observation of the animals at any time of day or night; (viii) Have available for staff a sink with hot and cold running water; and (ix) Housing facilities must have a means of fire suppression, such as functioning fire extinguishers, on the premises. (c) Outdoor facilities shall: 19 of 31 (i) Provide adequate shelter and protection from adverse weather; provide shelter and protection from extreme temperatures and weather conditions that may be uncomfortable or hazardous to the animals; and provide sufficient shade to shelter all the animals housed in the primary enclosure atone time; (ii) Provide sufficient room for adequate exercise and movement; and (iii) When no indoor facility is available, outdoor facilities shall also: (A) Have flooring with a surface that can be sanitized and treated to minimize growth of harmful bacteria; (B) Have available for staff a sink with hot and cold running water. (d) Substantial compliance exceptions authorized: Kennels lawfully operating prior to the adoption of this Chapter may obtain a Kennel license despite their non - compliance with one or more of the mandatory requirements listed in this section if the Licensing Authority is able to make written findings that the subject kennel is in "substantial compliance' with the requirements listed here and that non - compliance with one or more of the requirements of this section will not endanger or harm the animals housed at that kennel. (e) Any kennel issued a license based upon a written finding of its "substantial compliance' with the requirements listed here shall have six (6) years from the issuance date of its first "substantial compliance" license to achieve full compliance with all the requirements listed here. Absent a written showing that achieving full compliance would cause an undue hardship, at the end of the six year period described here a "substantial compliance" licensee who has not yet achieved full compliance with these requirements may be denied renewal of its license and be deemed an unlawful kennel. (f) The owner or operator of a kennel, shelter or animal welfare facility may provide to the Licensing Agent or Animal Control evidence that their facility is constructed, maintained or built in a manner that provides to the domesticated animals present there a level of protection of their health and welfare equivalent to the level of protection provided to those animals by the requirements listed in this subsection. The Licensing Agent or Animal Control is not obligated to find that the owner or operator has proven equivalence or provided proof of same. An owner or operator of a kennel, shelter or animal welfare facility who has its evidence of alleged equivalence rejected by the Licensing Agent or Animal Control shall have available to it all appeal rights provided in Section 520 of this Chapter. This right of appeal granted by Section 520 is not available to third parties who are not the owner or operator of a kennel, shelter or animal welfare facility. (2) Operation requirements for Kennels, Shelters and Animal Welfare Facilities: (a) Adequate food and water for each animal in sufficient quantity and quality to sustain the animal in containers designed and situated to allow the animal easy access; and proper habitat and medical attention, if needed, shall be provided at all times; 20 of 31 (c( The facilities shall be maintained and operated in a healthful and sanitary manner, free from excrement build -up, disease, infestation, and foul odors; (d) Provide each animal with appropriate exercise, according to its breed and condition. (f) Sick or injured animals shall receive appropriate medical treatment by or under the auspices of a licensed veterinarian without delay when necessary. Records shall be maintained reflecting treatment, care, dates of veterinary visits, and the name of the veterinarian and veterinary clinic providing treatment. Sick or injured animals shall not be sold, bartered, or otherwise transferred from a commercial kennel, shelter or animal welfare facility to a new owner until the illness or injury is substantially healed, unless such transfer is to an animal shelter or animal welfare facility that assumes all responsibility for providing the appropriate medical treatment; (g) Cats and dogs shall receive age- appropriate vaccines and anthelmintics. Records of such shall be maintained for each animal and made available to the Licensing Agent, Animal Control and the Jefferson County Public Health Department, including the name and address of the attending veterinarian, if applicable; (h) A copy of all medical records including, but not limited to, the records described in subsections (2)(f) and (g) of this section shall be provided to new owners at the time the ownership of the animal is transferred, or to Animal Control upon request. (i) f fhe owner or operator of a kennel, shelter or animal welfare facility may provide to the Licensing Agent or Animal Control evidence that their facility possesses, uses, implements or includes a procedure, protocol, process, equipment or piece of personal property that provides to the domesticated animals present there a level of protection of their health and welfare equivalent to the level of protection of their health and welfare provided to those animals by the requirements listed in this subsection. The Licensing Agent or Animal Control is not obligated to find that the - Catnrsntte4[Ex77p Thisba.traordmadly ambigmusam owner or operator has proven equivalence or provided proof of same. An owner or operator of a d icuftWb lMemretandenforce .ThiswMALWAY5ka .n kennel, shelter or animal welfare facility who has its evidence of alleged equivalence rejected by the •numerrt overwhnh• rtnere exists svbdantlaiwmphana.abo, subnaWcbmpffneranmtmauebgi aedfmampllenme h Licensing Agent or Animal Control shall have available to it all appeal rights provided in Section 520 smc. ana redeallaws lwnan snoam bcadomawnpreadenem of this Chapter. This right of appeal granted by Section 520 is not available to third parties who are issuanmbf•fennalftenae. not the owner or operator of a kennel, shelter or animal welfare facility. CaReme -what [Ex97k tlaicneduwxamofm.payer monevm argue ove ted [E bstantln cwnplian a means. 6.07.420 Violations— Penalty. Unless a different penalty or alternative result is expressly stated in another section of this Chapter, any person, who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be issued a (Notice of Infraction, said - infraction having associated' with it penalty established in the fee schedule.( The penalty associated OcarvseistsidEE293: see: 0.cw u 51.510 with civil infractions shall increase for repeat violators as established in the fee schedule. For each Dog breeCis9 —umaon the number ofddgs— Regwred conddbrm —ft dty— LlmRaho of.ti.h— oennhions. violation of a continuing nature, each day shall constitute a separate 21 of 31 Violation of the minimum sandardz a are for dogs kept in bmeding facilities (a facility housing more than in unaltered dop) misdemeatat. Itappem flrstglance thn the oagmss an in that It attempts e overlaps state law hem and is to co to m miles sage in this cpnmMa lesser ofmnze th thatpbdaMafor m that prwiddd fcrunderstam law. n*, offense. In addition to the issuance of civil infractions, Animal Control is also authorized to collect any fees it would be entitled to collect arising from the violation of this Chapter, meaning a person determined to have an unlicensed dog would have to pay the cost of the civil infraction and the cost of the dog license. 6.07.430 Violations — Abatement. (1) Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter in the keeping or maintenance of any nuisance as defined in this chapter may, In addition to the penalty provided for in JCC 6.07.420, be ordered, by the court in such action, to forthwith abate and remove such nuisance. If the same is not done by the owner or keeper within a reasonable amount of time as determined by the court, the same shall be abated and removed under the direction of any officer authorized by the order of the court. (2) If a person who has been issued a Notice of Infraction elects not to request a hearing, Jefferson County may request a hearing for the purpose of determining whether an order of abatement should issue. (3) When such nuisance has been abated by any officer or authorized agent of Jefferson County the costs and expenses shall be taxed as part of the costsof the action againstthe party. In all cases where an officer is authorized by the court to abate any such nuisance, he shall keep an account of all expenses attending such abatement. In addition to other powers herein given to collect such costs and expenses, Jefferson County may bring suit for the same in a court of competent jurisdiction against the person keeping or maintaining the nuisance so abated. 6.07.440 Notice of Infraction. (1) A Notice of Infraction represents a determination that a violation has been committed. The determination will be final unless contested as provided in this chapter. (2) A Washington Uniform Court Docket Citation may be used as the form for the Notice of Infraction and shall include the following: (a) A statement that the Notice represents a determination that an infraction has been committed by the person named in the Notice and that the determination shall be final unless contested as provided in this chapter; (b) A statement that an infraction is a noncriminal offense for which imprisonment may not be imposed as a sanction; (c) A statement of the specific infraction for which the Notice was issued; (d) A statement of the monetary penalty established for the infraction; (e) A statement of the options provided in this chapter for responding to the Notice and the procedures necessary to exercise these options; (f) A statement that at any hearing to contest the determination the county has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an infraction was 22 of 31 committed; and that the person may subpoena witnesses including the officer who issued the Notice of Infraction; (g) A statement that at any hearing requested for the purpose of examining mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the infraction, the person will be deemed to have committed the infraction and may not subpoena witnesses; (h) A statement, which the person shall sign, that the person promises to respond to the Notice of Infraction in one of the ways provided in this chapter; (i) A statement that failure to respond to a Notice of Infraction as promised is a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine or imprisonment in jail. 6.07.450 Contesting determination of infraction. (1) Any person who receives a Notice of Infraction under this chapter shall respond to such Notice as provided in this section with seven days of the date of the Notice. (2) If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the determination, the person shall respond by completing the appropriate portion of the Notice of Infraction and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the court specified on the Notice. Payment in the amount of the penalty prescribed for the infraction must be submitted with the response. When a response which does not contest the determination is received, an appropriate order shall be entered in the court's records. (3) If the person determined to have committed the infraction wishes to contest the determination, the person shall respond by completing the portion of the Notice of Infraction requesting the hearing the submitting it either by mail or in person to the court specified on the Notice -The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place and date of the hearing, and that date shall not be sooner than seven days from the date of the Notice, except by agreement. (4) If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the determination but wishes to explain mitigating circumstances surrounding the infraction the person shall respond by completing the portion of the Notice of Infraction requesting a hearing for that purpose and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the court specified on the Notice. The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place and date of the hearing. (5) If any person issued a Notice of Infraction fails to respond to the Notice of Infraction as provided in subsection (2) of this section, or fails to appear at a hearing requested pursuant to subsection (3) or (4) of this section, the court shall enter an appropriate order assessing the monetary penalty prescribed for the infraction and any other penalty authorized by this chapter. 6.07.460 Hearing. (1) A hearing held for the purpose of contesting the determination that an infraction has been committed shall be without a jury. (2) Any person subject to proceedings under this chapter may be represented by counsel. 23 of 31 (3) The attorney representing the county may appearin any proceeding under this chapter but need not appear, notwithstanding any rule of court to the contrary . (4) The officer who issued the Notice must appear at such hearing, and may subpoena witnesses. The person named in the Notice may subpoena witnesses, including the officer, and also has the right to present evidence and examine witnesses present in court. (5) The burden of proof is upon the county to establish a commission of the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence. (6) After consideration of the evidence and argument, the court shall determine whether the infraction was committed. Where it has not been established that the infraction was committed an order dismissing the Notice shall be entered in the court's records. Where it has been established that the infraction was committed an appropriate order shall be entered in the court's records. (7) An appeal from the court's determination or order shall be to the Superior Court. Such appeal shall be taken in accordance with the RAU Rules. The decision of the Superior Court is subject only to discretionary review pursuantto Rule 2.3 of the rules of appellate procedure. 6.07.470 Failure to respond to Notice of Infraction. There shall be a penalty (see fee schedule) for failure to respond to a Notice of Infraction or failure to pay a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter. 6.07.480 Payment of penalty. Whenever a monetary penalty is imposed by a court under this chapter it is due immediately and to be made payable to the clerk of the court. If a person is unable to pay at that time, the court may, in its discretion, grant an extension of the period in which the penalty may be paid. All penalties collected by the court shall be remitted to the county treasurer. 6.07.490 Fees collected. All fees and fines collected under this chapter shall be deposited in the County's general fund, except those which may be retained by the entity or organization serving as the Licensing Agent or Shelter Operator as consideration for services, pursuant to an executed written contract with the county. 6.07.500 Declaration of dangerous dog— Impounding of dog In the event Animal Control has sufficient information to determine a dog is dangerous and may pose a threat of serious harm to human beings or animals, Animal Control shall seize and impound the dog pending notice, hearings, appeals and other determinations hereunder. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to Jefferson County for the costs and expenses of keeping such dog, unless a finding is made that the dog is neither a dangerous dog nor a potentially dangerous dog. 6.07.510 Declaration of dangerous dog — Notice and hearing (1) When Animal Control has sufficient information to determine that a dog is a dangerous dog as defined by section 6.07.020(10), the Sheriff or Animal Control Officer shall declare the dog a dangerous dog and shall notify the owner of the dog in writing, either in person or by regular 24 of 31 and certified mail. Any notice or determination mailed pursuant to this section shall be mailed by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested or served upon the owner in person. Such notice shall be deemed received by the party to which it is addressed on the third day after it is placed in the mail, as setforth by declaration of the sender. The notice shall contain the following information and /or enclosures (a) That the person receiving the notice is the owner or keeper of a dangerous dog as defined in section 6.07.020(10); (b) The breed, color, sex, and license number (if known) of the said dog; (c) A copy of the records relied upon by Animal Control which form the basis for declaring said dog to be a dangerous dog including but not limited to incident reports, prior infractions or correspondence relating to the offending dog; (d) That to contest the declaration of dangerous dog the owner or keeper of the dog must request an administrative appeal hearing in writing; (e) That if an administrative appeal hearing is requested, such hearing will be convened pursuant to subsection (2) of this section; (f) that at the administrative appeal hearing, the records of Animal Control, and any supplementary material shall be admissible to prove the dog is a dangerous dog; (g) that the owner of the dog may require an Animal Control Officer compiling the record to be present at the administrative appeal hearing; (h) that the owner of the dog may present evidence and examine witnesses present; (i) that the burden shall be on Animal Control to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the dog is a dangerous dog; (j) that any dog declared dangerous under this section or any comparable section by a duly authorized governmental animal control authority shall be immediately impounded until the owner registers the dog as dangerous in accordance with Section 6.07.530. (k) that any dog will be euthanized at the direction of the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee unless the owner or keeper within fifteen days from the date the dog was declared dangerous registers the dog or appeals the determination. (1) that if the owner appeals the dangerous dog declaration the dog must be registered provisionally pursuant to Section 6.07.530 or it will be held at the shelter at the owner's expense pending the results of the appeal. (2) If the owner or keeper of the dog requests an administrative appeal hearing as provided in Section (1)(d) above, then the hearing shall be held before the Sheriff or his designee serving as the Hearing Officer. The administrative appeal hearing shall be held within twenty days after the receipt of the request for an administrative appeal hearing, unless it is continued by the Sheriff or its designee based upon a showing of good cause or mutual consent. The Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer, or his /her designee, shall notify the owner or keeper of the date, time, and place for the administrative appeal hearing. The administrative appeal hearing shall be open to the public. In those instances where the Sheriff's designee acts as a hearing officer in conjunction with a dangerous dog administrative appeal hearing, the following procedures shall apply: 25 of 31 (a) All administrative appeal hearings before the here inabove designee shall be recorded; (b) All testimony shall betaken under oath and witnesses maybe subpoenaed by the Sheriff Ora n Animal Control Officer or his or her designee; (c) The hearing officer shall render a written decision within five business days. This time may be extended at the discretion of the hearing officer. (d) The written decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law and a copy will be forwarded to the owner and to the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer. 3) At the conclusion of the administrative appeal hearing as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the hearing officer shall have the authority to make a written recommendation to either affirm, reverse or modify the declaration by the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer, or his /her designee, that the dog is dangerous. If the recommendation is to modify the declaration, then the hearing officer may make a finding that the dog is potentially dangerous. If the hearing officer affirms the declaration and finds that the dog is dangerous, then the requirements under 6.07.530 shall be imposed upon the owner or keeper of the dangerous dog as a condition of continued ownership or keeping of the animal. If the hearing officer modifies the declaration and finds that the dog is potentially dangerous, then the hearing officer may recommend that reasonable conditions be imposed upon the owner or keeper as a condition of continued ownership or keeping of the animal. Reasonable conditions may include but are not limited to the following: (a) Erection of new or additional fencing to keep the dog within the confines of the owner's or keeper's property; (b) Construction of a run consistent with the size of the dog within which the dog must be kept; (c) Keeping the dog on a leash adequate to control the dog or securely fastened to a secure object when left unattended; (d) Keeping the dog indoors at all times, except when on a leash adequate to control the dog and under the actual physical control of the owner or keeper or a competent person at least fifteen years of age; (e) Keeping the dog muzzled in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal when outside a proper enclosure; (f) Install at the premises a clearly visible warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property (g) Install at the premises in a conspicuous location a sign with a warning symbol that informs children of the presence of a dangerous dog (h) Spaying/neutering of the dog. The hearing officer(s) may, in his or her recommendation, determine the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee is the authority to establish the appropriate requirements from the preceding list or to refine and clarify the aforementioned requirements to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. 26 of 31 (4) The owner of the dog shall be notified in writing (regular mail and certified mail, return receipt requested) by the hearing officer(s) no later than within fifteen days of the hearing. (5) An appeal of the written decision of the hearing officer may be made in the manner provided under the general laws of the state found at Ch. 16.08 RCW. If the owner or keeper does not timely appeal the hearing officer's decision, then he or she must either register the dog as a dangerous dog in accordance with Section 6.07.530 or the dog shall be confiscated as provided in RCW 16.08.100(1). (6) In the event the written decision of the hearing officer is affirmed on appeal and no further appeal is made, the owner or keeper of the dog must register the dog as a dangerous dog in accordance with Section 6.07.530 within fifteen days of notification of the decision or the dog will be euthanized at the direction of the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer, or his /her designee. (7) A finding that a dog is not a dangerous dog shall not prevent the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer, or his /her designee, from seeking to have the dog declared a dangerous dog as the result of any subsequent action by the dog. (8) An owner or keeper of a dangerous dog who violates any conditions imposed under this section shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. 6.07.520 Determination of potentially dangerous dog— Notice, administrative review and appeal. (1) When the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer, or his /her designee, has sufficient information to determine that a dog is a potentially dangerous dog as defined in section 6.07.020(24), a notice either in person or by regular mail, shall be provided to the owner of the dog. The notice shall contain the following information: (a) That the person receiving the notice is the owner of a potentially dangerous dog as defined in section 6.07.020(24) (b) The breed, color, sex, and license number (if known) of said dog; (c) The facts upon which the determination of potentially dangerous dog is based; (d) That if there are future similar incidents with the dog, the dog could be declared a dangerous dog pursuant to Section 6.07.500, and required to be registered as provided in Section 6.07.530. (e) That the owner must comply with restrictions set forth in the notice as a condition of continued ownership or keeping of the dog and that restrictions may include but are not limited to those which may be imposed on the owner of keeper of a potentially dangerous dog pursuant to Section 6.07.510(3); (f) That the notice constitutes a final determination that the dog is a potentially dangerous dog, and unless the owner or keeper of the dog requests an administrative review meeting in writing within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. For purposes of this section, if the notice is mailed, it shall be deemed received on the third day after the notice is placed in the mail; and (g) That pursuant to Section (3) below, a failure by the dog owner or keeper to request and attend an administrative review meeting with the animal control Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or designee shall constitute a failure to exhaust all administrative remedies, and that such failure to exhaust all administrative remedies shall preclude any appeal of the administrative determination to the District Court. 27 of 31 (2) In the event the owner or keeper of a dog requests an administrative review meeting as provided in subsection (1)(f) of this subsection, the administrative review meeting shall be held within thirty days of the receipt of the request. The meeting date may be continued upon a showing of good cause. The Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee shall notify the owner or keeper of the date, time and place of the administrative review meeting, as well as the right to present evidence as to why the dog should not be found potentially dangerous. The administrative review meeting shall be held before the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee. Administrative review meetings shall be informal, open to the public; and, at the option of the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee, may be held telephonically. (3) Following an administrative review meeting, the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee may affirm or reverse the initial determination that a dog is potentially dangerous. If a determination that a dog is potentially dangerous is upheld, then the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee may impose the same reasonable conditions as may be imposed on the owner or keeper of a potentially dangerous dog pursuant to Section 6.07.510(3). (4) The Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee shall notify, in writing, the owner or keeper of the dog of his /her decision within ten days of the administrative review meeting. The decision of the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee may be appealed in the same manner as provided in Section 6.07.510. (5) The decision of the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer or his /her designee is final unless appealed. (6) An owner or keeper of a potentially dangerous dog who violates any of the conditions imposed under this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 6.07.530 Registration of dangerous dogs— Requirements — Annual Fee. (1) The owner or keeper of a dangerous dog must obtain a certificate of registration for such animal from Animal Control within fifteen days of the declaration of dangerous dog or if appealed within fifteen days of the appeal decision as provided in Section 6.07.510. No dangerous dog shall be returned by Jefferson County to anyone prior to the issuance of a certificate of registration under this section. The certificate of registration shall be issued only if the owner or keeper of the dangerous dog presents sufficient proof of the following: (a) A proper enclosure, approved by the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer, to confine a dangerous dog and posting of the premises with a clearly visible sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol that informs children of the presence of a dangerous dog; (b) A muzzle and leash, approved by the Sheriff or an Animal Control Officer as to strength and ft, for the dangerous dog; (c) A surety bond issued by a surety insurer qualified under Chapter 48.28 RCW in a form acceptable to Animal Control in the sum of at least two hundred fifty thousand dollars which provides for prior written notification to Animal Control of cancellation or material change, payable to any person for personal injuries or property damage caused by the dangerous dog regardless of whether the personal injury or property damage occurs on or off the owner or keeper's premises; OR A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance, issued by an insurer qualified under RCW Title 48 in the amount of at least two hundred fifty thousand 28 of 31 dollars with am a ximum five hundred dollar deductible and which provides for prior written notification to Jefferson County of cancellation or material change, insuring the owner or keeper for any personal injuries and property damage inflicted by the dangerous dog regardless of whether the personal injury or property damage occurs on or off the owner or keeper's premises and which does not exempt from its coverage personal injury or property damage inflicted by a dog; and The owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall furnish to the Animal Control a complete copy of the surety bond or certificate of insurance specified in this subsection and shall allow the county a reasonable time to review the bond or policy to determine whether the surety bond or certificate of insurance is sufficient, prior to issuing the certificate of registration; (d) The dangerous dog must be spayed /neutered at the owner's expense to complete the registration. Any impounded dangerous dogs will be transported by Jefferson County to a veterinarian for spaying/neutering as part of the registration process; and (e) In addition to the regular dog licensing fees set forth in Section 6.07.300, the owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall pay an annual registration fee in the amount of one hundred dollars. The registration will be valid for twelve months or until the next December 31,,, whichever comes first. (f) Proof that an identification microchip has been implanted in the dangerous dog. The owner of the dangerous dog shall bear the cost of having the microchip implanted. (2) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in subsection (1) of this section, Animal Control may issue a provisional registration certificate where: a) the dangerous dog declaration has been appealed, provided all conditions of this section have been met with the exception of subsection (1)(e) requiring spay /neuter; or (b) the owner is relocating the dangerous dog outside of Jefferson County and all conditions of this section have been met with the exception of subsection (1)(d) requiring a surety bond or insurance policy. Any provisional permit issued pursuant to (2)(a) of this subsection shall expire fifteen days following the appeal decision as provided in Section 6.07.510; any provisional permit issued pursuant to (2)(b) of this subsection shall be valid for the sole purpose of immediate transport and relocation of the dog from the shelter to a location outside Jefferson County. (3) This section shall not apply to police dogs as defined in RCW 4.24.410. (4) The owner or keeper of a dog declared a dangerous dog must notify Jefferson County in writing if the dog is deceased, is to be relocated or if there is a change in ownership. (5) In the event of a change of ownership and /or relocation of the dangerous dog, the owner or keeper must provide Jefferson County with written notice ten days in advance of any change that includes the complete address and phone number of the new owner or keeper prior to the change of ownership and /or relocation of the dangerous dog. (6) The owner or keeper of the dangerous dog must also notify any subsequent owner or keeper of the dog's designation as a dangerous dog. If change of ownership and /or relocation of a dangerous dog is within Jefferson County, all conditions imposed under this section shall be In place for the new owner and at the new location prior to such change. (7) Dogs deemed dangerous by other jurisdictions in the State of Washington will be subject to the same regulations as if they have been deemed dangerous in Jefferson County. Any owner or keeper of a dog deemed dangerous by jurisdictions outside of the State of Washington relocating to Jefferson County, WA, shall present the dog to Animal Control within 30 days of 29 of 31 their arrival in Jefferson County to be evaluated by Animal Control or its designee on an individual basis to determine whether they meet the requirements of a dangerous dog, taking into account the criteria established by section 6.07.020(10). Dogs meeting the requirements of a dangerous dog under this subsection must be registered as such, and are subject to all other restrictions imposed under this section. (81 An owner of a dog previously deemed dangerous by Jefferson County and subsequently relocated outside Jefferson County, must register the dog pursuant to subsection (1) of this section prior to bringing the dangerous dog into Jefferson County; such dogs are prohibited from re- entering Jefferson County without prior written consent from Animal Control and /or full re- registration. (4) Dangerous dog registration must be renewed every twelve months. A re- inspection of the facility is required prior to renewal. The owner or keeper shall also provide Animal Control proof of surety bond or proper insurance certificate as specified in subsection (1) of this section prior to re- registration. (10) An owner or keeper of a dog declared a dangerous dog shall be responsible for meeting and maintaining the requirements set forth in this section at all times. A violation of conditions imposed under this section is a gross misdemeanor. 6.07.540 Provisions not exclusive. The provisions of this Chapter shall be cumulative and nonexclusive, and shall not affect any other claim, cause of action or remedy and do not repeal, amend or modify any existing law, ordinance or regulation relating to animal responsibility, but shall be deemed additional to existing statutes, regulations and ordinances. 6.07.550 Disclaimer of liability. Nothing contained in this Chapter is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of the county, its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of anyone to comply with the provisions of this Chapter, or by reason or in consequence of the implementation or enforcement pursuant to this Chapter, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the county related in any manner to the enforcement of this Chapter by its officers, employees or agents. 6.07.560 Liberal Construction. This Chapter shall be liberally construed to carry out its broad purposes. END of Chapter30 of 31 ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. XX- XXXX -14 1 -030 Animal services. Fee Additional Fee and /or Other Information Dog License For each fertile dog Two -year license $48.00 Lifetime license (optional) $266.00 For each sterilized dog (upon proof of spay or neuter) Two -year license $20.00 Lifetime license (optional) $112.00 Cat License (Optional) For each fertile cat Two -year license $18.00 Lifetime license $197.00 For each sterilized cat (upon proof of spay or neuter) $25.00 Two -year license $7.00 Lifetime license $38.00 Replacement of Lost Tag $5.00 Surrender fee (charged to owner) Redemption — Fertile dogs and cats Cats $25.00 Dogs $40.00 Impound Unlicensed dog on impound $50.00 Cats $25.00 Dogs $25.00 Puppies $25.00 Redemption — Fertile dogs and cats Redemption from First impound $60.00 Redemption from Second impound $90.00 May be waived or refunded: see code HEARING RECORD December 30, 2014 �_ 21 -1c 8025 State Route 20 Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 385 7731 Jefferson County Commissioners Phil Johnson David W Sullivan John Austin Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Citizen Comments of Draft Animal Responsibility Ordinance Gentlemen: I have studied your Draft Animal Responsibility Ordinance and find I am greatly dismayed by the regulations you are proposing to put in place in our rural county. I fine them to be far from appropriate and cannot fathom why you would want to exert such control over the lives of the citizens and pets of our county. In the city of Seattle where folks live in homes on 60 foot wide lots and in apartments and condominiums there is the necessity for restrictions for the health and safety of people and pets alike. In rural Jefferson County where many of us live on tens of acres of land and are not even in sight of our closest neighbors why would multiple pets who remain on their owner's property and are well cared for be a problem for the county government? In my family our pets are full members of our family and get more visits to their veterinarians than l do to my doctors in any given year. Many, many families in the county give even multiple pets very fine care and give homes to feral cats and dogs who would otherwise be homeless or dead without them. Why would you want to interfere with that relationship that is of great benefit to both humans and pets? Our county animal shelter, the volunteers in Olympic Pet Pals, Center Valley Animal Rescue, and several of our veterinarians have worked diligently for over a decade for spay and neuter cats and dogs of this county, feral and otherwise. Their efforts have been amazingly successful. If these new county regulations are enacted you will have seriously unbalanced the number of animals who will need to be cared for in your county animal shelter with pets who ALREADY HAVE HOMES! Government regulations for pet ownership are needed when education of those pet owners has failed. Educating the public of the responsibilities of pet ownership is always preferable to government regulation, and it costs far, far less. Standards of "best practice" of pet care change over time, and public education needs to keep pace with those changes. For example: folks learn that microchipping their pets is a good option, and spaying or neutering their cats will NOT alter that animal's motivation to hunt for mice and rats. Education will go a long way to get the cooperation you seek from pet owners. Threats to impound their pets will not generate the cooperation you seek. PLEASE reconsider the wisdom of these new regulations. I believe there will be many negative unintended consequences that will harm the families and pets of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Ellen Worthington Jenner HEARING RECORD December 30, 2014 8025 State Route 20 Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 385 7731 Jefferson County Commissioners Phil Johnson David W Sullivan John Austin Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Citizen Comments of Draft Animal Responsibility Ordinance Gentlemen: I have read your Draft Animal Responsibility Code, Dated 10(31(14. I can understand many of the provisions may be needed and perhaps justified in high density environments such as apartments and small lot neighborhoods. To use the same criteria for rural environments, however, is unreasonable. Trampling citizen's freedoms to make the job of animal control easier is unjustified and unacceptable. This draft ordinance has the trappings of arbitrarily imposing tight urban controls on our farms and rural areas. This is not a good fit. A word of caution would be wise. We are not discussing a derelict car parked in someone's front yard here. In many households the family pets are family members with strong emotional relationships to and from their owners. To some people you are considering regulations that will determine the legal living arrangements for their family members. You may be asking them to choose between their family members and staying in compliance with the law. I doubt this would be the intent of the ordinance but it might well be the result. No one would win under this circumstance. I find the following items in the draft ordinance especially invasive: 1) This ordinance would require a special "private kennel" license if I wish to own and care for 5 or more dogs or cats. It would also declare my home a "commercial kennel" if I owned 8 or more cats or dogs (6.07.010, (29)). Whose business is it, whether the county's or anyone else's, if I wish to own many animals unless I am being negligent or creating a health hazard? If that were the case, under existing laws a search warrant may be obtained and the matter investigated. That is our system of justice. This, however, smells like a run around the Bill of Rights. I thought I was innocent of any wrongdoing until proven otherwise. Loving and caring for animals is not a crime. Page 1 of 3 If I wish to surround myself with inside cats in my elder years, exactly who is harmed by this? How does the County need to control this situation? The cat limitation seems a far over -reach of regulation. The numbers used in this draft ordinance (4 cats or dogs) are far from reasonable for a farm (6.07.010, (29)). With livestock food in the barns, inherently rodents are attracted. To keep the rodent population under control, I much prefer using cats to poison. A 4 -cat limitation is unrealistic to be effective on a good sized farm. Dogs provide necessary guard services to stop the coyotes from moving in and killing the cats. Declaring a home with 8 or more animals to be a "commercial" kennel does not actually make it commercial. Declaring something as true does not make it so. The term "rebuttable presumption" is just another way of saying "guilty until proven innocent" isn't it? 2) The noise section establishes a possible infraction if a noise"... may be heard 100 feet of a perceived boundary...." depending on the time of day (6.07.080). Everyone has a different interpretation of "reasonable ". Are we trying to create a rural environment without any noise? Is this a meditation zone? In that case who do I see about all the gunfire noise I am constantly exposed to, here in rural Jefferson County? I also find all the siren noise from the highway quite objectionable. Have you ever heard the sound level from a pen of Guinea Hens? Will poultry or sheep or cows become the next victims of animal noise censorship? If we must control the amount of noise from barking, a reasonable decibel level needs to be clearly identified - one capable of measurement by instrument - before establishing such a law. 3) This draft ordinance allows a dog to be immediately impounded if not wearing a license (6.07.330). Are you kidding? If I am walking my dog on a leash down the street and an animal control officer does not see a dog license, he can impound my dog? I remove my dog's collars often because the collars mat the hair around the neck. I remove their collars when I take them swimming. I use safety break -away collars that separate under high stress because of their type of common play. This can happen in the field when we are yards apart. If my dog is in my car without a collar and thus a license tag, is he subject to impoundment? Surely, if I have violated a law, a citation should be written to me. Impounding my dog that is under my control is unreasonable. The requirement of carrying papers whenever in public, or being tattooed for identification, is not new. Didn't the Germans require the Jews to do this in the 1930's and 40's? If the goal of the ordinance is to create a more successful structure between pet and non -pet owners, where are the sections creating off -leash dog parks and beaches? Large breed dogs need exercise to live a calm and successful life. Where exactly do you suggest the average dog owner legally exercise their animal? The only off -leash park I know of in Jefferson County is a small fenced mud lot near Chetzemoka Park in Port Townsend. If I want to take my dogs to a reasonable dog park, I have to travel to either Sequim or Coupeville. What do those communities know that we don't? Perhaps our law makers would better and more effectively address some current animal nuisance and welfare problems by providing an adequate number and size of off - leash parks, rather than curtail the number of animals that responsible owners may care for as family members. Page 2 of 3 Enactment of this ordinance in its current draft stage will discourage if not prevent citizens from opening their homes to animals in need of care and a safe place in our society. This alone will unnecessarily put a greater load on our existing animal services structure. Citizens are well served when their government enacts and enforces reasonable regulations that balance individual's rights against the overall needs of society at large. By this the Government justly earns the cooperation and support of the governed. This Draft Animal Responsibility Ordinance proposed falls far short of that mark. Please reconsider this remarkably flawed proposal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, T Worthington Page 3 of 3 From: Lang Russel <langrussel @olypen.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 6:56 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Draft Animal Responsibility Ordinance Attachments: Animal Responsibility Ordinance .docx Dear County Commissioners: I have read the draft Ordinance, and find it to be generally good. However, a few omissions /weaknesses stand out. Please read the enclosed attachment. Thank you for your consideration. Lang Russel, Port Townsend Re: Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance Dear County Commissioners: I am encouraged that Jefferson County is poised to adapt a new Animal Responsibility Ordinance. My wife and I are frequently impacted by other people's animals. I have read the draft version, and in general it looks good. However, a few serious omissions /weaknesses stand out. 6.07.050 Running At Large On Public Property The phrase "- - - this section shall not prohibit a person from walking or exercising such an animal in these areas when such an animal is on a leash, or while under the control of a competent person - - - " basically negates the section. Frequently, while out walking, we are approached by off -leash dogs, and when we complain to the owner we are told "It's OK, he doesn't bite." When we mention a leash law, the owner then informs us that the animal is "under voice control." The only way to prevent encounters like this — much less more serious ones in which a dog jumps on people or bites (both of which have happened to us)— is to require dogs to be on a leash at all times when in public places. Period. 6.07.090 Howling and Barking Sub - section (3) "A violation of this section is a Class 1 civil infraction unless, in the discretion of the responding Animal Control Officer, an Oral warning would suffice" is fine as far as it goes. However, after one —or at the most two —oral warnings, the animal must be impounded, and the owner must pay a fine to reclaim it. In several instances in which we have complained repeatedly about a neighbor's barking dog, and when an officer has responded and given an oral warning — repeatedly —the barking resumes, because the owner knows that there will be no consequences. 6.07.160 Animal at Large Sub - section (1) is appropriately written to include animals other than dogs: " - - - any dog whether licensed or not, or any livestock as defined in this chapter." However, cats as well as dogs should be specifically mentioned. There is a widespread belief that it is legal for cats to be "free," and owners tend to become irate if this view is challenged. Millions of wild birds are killed by these "free" cats. We have also been plagued by neighbors' cats defecating in our flower beds. Sub - section (2) only mentions dogs; it too should specifically name cats. Thank you for considering these changes. Lang Russel, Port Townsend From: aleawaters @olypen.com w oru u►11 a♦ Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: CITIZEN INPUT ON ANIMAL RESPONSIBILITY ORDINANCE Attachments: DOG ORDINANACE 12- 2014.docx DEAR COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER. THANK YOU. Dear County Commissioners, December 31, 2014 Thank you for undertaking the Animal Responsibility Ordinance revision. Hopefully, tightening it up will lead to improved quality of life for both residents and visitors. My husband and I are eight -year residents of Port Townsend -- seniors who love to walk and hike. However, as the years go by, we find we are increasingly curtailing our walking and hiking on public paths in the town and the county due to consistent intimidation by dogs off leash and the frequently surly, hostile attitudes of their owners. We find these three issues to be our primary concerns: 1) Personal Safety 2) Environmental Degradation and Property Destruction 3) Howling and Barking I will speak to you today only about the Personal Safety issue. Yesterday, walking along the beach within Ft Worden Park, we were accosted three times by dogs off leash racing up to us and around us while their owners did nothing. When we requested the dogs be put on a leash, per park regulations, we were told variations of the tired theme, "My dog is under voice control," "Why should I put him on a leash? Is there a seal on the beach ?" and, by one owner who refused to respond to our request even though his dog was racing around us in circles, "Relax!" Once on North Beach I had to wave my walking stick at a large off -leash dog rushing at me, barking. His nearby owner hollered at me "If you hit my dog with that stick I am going to punch you out." We have experienced very similar scenarios on virtually every public path and trail we have hiked in Port Townsend and Jefferson County. It's often just not worth the pain and fear to hike anymore. We have both owned dogs in our lifetimes. We understand the depth of dog owners' denial. It is going to require a united effort of the city, the port, and the county to avert this growing, dangerous and difficult problem. Our county is being advertised on the Internet as "very dog - friendly" and public trails and paths are being listed as places to run your dog off - leash: "Larry Scott Trail, and North Beach in Port Townsend" are just two examples. The island of Hawaii faced this issue a long time ago. They have a similar land situation as the Quimper Peninsula: small, limited land mass surrounded by water, and visited by many tourists. Though many people living there own dogs, I was able to walk unmolested on public trails and beaches in Hawaii. Hawaii's very strict "animal responsibility" ordinances are very well enforced. I think we can learn something from them. Hawaii, as well as many cities in the U.S. helped solve their dog- running -at- large problem and the growing degradation of the plant, animal, and bird environment by creating attractive dog parks. Jefferson County is in desperate need of a few of these. A beach dog park is critical for the survival of endangered and threatened bird species that frequent this area on their migration routes. Confining the dogs to a decent -sized strip of beach, with fences going out into the water so they can swim, would help the wildlife problem enormously! The remainder of the county beaches would become safe once again, available to our native birds for food and refuge, as well as safe for people. Please, would the commissioners study how this problem is and has been dealt with by the Island of Hawaii? And would the commissioners please organize a united effort with the city of Port Townsend and the Port to come up with a consistent ordinance with long -term protection for our peninsula? Lastly, much of the enforcement of the ordinance will be dependent upon citizen complaint. Please, we beg of you, make this onerous citizen complaint process easier for those of us who care and are willing to notify authorities of infractions. Make it easy to employ; inform the public how to go about it, provide plenty of contact information; and insure anonymity! Hostile animal owners are very intimidating! Thank you for your attention and all your work. It is a worthy cause and increasingly essential to restore and preserve quality of life on our peninsula. Sincerely, Alea Waters, RN and A. Lang Russel 375 Woodland Ave., Port Townsend, WA From: Washington State Parks Planning < Planning @PARKS.' Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:55 PM To: Kline, Randy (PARKS) Subject: Recreational use of wind - powered vehicles on beaches The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is considering changes to the rule that prohibits the recreational use of wind - powered vehicles on beaches managed by the agency. State Parks is proposing to allow these vehicles under certain conditions, including seasonal restrictions, specific locations for use, public safety considerations and wildlife habitat protection. Wind - powered vehicles include kite buggies, blo- karts, and kite boards. Areas under consideration are portions of Long Beach, North Beach and South Beach in Grays Harbor and Pacific counties. State Parks is seeking your input on issues the agency should consider when revising the rule. For example: • Where should wind powered vehicle use be allowed and where should it be restricted? • What types of seasonal restrictions should apply to promote beach safety and protect important wildlife habitat? • How should the agency address issues such as maximum speed, vehicle visibility, and the potential for conflict with other beach recreation uses (i.e. motorized vehicles, pedestrians, equestrians, etc.)? Please let us know what you think. Visit the proiect weboaee and select "Provide Comments." Please submit your comments by February 6. In addition, State Parks will be holding two public meetings to solicit input: • In Ilwaco: The meeting is scheduled for 6 to 8 p.m., Wednesday, January 28 at the Ilwaco Community Building at Timberland Regional Library, 158 ill Ave. North, Ilwaco. (Directions) • In Ocean Shores: The meeting is scheduled for 6 to 8 p.m., Thursday, January 29 at the Ocean Shores Convention Center, 120 West Chance A la Mer in Ocean Shores. (Directions) Thank you for helping to improve Washington's state parks! If you have questions please contact Randy Kline, Park Planner, at (360) 902 -8632. From: Joyce & Gary Fell <gandj @olypen.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:45 PIV To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on proposed animal ordinance Honorable Board of Commissioners I volunteered at the animal shelter for 6 months full time in 2003 as the Volunteer Coordinator and worked hard at writing shelter and animal control standards. When I read the current proposal I see many problems. Where is the protection for the Jefferson county animals in this revision? I want someone with experience in animal welfare and animal law to rewrite it in order to protect the people and animals of Jefferson County. I personally know Hanna Gibson and I know she is quite capable recommending changes to the current codes to help protect the citizens and animals of Jefferson County. Just some of the problems I have found with the proposed ordinance are: 6.07.190 Injured or diseased animals. Any animal suffering from serious injury or disease may be destroyed by Animal Control or the Shelter Operator... My experience at the shelter started just after the long dark history of when 1CAS inhumanely euthanized very large numbers of healthy adoptable animals. A licensed veterinarian must be involved in the decision of euthanasia. People without this medical background can make serious mistakes for which the county is liable. Our laws should prevent this horrible past from occurring again. There should be NO "Surrender fee." Any fee discourages people from giving their animal to the shelter because an unwanted pet is not worth any amount of money because it is viewed as only a problem. This fee encourages the dumping of animals in our county to run loose and injure others or can destine the animal to suffer its whole life by staying with the people unwanted, neglected and possibly abused. It seems to me that Jefferson County encourages puppy mills by allowing an inexpensive kennel license with no strings attached, no inspections, so hoarders save a lot of money by not buying a dog license for their 20 plus, many unneutered, dogs. If the law required that each dog be licensed that may encourage hoarders to cut down on the number of dog in order to comply with the law. We need to protect the Jefferson County shelter animals from being used for scientific research. 6.07.220 Shelter Operator — Duties. I believe it is wrong to make an exemption from the proposed noise ordinance for a Kennel. This encouraged an offending person who has 1 or 2 problem barking dogs to get more dogs in order to get a kennel license to meet "Exempt Noises." I believe its best to investigate why the dogs are barking because it's usually a sign that something is wrong and laws need to be in place so that the sheriff can investigate and write citations for the offenses. 6.07.400 Kennel inspection. The word "may' inspect should be "Must" or "is required to" inspect. This should be spelled out clearly and the wording is critical to help law enforcement to stop the suffering of the animals of hoarders. I know that a hoarder's home with over 20 dogs was given a kennel license and the officer only went to the front porch and did not inspect inside the house. I went in the house and saw the roof caving into the kitchen from water damage, the dogs live on rotten floor boards with thick feces and urine with unbearable urine fumes. I was told by the owner that they were updating their license recently. I do not believe anyone inspected the premise. These animals have continued to suffer for years. The animals are not allowed to go outside to get any fresh air because the owners are afraid of attention if the dogs bark and people see this. Your proposed noise ordinance will exempt these hoarders from barking. How do we protect the animals from these horrible conditions if the officer chooses to not enter to the home where animals are being kept? There are state violations not seen or ignored because entry was not made. There should be County laws with penalties in place to discourage these horrible living and breeding conditions. We need to make laws with penalties strong enough to discourage the animal cruelty and protect the animals. Sincerely, Joyce Fell 310 Ridgeview Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: (360) 379 -1805 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 0= www.avast.com Received after Hearing jeffbocc f'( rnment Deadline From: harmonysway <harmonyswayfarm @earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:31 PM To: jeffbocc; John Austin, jeffbocc @jefferson.wa.us, Philip Morley; David Sullivan Subject: Animal Responsibility Code In response to the meeting held on 12 -8-14 that I was un able to attend. {The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a hearing on the Animal Responsibility Code on December 8, 2014} You are purposing 31 pages of changes to a primarily rural community living on many acres of land, I believe you are purposely trying to burden the people with more fees that are unnecessary in an already depressed time. This new plan will be another burden to the tax payers & more money will have to be spent to enforce a ridiculous idea that your plan will make things better. You have already shown us that the CITIZENS of Jefferson County don't matter with your decisions you have made for & to the Marijuana grow operations. Where you have allowed permits to be given in areas where the land & WATER should be protected {WRIA 17 1, & yet you have looked the other way. Where you have not given equally to all citizens that deserve to be & feel safe in their long time residences . Jefferson County should not pass new laws until they can efficiently take care of whet currently exists. Their is always an agenda behind everything I have to wonder what that is. it is certainly not for the citizen who is already being responsible . County staff is working to develop a new Animal Responsibility Code pertaining to dogs and cats, and requiring dog licenses in unincorporated East Jefferson County. If a new code is adopted by the Commissioners, it would replace the County's existing Animal Responsibility regulations (now in Chapter 6.05 of the County Code). Felecia Allen Chimacum jeffbocc From: harmonysway <harmonyswayfarm @earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:47 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fw: Animal Responsibility Code - - - -- Forwarded Message ----- >From: harmonysway <harmonyswayfarm @earthlink.net> >Sent: Dec 31, 2014 430 PM >To: jeffbocc @co.jefferson.wa.us, jaustin @co.jefferson.wa.us, jeffbocc @jefferson.wa.us, pmorley @co.jefferson.wa.us, dsullivan @co.jefferson.wa.us > Subject: Animal Responsibility Code > In response to the meeting held on 12 -8 -14 that I was un able to attend. > {The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a hearing on the Animal Responsibility Code on December 8, 20141 > You are purposing 31 pages of changes to a primarily rural community living on many acres of land, I believe you are purposely trying to burden the people with more fees that are unnecessary in an already depressed time. This new plan will be another burden to the tax payers & more money will have to be spent to enforce a ridiculous idea that your plan will make things better . > You have already shown us that the CITIZENS of Jefferson County don't matter with your decisions you have made for & to the Marijuana grow operations. Where you have allowed permits to be given in areas where the land & WATER should be protected {WRIA 17 1, & yet you have looked the other way. Where you have not given equally to all citizens that deserve to be & feel safe in their long time residences . > Jefferson County should not pass new laws until they can efficiently take care of whet currently exists . Their is always an agenda behind everything I have to wonder what that is. >it is certainly not for the citizen who is already being responsible . > County staff is working to develop a new Animal Responsibility Code pertaining to dogs and cats, and requiring dog licenses in unincorporated East Jefferson County. If a new code is adopted by the Commissioners, it would replace the County's existing Animal Responsibility regulations (now in Chapter 6.05 of the County Code). > Felecia Allen Chimacum ieffbocc From: Gary Fell <kd7mwl @gmail.com> Comment Deadline Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 11:23 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on Proposed Animal Responsibility Regulations Honorable Jefferson Board of Commissioners: The proposed Animal Responsibility Regulations currently being circulated are far from ready for prime time. There are serious flaws and omissions. These are just a few examples: The proposed regulations state "Notice of Infraction, said infraction having associated with it a penalty established in the fee schedule ". Looking at the fee schedule (attachment B), I do not see a list of infractions and penalty fees. Where is it? Section 5.07.420 states the penalty associated with civil infractions shall increase for repeat violators as established in the fee schedule... Again, where is the fee schedule for violations? In the definitions the distinction between a commercial kennel and a private kennel was made but the remainder of the proposed ordinance seems to lump them together by just using the single word "kennel ". Do all kennels (both commercial and private) fall into exactly the same enforcement category? They seem to in the current proposed ordinance. We are very fortunate in Jefferson County to have so many gifted individuals who are willing to volunteer their services. In regards to reworking the current proposed Animal Responsibility Regulations so they make sense, we have Hanna Coate (Gibson), a licensed attorney specializing in animal issues who is willing to undertake the task. I personally know her and can attest that she will come up with a job that will be a model that other Counties will want to copy. I recommend the Board accept her offer to help. Sincerely, Gary Fell 310 Ridgeview Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: (360) 379 -1805 Caro From: John Austin Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:40 AM To: Carolyn Avery Cc: sara @centervalleyanimalrescue.org Subject: FW: animal laws Attachments: animal laws.docx Carolyn, please add this to the official record of testimony on the animal responsibility ordinance...... Thanks, 1A - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sara Penhallegon [mailto: sara @centervalleyanimalrescue.org] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 3:29 PM To: John Austin Subject: animal laws Here is everything in writing. Thanks, Sara Penhallegon LVT www .centervalleyanimalrescue.org sara @centervalleyanimalrescue.org 360 - 765 -0598 6.07.010 (12) Yes wolf hybrids should be included (15) Euthanasia should be defined more, add a list of suitable methods (23) Make sure these dogs are being treated and cared for as well as other dogs. This may allow for a loop hole and allow these dogs to be neglected or be a nuisance. (29) the "over 6 months" may make a loop hole for breeders/ puppy mills, they may have dozens of dogs and as long as they sell or rehome them by 6 months rules /laws would not apply. 6.07.030 Livestock should be added to this definition also. It may also need to state impounded animals go to the Animal shelter or animal welfare organization as we take these animals for animal control also. Also in PT can't the city police seize animals also? What about an animal in imminent danger when animal control is off duty? Can a deputy from the sheriff's office or city police step in and seize and animal? 6.07.080 (5) Livestock dogs should live by the same rules as other dogs do, there is no reason they would be barking continuously, just long enough to chase away a predator. 6.07.120 These dogs should have fencing requirements 6.07.160 Unless held for 5 days or with the authorization of the owner, no animal should be euthanized without a vet examining the animal. There are not employees at the shelter with medial training so this would give them a loop hole to euthanize any animal they want without giving the owner time to claim them. Maybe such animals could be held at a vet hospital or animal welfare organization, this way proper medical care could be given. 6.07.180 (2) We have never been required to have licenses for our dogs /cats at our rescue and are not set up to sell licenses here. If this goes into effect we will would need to be authorized as a location to sell a license. If we are selling licenses here we also will need to be one of the beneficiaries of the licensing fees. 6.07.220 (3) Veterinary consultation should be mandatory! There is no other way that the shelter operator can know if the animal is diseased. Many diseases are treatable and not contagious and others would need to be quarantined, I assume the shelter has a quarantine? These animals should be housed in quarantine until a vet exam can be done. 6.07.260 Ferrets should be added here also since they are included in the State law 6.07.290 1 don't believe anyone does tattooing for licenses in this county, may be able to take this part out 6.07.380 Are these standards just for dogs and cats or all animals, livestock too? Maybe a separet section for livestock and horses? Shelters and animal welfare facilities should be inspected regularly also. (c) Define shelter. Maybe 3 + sided structure, weather proof roof and floor, holds heat in and out and allows animals to stay dry. In extreme heat 80+ animals must be provided complete shade at least 2x there body size and access to clean water 24 hours a day. Plastic dog houses and other like structures do not count as shade as they magnify the heat. In extreme cold below freezing animals must be given bedding to lay on in a weather proof area to help them keep heat in? This also may be a good place to add something about tethering animals. Such as animals cannot be tethered with choke chains, metal or chain collars. Other laws I have seen on tethering are: No tethering at all, No tethering for more than 5 hours at a time, No tethering between 10pm and 7am or tethering is only allowed in the presence of the animals owner or supervising guardian. (d) 6 years is way too much time to get kennels into compliance. Should be 30 days for some violations and 6 months for total compliance. That should be plenty of time, these standards are not set very high and if they can't comply with in 6 months they should not be housing animals. 6.07.390 Why reduce, suspend or defer penalties for the 2"d or 3 d violation. It seems these fees could be put to good use by the county. What about penalties for abuse and neglect? Maybe those should be better defined. Jail time, fees, ban on owning or caring for like animals for life...... 6.07.480 (3) Instead of using the word "recommend" 1 would change it to "Require" that reasonable conditions be imposed upon the owners or keeper as condition... It has a much stronger meaning. (d) Why 15? Why not 18? Fee schedual: What if owner can't afford the $25 surrender fee? I have had people contact us because they don't have the $25 fee to pay and the shelter refuses to take their animal. This forces people to dump or neglect their animals. Redemption fees: After the 311 time with an intact animal it states the owner must pay the fee plus the spay /neuter cost this should be added into the code. I would personally think after the second impound this should be done. Board: Why should fee be waived? If they can't afford the fee they can't afford to feed their animal. The shelter can use this fee to offset the cost of caring for the animal. Livestock should have a boarding fee also: $50 a day since it is normally us that take these animals in. Impound fees and transport should also apply. Trapping Nuisance wildlife: You need to check with Fish and Wildlife on these laws ( I have not had time to look them up for you) It is illegal for people to trap most wildlife. There really should be a section for livestock /horses that includes proper shelter (not a tree line), proper feed not moldy or wet or rotten, access to water 24 hours a day, hoof care and vet care. I can help if you want come up with more specifics if you want. Alex or Dr Jan Richards may be a good resource for you also on farm animals. Let me know if you need more help or advise on any of our input. Thanks, Sara