The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM121415 - Hearing re: Animal ResponsibilityDistrict No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Kathleen Kler County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of December 14, 2015 Chairman David Sullivan called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Kathleen Kler. Commissioner Johnson arrived later in the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: • A citizen requested lighting for the intersection at South Bay Lane and Paradise Bay Road in Port Ludlow; • The Noxious Weed Control Board Coordinator thanked the Commissioners for their support of the program; • A citizen commented on the proposed Fireworks Ordinance; • Two citizens commented on the status of obtaining a new Department of Community Development (DCD) Director; • A citizen voiced concern over turning the courthouse into a fortress and stated we do not need guns; and • A citizen commented on the proposed Animal Control Ordinance. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Chairman Sullivan noted an amendment to Item No. 5 regarding Call for Bids. Commissioner Kler moved to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented, with an amendment to Item No. 5 re: Call for Bids. Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 53-15 re: Certifying the Special Taxing District Levies for Collection of Taxes in the Year 2016 2. RESOLUTION NO. 54-15 re: In the Matter of Finding and Determination to Declare Certain Personal Property as Surplus and Authorize Disposal 3. RESOLUTION NO. 55-15 re: Launch the 2016 Conservation Futures Fund Application Cycle 4. RESOLUTION NO. 56-15 re: Application of Grant Assistance to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Recreation and Conservation Office for the Salmon Creek Bridge Construction on West Uncus Road 5. CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products for Bituminous Surface Treatment for the Calendar Year of 2016; Bids Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter on Monday, January 4, 2016 in the Commissioners' Chambers; Jefferson County Courthouse 6. AGREEMENT re: Oil City Road, Washout Emergency Repair Construction, M.P. 8.8; In the Amount of $125,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Seton Construction Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 14 2015 'u 7. AGREEMENT re: Improve Quilcene Sport Courts in Quilcene Community Park; In the Amount of $21,025.64; Jefferson County Public Works; Jefferson Healthcare 8. AGREEMENT, Change Order No. 3 re: Upper Hoh Road Culvert Replacement, M.P. 3.338, Project No. CR18960, Federal Aid Project No. PLH-A 160(001); Decrease Amount by $1,404.20 from $587,006.64 for a Total Project Amount of $585,602.44; Jefferson County Public Works; Rognlins, Inc. 9. AGREEMENT, Change Order No. 4 re: Upper Hoh Road Culvert Replacement, M.P. 3.338, Project No. CRI 8960, Federal Aid Project No. PLH-A 160; An Additional Amount of $25,000 from $585,602.44 to a Total Project Amount of $610,602.44; Jefferson County Public Works; Rognlins, Inc. 10. AGREEMENT re: Installation and Initial Testing of Changing Message Sign; No dollar Amount; Jefferson County Administrator; Jefferson Transit Authority 11. Approval of Jefferson County Public Official Position Schedule Bond #52BSBHB6126 Issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Company for the Treasurer, Clerk, Sheriff, Auditor, Prosecuting Attorney, Engineer, Commissioners #1, #2 and #3, Judge and Assessor 12. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated December 4, 2015 Totaling $818,507.33 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated December 4, 2015 Totaling $754,818.43 APPROVAL of MINUTES: Commissioner Kler moved to approve the Regular Meeting minutes of September 14, 21, and 28, 2015 and October 5, 2015 as presented. Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried. DELIBERATION re: Adoption of the 2016 Jefferson County Budget. The Board held a public hearing and began deliberations on the 2016 Jefferson County Budget on December 7, 2015. The proposed Final 2016 Budget is a balanced budget using 2016 revenues and fund balance. Wages and salary adjustments are consistent with adopted collective bargaining agreements and also with Resolution No. 26-15 establishing objectives and procedures for the 2016 County Budget, including a 1.5% wage adjustment in 2016 for non-union employees. County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the proposed resolutions for adopting the 2016 Budget, adopting a salary schedule for exempt employees, and updating the working capital reserve recommendation for each County fund. Commissioner Kler moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 57-15 re: Adopting the 2016 Budget for the General Fund and Other Funds, and the 2016 Jefferson County Road Construction Program and 2016 County Capital Improvement Program. Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Kler moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 58-15 re: Adopting a Salary Schedule for the FLSA and Union Exempt Management and Professional Employees for 2016. Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Kler moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 59-15 re: Updating the Working Capital Reserve Recommendation for Each County Fund. Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2015 EKI COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. The Commissioners reported on their meeting schedules. Commissioner Johnson joined the meeting at 9:52 a.m. The meeting was recessed at 10:00 a.m. and reconvened at 10:06 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Establishing Animal Control Regulations for Jefferson County: The first public hearing for a proposed Animal Control Ordinance was held on December 8, 2014 with the written record held open until December 31, 2014. Based on extensive review of and deliberation on the 2014 record, the County Commissioners amended the proposed ordinance, and the revised ordinance is subject to a new hearing. County Administrator Philip Morley, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez, Sheriff David Stanko and Animal Control Officer Alex Mintz were present. County Administrator Morley presented and discussed the draft ordinance noting some minor corrections. Chairman Sullivan opened the hearing for public testimony. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He thanked the Commissioners for getting to it and getting work done on the Animal Control Ordinance. It has been 8 years in the making, but it's better late than never. That is better than the Noise Control Ordinance which took 10 years. Things are getting approved. He is particularly happy about the provisions regarding banning of animals in food establishments. Way too many people have their animals wandering where food is being served. That section of the ordinance is quite clear and unambiguous with no loopholes on the subject. It is about time. He stated that he listens to the afternoon County Administrator Briefing sessions and has heard much discussion on the ordinance and appreciates the time spent talking about the issue. He wished that the ordinance would also apply to the City of Port Townsend as well, but we can't have everything. He is concerned with two parts of the ordinance. It is a tough subject to determine if a dog, when off leash, is supposedly under control by a competent or incompetent person. How many times have you been walking along and someone's dog comes up and sniffs you, and the owner says "Don't worry, she's friendly"? He does not care how friendly the dog is, they are still sniffing him. He is not a dog person and does not appreciate that. He would like to see that section of the ordinance just say "off leash." It is unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. Some people can say that the animal is not bothering them. The animal bothers him though, and he should have a right to not be interfered by an animal when he is in a public area. He stated he may lose on that stance, but felt he needed to bring up the issue. The next concern is regarding enforcement and collection of fees. He has seen a situation where a stray animal has been picked up and taken to the shelter, and the animal's owner went to the shelter and gave them a sob story to get out of fees. Their animal ended up being picked up again and brought to the shelter and the same thing happened. The people that run the animal shelter are kind-hearted folks by nature, it's what they do. They tend to be susceptible to sob stories and give the benefit of the doubt to people way too many times. He would like to see some sort of history be kept so that repeat offenders can be tracked. The first Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2015 time could be a warning, but if it happens the second time and the owner pleads they are in poverty, well maybe there is something wrong with their whole situation. It needs to be addressed in enforcement. Thank you. John Austin, Jefferson County. He stated there will be a continued problem with citizens bringing up changes that need to be made with the ordinance. The ordinance is imperfect, it is made by humans. It is ironic that some of the people wishing to see the ordinance passed today, will be the same people who will point out changes to the ordinance. These proposed changes may require another public hearing. This could go on and on. How do you determine if a person is competent to manage a dog? His grandson at the age of four claimed he was competent, and he does not believe he was. Psychologists make good money assessing people to declare whether they are competent to manage dogs or their own lives. He urged the Commissioners to pass the ordinance with its minor flaws, whatever they may be. The Sheriff is depending on this and many citizens want to get this done. The beleaguered County Administrator would love to get onto something else. By approving the ordinance, his long-delayed promise would come to fruition. Laurie Kraft, Jefferson County: She stated that with respect to everyone's hard work and dedication to the proposed ordinance, the community needs to know that the County has an all -admittance shelter, also known as a kill shelter. There are kind people who run and work at the shelter for many years. It is up to one or two people to kill a cat or dog. If a dog is having a hard time at home and taken to the shelter for barking, they are at a high risk for death, especially if it is breed -specific. She would like that information to weigh on the Commissioners' hearts because the ordinance is aimed at barking dogs. She urged everyone to have a kind heart and know what is going on. Thank you for listening. Jean Ball, Chimacum: She stated that in the definitions section, animal is defined to include reptiles and amphibians. To include reptiles and amphibians in this section is absurd. Do we really have an issue with reptiles and amphibians? Are there lizards running free in the street? She does not believe it should be included in the definition. She has some frogs in a tank, but they do not get loose, and she has not heard of any amphibians or reptiles having any kind of issue. She noted that in reference to cats, the term non -feral does not have a definition. She suggests that be cleared up because the term is used later on in the Code. While hours are given, reasonable notice is not defined. Thank you. Ellen Crockett, Jefferson County: She stated that she brought up the idea of defining the term non -feral. She understands the intent of non -feral to define working farm cats, but they are not necessarily feral. There are farmers who may have a dozen cats. These cats all have names, they come when they are called, they are fed and cared for, but they are working cats. Feral means you cannot touch it. It has gone back to its roots. It is like a cat you would see out of the corner of your eye that lives in your barn, but it is not approachable. We are on shaky ground with farmers over the definition of the term "non -feral." Hearing no further comments, Chairman Sullivan closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson asked what is a potentially dangerous dog? What is potentially dangerous? Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez replied that he believes that definition can be found in the statute. County Administrator Morley noted that Section 490 describes the process of determining if an animal is a potentially dangerous dog. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2015 Commissioner Johnson stated there are many individuals with reptiles and referenced a lady who had quite a few iguanas. Commissioner Kler noted that Center Valley Animal Rescue has taken in many reptiles from people who were unable to care for them. County Administrator Morley added that the definition of "animal" came directly from Washington State statute. Defining the term animal is unnecessary because the ordinance is only addressing domesticated animals which are cats or dogs and livestock, which reptiles are not. He does not believe there are standards or regulations that address reptiles. County Administrator Morley noted his two proposed amendments: • Amendment to reflect the correct date. • Add a paragraph #7 to Section 490 which would read "Animal Control shall establish and maintain a registry of potentially dangerous dogs." Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez stated that "potentially dangerous dogs" is a stepping stone to "dangerous dogs." If they are already in the "potentially dangerous dogs" category, the next time they do something, there will be a paper trail on that dog and its owner. It also allows the owners to be aware that the County believes they are in possession of a potentially dangerous dog. It also gives an owner the ability to appeal. He added that the dog could just have been having a bad day, for whatever reason. Commissioner Kler moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 10-1214-15 Establishing Animal Control Regulations for Jefferson County with amendments to the date and the addition of paragraph 7 in Section 490; a registry for potentially dangerous dogs. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:51 a.m. and reconvened at 1:31 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. BRIEFING re: Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; Capital Improvement Plan: District No. 2 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) Representative Gregory Graves introduced the PRAB members: Evan Dobrowski, Roger Hall, Jane Storm, Tim Thomas and Doug Huber. There are two vacancies that exist in District No. 3. The PRAB briefed the Board on their recommended prioritized capital improvement plan. There are grant funding opportunities and volunteers have stepped up to assist, but they requested more predictable financial support for capital maintenance and improvement. Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler was present and distributed the PRAB's Capital Improvement Plan. County Administrator Philip Morley stated that prior to seeking grant funding, the Board will need to look at this request in more detail to see if it is a possibility. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2015 DISCUSSION re: Courthouse Security: Superior Court Clerk Ruth Gordon and Auditor Rose Ann Carroll discussed the importance of courthouse security. They requested that funding for courthouse security happen sooner than the fourth quarter of 2016. The meeting was recessed at 2:48 p.m. and reconvened at 2:54 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. BRIEFING re: Proposed Sign Code Amendment JCC 18.30.150: Department of Community Development (DCD) Associate Planner Joel Peterson briefed the Board on the proposed sign code amendment JCC 8.30.150. A hearing was held on November 4, 2015 on proposed text for a Board -sponsored amendment to the Unified Development Code to broaden the applicability of readerboard/changing message signs for public purpose entities. He reviewed a summary of the public comments received and briefed the Board on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Associate Planner Peterson presented DCD's policy regarding sign setbacks. The Board agreed that the governmental sign setback from a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) should be 150 feet based on staff's recommendation. The Board also agreed with DCD's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for governmental signs. The Board concurred to continue discussion on this issue in January 2016 to allow time to gather additional information. LETTER re: Crowberry Bog: Commissioner Kler discussed natural area reserves and read a proposed letter thanking the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for their work on Crowberry Bog. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve sending the proposed letter to DNR. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DISCUSSION re: Board of Natural Resources: The Commissioners discussed their views on Cowlitz County Commissioner Dennis Weber as a potential candidate to serve on the Washington State Board of Natural Resources. Commissioner Johnson moved to support Commissioner Weber. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2015 NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:33 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. * Y ATTEST: Erin Lundgren, CM Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF MMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Phil Johnso , ember Kathleen Kler, Member Page 7 SEAL `' ' " 1 ATTEST: Erin Lundgren, CM Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF MMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Phil Johnso , ember Kathleen Kler, Member Page 7 Julie Shannon HEARING RECORD •SFrom: David Sullivan ent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:27 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: More about the differences between LGDs and herding dogs Attachments: Blank 7.pdf From: gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:26:45 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson; Philip Morley Subject: More about the differences between LGDs and herding dogs 0 November 16, 2015 Animal Control Ordinance Comments Under definitions, "Livestock Guardian Dog" means (paraphrased) any dog demonstrably trained for protecting livestock or herding livestock. I don't think you fully comprehend the difference between these dogs, their functions and their impacts. LGDs and herding dogs ARE NOT the same thing. LGD does not get "trained", they come genetically programmed and it is not demonstrable unless you have a perceived threat for them to respond to. You can not command an LGD to defend, they decide when there is an issue to address and they act accordingly. LGDs are not herding dogs. Herding dogs are not LGDs. Pairs or sets of LGDs are historically set out seasonally to free range in the Alps or other mountainous areas with 15,000 head of sheep or other livestock. These dogs ensure that every Iamb arrives back on the farm without injury from predator attacks. LGDs fend off all comers, wolves, bear, coyote, man, eagles, etc. LGDs assist with births of livestock and care for the young as a nanny would. Locally, LGDs fend off cougars, bobcat, bear, dogs, eagles, owls, etc. THERE IS NO "TRAINING" for these dogs, they are expected to be very strong-willed and competent to deal with all situations without human input. While they do accept strong guidance from a respected owner, they are expected to think for themselves and act accordingly. One of my LGDs has saved my life numerous times from marauding swine, rams and dog attacks. You DO NOT TEACH them this behavior, it it genetically programmed and based on loyalty. THERE IS NO TRAINING! A herding dog is not treated like an LGD, nor does it function as one. Herding dogs are highly trained and have a single purpose... to herd livestock at the command of it's owner, never alone. Nobody herds livestock at night so there is no associated noise from nighttime herding work. The traditional recommendations for managing an LGD is to take it to the farm and deposit it into the flock and never treat it as a pet, never. These dogs are not trained, they are programmed. That is not to say that you can not teach them things, but they do not defend on command and requiring it to be "demonstrable" is next to impossible and arbitrary. Jean Ball 0 • Animal Control Comments 11/16/15 Page 15 of 36, item (3) says: "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." I don't like it. The BoCC should be held accountable for approving the fee schedule of this and other county government branches. Allowing the "Shelter Operator" to set fees is asking for abuse and inconsistencies. They should need to explain their fee schedule and have it approved by the BoCC. I also think the loose verbiage, if translated loosely, says that the shelter operator sets fees for neutering animals, not just at its facility, but all neuterings. Please clarify this. Jean Ball • Julie Shannon •From: David Sullivan From: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:17 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: animal control comments 6.07.033 Attachments: Blank 9.pdf From: gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:16:10 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: animal control comments 6.07.033 n U C ft 0 Animal Control Comments 11/16/15 Page 20 of 38, article 6.07.033: There are 2 sentences in this article. The second sentence says exactly the same thing as the first, with greater detail. I see no reason for the redundancy. Could you edit the first sentence out? Also, please specify the method by which an ACO may seize your animal. Have you authorized them to enter property without the owner's knowledge and take animals? I find the lack of clarity for this procedure disturbing. Jean LJ • Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:27 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: animal control 6.07.360 Attachments: Blank 10.pdf From: gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:26:03 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley Subject: animal control 6.07.360 animal control comments 6.07.360, article a (iii): Please specify that this inspection will only be allowed a single time unless there is a. clear case of abuse. ACO should not be allowed to harass kennel owners at random and without restriction. Please also clarify that ACO notification will be given in writing at least 1 week prior to inspection to allow for scheduling which does not cause the kennel operator undue stress shuffling their commitments and schedules. Jean 0 11 Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Subject: David Sullivan Monday, November 16, 2015 5:32 AM Julie Shannon FW: animal control 6.07.360 From: Jean Ball Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:32:15 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley Subject: Re: animal control 6.07.360 Additionally: There is a question in the margin about item (c).. Should a 30 day minimum be required to renew a kennel license. I find the 30 day minimum to renew a kennel too restrictive and arbitrary, Please drop this from the draft. Jean On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:26 AM, < ng arleydo fg armAgmail.com> wrote: From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: David Sullivan Monday, November 16, 2015 5:39 AM Julie Shannon FW: Due Date 6.07.360 Blank 11.pdf From: gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:38:23 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler; Philip Morley Subject: Due Date 6.07.360 I 0 Animal Control Comments 6.07.360 (3) Due Date: I find the annual due date burdensome and not reflective of reality. Please make the due date flexible and reflective of reality. People do not start a kennel on January 1 st of the year, they start it whenever their needs dictate. Why criminalize or penalize citizens for reality? Your car license is due monthly, as is your driver's license. Jean • Julie Shannon .From: From: To: Subject: Attachments: 0 David Sullivan Monday, November 16, 2015 5:49 AM Julie Shannon FW: 6.07.370 Blank 12.pdf From: gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:48:14 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Philip Morley; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: 6.07.370 9 animal control comments 6.07.370 inspection The requirement of this inspection was already stated in a previous article. Do we need the redundancy? Also, please specify that there MUST be a date and time set which is agreed upon by the owner. As the verbiage stands now, it appears that an ACO can enter a private parcel at any given time to "inspect" a kennel, without the lawful owner's consent or presence. I find that highly distasteful! The owner's consent and presence must stated in this document. Jean L7 Julie Shannon •From: Sent: To: Subject: David Sullivan Monday, November 16, 2015 9:01 AM Julie Shannon FW: Other thoughts on Animal Control From: Jean Ball Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:01:51 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan; Philip Morley; Phil Johnson Subject: Other thoughts on Animal Control I would like to first state that I am having my phone transcribe for me and I am farsighted. I hope any bizarre auto correct incidents will cause you humor. There were several sites in the animal control verbiage which suggested that the determination was up to the officer's discretion. That is a bad idea. There should be no gray areas or fuzzy math where infractions are concerned. Officers are not unbiased. It is the people we should be protecting from the authority not the other way around. Abuse of power is a real living thing. Please provide more clarity instead of a catchall net where it is left to the officer's discretion. The law should be clear and unambiguous. Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Commissioners, Steve Gross <SGross@cityofpt.us> Monday, December 07, 2015 11:41 AM jeffbocc Proposed animal control ordinance As i 0,0 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed ordinance. I have one comment: There does not appear to be a requirement for registration of a potentially dangerous dog (or an accompanying fee). The City requires both dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs to be registered. Steve Gross City Attorney - City of Port Townsend 250 Madison Street, Suite 2 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Telephone: 360.379.5048 Fax: 360.385.4290 NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the 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. CITYOFPT NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the 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. Carolyn A From: Ericsen Design <ericsen@olypen.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 5:24 PM To: Carolyn Avery Subject: Re: HEARING re: Animal Control Ordinance Carolyn, Can't come to meeting, but am in favor of the ordinance. Bernt Ericsen On 12/4/2015 4:35 PM, Carolyn Avery wrote: You are receiving this email because you are on a group email list to receive updates on the Animal Responsibility Code. If you would like to be removed from the list, please notify me. Hello, On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will hold a Public Hearing regarding an amended proposed Animal Control Ordinance. Enclosed is a clean version of the revised draft, and also a version in tracked changes, showing edits since the prior 2014 draft Ordinance. Below is a link to the hearing notice that was approved by the Commissioners on November 23, 2015. h!tp:Lwww.co iefferson.wa us/commissioners/Agenda/2015%20Attach/112315 ca02 pdf Best regards, Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board Jefferson County Commissioner's Office P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9122 Received after Headnq jeffbocc Comment Deadline From: Joyce & Gary Fell <gandj@olypen.com> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 10:33 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Animal Control Ordinance This is our written testimony in regard to the proposed Animal Control Ordnance noted below: Why give a free ride for our current kennel licensed hoarders and puppy mills by grandfathering a "Substantial compliance exceptions authorized". The additional 6 years in horrible conditions of urine fumes and floor covered feces is 6 more years of suffering for these animals and their owners. They could become compliant with the new ordinance but this exception leads to continuing current problems. 6.07.410 380 Standards for Commercial Kennels, Shelters and, Animal Welfare Facilities and Facilities with Ten or More Dogs or Ten or More Non -Feral Cats. (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. Sincerely, Joyce & Gary Fell 310 Ridgeview Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: (360) 379-1805 Email: gandj@olypen.com INThis email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com