Cowlitz County commissioners weigh hearing examiner instead of citizen panel for dangerous-animal cases

Cowlitz County commissioners discussed shifting adjudication of dangerous and potentially dangerous animal cases away from a volunteer dangerous-animal board and toward a retained hearing examiner, saying an impartial quasi‑judicial officer would separate policing from adjudication and be more available.

County staff presented the options and urged the board to consider a hearing examiner after staff and commissioners said volunteer panels face availability problems and political pressure. The staff summary said use of a retained hearing examiner would remove the decision from the law‑enforcement arm of government and make the process appear less like policing, while a volunteer board might be inconvenient for community members who must remain on call.

The board heard several factors for the change: historical experience in other counties, the likely small number of cases (staff estimated roughly three to four hearings per year), and the potential to group hearings on one day to limit cost. Staff also noted that the hearing process under current code can allow up to 90 days to hold a hearing. The hearing‑examiner option would be procured either by asking the county’s current retained hearing examiner if willing to take on animal cases or by soliciting attorney responses through an RFQ.

County staff said the existing ordinance will likely require a minor amendment to implement the hearing‑examiner option. Commissioners asked staff to confirm whether the hearing examiner already retained by the county would accept the additional responsibility and, if so, to return with cost estimates showing the likely impact on the county’s retainer and budget.

“This removes the decision from the policing aspect or the policing arm of government and gives it to an impartial quasi‑judicial officer,” county staff said during the discussion.

No formal vote was taken. Staff said they will prepare a written proposal for the board that: (1) summarizes the hearing‑examiner approach, (2) checks whether the county’s retained hearing examiner is willing to accept dangerous‑animal hearings and at what cost, (3) outlines an RFQ option if the retained examiner declines, and (4) identifies required ordinance changes.