Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Dog Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deschutes County proposes Title 2 changes to clarify dog board authority; public hearing to be scheduled
Summary
County Counsel presented proposed amendments to Title 2 to limit the Deschutes County Dog Board's authority in non-livestock matters to referrals from law enforcement or the district attorney, and to clarify membership and quorum rules; the board directed staff to schedule a public hearing.
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 6 heard a work session on proposed amendments to Title 2 of county code that would narrow the Deschutes County Dog Board's authority in non-livestock matters and clarify quorum rules.
Dave Goel, county counsel, told commissioners the changes are largely housekeeping but seek to "clarify the dog board's jurisdiction in non livestock matters that that it derives out of either a referral from the sheriff or the district attorney," and to align the dog board code with the county's dog ordinance. He said the county averages such appeals infrequently—"over 10 years, we probably average 1 every 18 months"—but that the language has created some uncertainty.
Goel said the draft amendments would explicitly allow an interim member to serve so the board can meet quorum requirements when several appointed members are unavailable, and would set board membership at no fewer than three and no more than five members. "We want to have at least 3 at all times," he said, describing recruitment challenges for volunteer positions.
During the meeting a resident identified as Miss Stiles of Northeast Redmond described an ongoing neighborhood problem she said involved a household with nine dogs that bark from roughly 11:30 p.m. until about 4:30 a.m., and that the situation has persisted "over a year or two." She said repeated calls to law enforcement had not resolved the problem and that the noise was "destroying their sanity." Commissioners and staff suggested contacting animal control and the sheriff's office; one staff reference noted Captain Husband in the sheriff's office as a point of contact for animal matters.
Commissioners expressed support for proceeding. County staff said they will schedule a public hearing, work with staff (Brenda) to find a date, and return the amendments for consideration; Goel recommended adoption by emergency to avoid a gap if a referral arrives before the amendments are finalized.
No formal ordinance or code change was adopted at the meeting; the board directed staff to set a public hearing and return with the draft amendments for formal action.
