Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Howard County hearing backs proposal to return animal-citation appeals to hearing board
Summary
Council heard extensive testimony on CB58 to allow animal-control citation appeals to be heard by the Animal Matters Hearing Board again. Animal-control staff and the hearing‑board chair cited faster resolution and reduced court burdens; an attorney raised concerns about appeal timelines and fee impacts on owners.
Sherry Fox, administrator of Howard County Animal Control, urged the council to approve Council Bill 58 to allow citation appeals to be heard by the Animal Matters Hearing Board rather than only in district court. Fox said returning appeals would speed hearings (45–60 days after an appeal is filed), reduce time officers spend in daytime court, and ease pressure on the court docket. She provided FY statistics showing 107 district-court animal-control cases in FY23 and 59 in FY24 and said fewer citations are currently appealed (30 appeals in FY23 vs. 13 in FY24).
Fran Lopresti, chair of the Animal Matters Hearing Board, told the council the volunteer board has long handled a broad range of cases—bites, dangerous-dog declarations, impoundments and nuisance citations—and is familiar with Howard County Code. She said evening hearings before a seven-member board are more convenient for citizens who work and allow more code‑specific decisions than daytime district court proceedings.
Several witnesses described the practical benefits: Fox said limiting officers’ district court appearances would keep staff in the field, and Lopresti said the board can tailor remedies, sometimes dismissing fines when facts warrant it.
Attorney Joel Hurwitz, who said he had drafted a rewrite of the bill, raised multiple technical concerns about the proposed language. He said the draft does not clearly distinguish between district‑court citations and hearing‑board citations, questioned the proposed 15‑day written appeal window (contrasting it with existing seven‑day rules), and warned that the recent increase in Board of Appeals filing fees could make further appeals financially impractical for animal owners. He also pressed the administration on whether the code authorizes the administrator or the Office of Law to pursue collections or appeals to circuit court and requested clarification on estoppel and ownership‑disclosure provisions in leases and citations.
The administration cited the courts-and-judicial-proceedings amendment (referenced in testimony as section 4‑406B) that allows concurrent jurisdiction and said the proposed change would retain district court as an option if circumstances require it. Hurwitz asked the administration to follow up on several drafting points and fee implications before the council acts.
The hearing concluded with the council noting the competing policy aims: quicker, locally informed hearings and safeguarding appellant rights and clear statutory procedures. No vote was recorded in the hearing; councilmembers asked for follow-up information on the drafting and fiscal implications before final action.
