Clackamas County's Response to Rob Day inquiry on behalf of Kathie Price plus Kathie's rebuttal.

This form letter response from the county includes comments by Kathie Price.   Anything in blue bold are her responses.

Subject: RE: Pertaining to Kathie Price's Case
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:15:00 -0800
From: "Stewart, Kathleen" <kathys@co.clackamas.or.us>
To:  Robert Day <vcr1187@ridgeview.org>
 

We've received your communication to our office about Katheran M. Price and her violations of our Zoning and Development Ordinance regarding Dog Kennels.  The facts of her case are as follows:

1.  Ms. Price is in violation of Sections 407.06B(28), Conditional Use (Dog Kennel) and 202, Definition of a Dog Kennel of the Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance.  This Ordinance states that in this zone a property owner may not own more than three dogs unless the kennel is permitted by application.  In this case there is a minimum of 500 feet from the property line needed in order to meet the requirements of the Ordinance.  Ms. Price's property is too small to allow this use, being 579 feet in total width.


As to date, we have failed to "see" this ordinance in writing.  The animal control office that we had contacted in Clackamas county, had "no" information on this code.  The only thing they had was a multi-dog license which we could purchase for $100 per year, but the animal control office said since we only had 5 dogs, it was much cheaper for us to get each dog licensed, the cost being $50.

To get a "kennel" license, it is required to pay a $1,700 fee for inspection to DOT, if the party requesting the license did not pass, the fee was not refunded.  At no time did anyone tell us about a restriction regarding the minimum of 500 feet from a property line.  And at no time were we offered the option of applying for a kennel license.  We have studied the state laws concerning a "kennel", and we do not qualifiy to be a kennel -- we are not breeding, grooming, or boarding, as defined under the law.

2.  This is a land-use issue, not a license issue.  The only Ordinance that mentions dog kennels is the Zoning Ordinance.  The County's Dog License Ordinance uses the term, "Multiple Dog Discount License", rather than "Dog Kennel".


We still do not understand what this has to do with a land-use issue.  We can have 40 cows on this property, 40 lamas, etc.  This land is not being used as a commercial area, as in a business, nor is it being used as a commercial kennel.  This is a HOME as well as private property.  We tried to point that out in court, but according to them, they have the right to say what you do with your property -- rather it be animals, a business, or a garden.

3.  Clackamas County became aware of this violation on September 30, 1996, however, because this is a low priority issue, other safety violations were handled first.  The first notice from Clackamas County was sent to Ms. Price on September 3, 1997.


The first notice we received was in September, 1997.  We questioned the letter, contacted county, and NO ONE would answer any of my questions.  Their first letter stated that several buildings on my property had been built and were being used as kennel.

I informed them that all of the buildings on the property had been here at the time I purchased the property, and none were kennels.  I did admit to building a tree house,  but I was not aware that it required a permit. Again no one would give me any information or answer my questions.  They just kept stating that I was maintaining a kennel and did not have a proper kennel license.

4.  Attorney, Robert Simons was representing Ms. Price until December 12, 1997 when he informed the County he was dropping the case.


We had consulted Mr. Simmons for advice on this case, and he reviewed all the information.  He requested a retainer fee of $1000, which I did not have at the time.  Mr. Simmons later commented that this particular case would cost several thousand dollars if it was brought to a judgicial level.

5.  Kathryn Alvey, Code Compliance Hearing Officer for Clackamas County, held a Code Compliance Hearing onJanuary 16, 1998.  There was evidence supplied and testimony from Ms. Price that five dogs lived on the property.  The Hearings Officer noted that the Ordinance was quite specific and two of the five dogs would have to be removed.  Ms. Price owns three of the dogs and her twenty-year old daughter owns two of the dogs.


Kathryn Alvin conducted the hearing.  Also present was Gary Hewitt.  I was questioned very deeply about several issues that would have no bearing on a land use, or dogs.

Ms. Alvin questioned me about my health, which diseases I had, if I was under treatment, how much my monthly income was, where did it come from, did my daughter pay me rent and if so, how much.

After the deep interegation, Ms. Alvin asked me about my dogs.

I had 37 pieces of evidence however, the hearing officer would not allow me to enter ANY of the evidence.  I also requested several times to know who had made the complaint.  Mr. Hewitt declared that the person did not want that information to be known.

I tried again to enter the evidence of the neighbor whom I believed was the person to make the complaint, and again I was informed that the evidence had nothing to do with the case.

Ms. Alvin then question my daughter, who gave testimony to the fact that she owned two of the dogs in question, also two horses.  The hearings officer asked her if she paid me rent.  My daughter stated she did, and that part of the agreement with me was that she was allowed to have her dogs as well as her horses on my property while living here.

The hearings officer than stated that even though two of the dogs were owned by my daughter and three by me, two dogs had to be removed from the property since we were not a licensed kennel.

I than asked Ms. Alvin which two dogs had to be removed and she stated that it didn't matter to her, that was my problem.

6.  DURING THE HEARING, MS. PRICE KEPT INSISTING THAT IN HER OPINION, HER ONLY OPTION WAS EUTHANASIA.  THE HEARINGS OFFICER STATED APPROXIMATELY FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES THAT THIS WAS NOT THE CASE, SHE COULD FIND A HOME PLACEMENT AND/OR SELL THE DOGS, BUT THE DECISION WAS CLEARLY MS. PRICE'S TO MAKE.
This statement is totally false!  Ms. Alvin stated to us, that two dogs must be removed.

I than tried to explain to her that due to the ages of the dogs and due to the breed, it was almost impossible to give these dogs away.  I explained to Ms. Alvin that the shelters were over-run with rottweilers at this time, and people are unwilling to take a older dog.

I also stated that I had no right to take away my daughter's dogs, since they did not belong to me.  The officer stated that the dogs were to be remove.  By which means, it did not matter.

I was instructed if I were to give two of the five dogs away, I must provide the court evidence as to where they went -- such as name, address, and phone number.  If I was not able to provide new homes for them, then I was to show the court a statement from a licensed veternarian, showing that the dogs had been destroyed.

Ms. Alvin then asked Mr. Hewitt what timeline HE expected for me to comply the order.  He than stated in court, that I was in a foreclosure on my property.  The hearing officer than asked me how much longer did I have before the foreclosure went into effect and I stated that until August, 1998 to sell my property.

Ms. Alvin than asked me how long I needed to place the dogs, or have them destroyed.  I asked for the compliance date to be in August.  This would give me time to sell the house and move with the dogs.

Mr. Hewitt co-tested this date.  Ms. Alvin than ordered the date of March 18,1998, stating this date would give me plenty of time to sell my home, and/or get rid of the animals.

I than told her that the date was impossible, explaining to Ms. Alvin that it would take at least six months to sell the home.  She over-ruled me, saying the 60 days was more than enough time, and since I had broken the law for so long, she could not allow me any more time.

7.  During the hearing, IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED BY THE COUNTY OR BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER THAT THE DOGS WOULD BE TAKEN AND PUT TO DEATH, EVEN IF SHE DOES NOT COMPLY.  It was mentioned that if they go to a home, the address, name and phone number of the new home would be needed to show compliance.  Also, it was mentioned that if Ms. Price decided to euthanize the animals, a copy of this action from the veterinarian would be needed to show compliance.


The court did not say they would take the dogs, however they said I would be charged in contempt if I did not remove the dogs in 60 days.

I again stated that it was impossible to give the dogs away in that period of time. I continued by asking Ms. Alvin, "So in other words, knowing that it is going to be almost impossible to place these animals, you are basically telling mt to destroy them."  Ms. Alvin said if that was the only way to meet the hearings order, than so be it.  I stated that she was putting a death sentence on these dogs under the circumstances, and she agreed.

8.  During the hearing, Ms. Price shared that she has been in legal action for foreclosure by her lending agency.  This attempt was blocked by filing for bankruptcy, Chapter 13.  She now has a limited time to either sell the property by March 18, 1998, or it will be taken and sold to payoff outstanding debts.


This statement was a total lie, Mr. Hewitt offered to the court that I was in a foreclosure, never at any time did I offer this information.  It was my opinion that this information had anything to do with the violation in hand.

After Mr. Hewitt gave this information, Ms. Alvin deceided to question me quite intensely about it.  At no time did I ever state that the home was being taken in March, nor did I state the home would be sold in March to pay off debts.  This entire statement is false. The only persons who ever mentioned "March" in any way was Mr. Hewitt and Ms. Alvin.

9.  The Order from the code Compliance Hearings Officer reads:

A.  The Respondent shall reduce the number of adult dogs on the subject property to no more than three (3) within sixty (60) days of the date of the hearing, but no later than March 18, 1968.
B.  The Respondent shall submit receipts to the County documenting the name, address, and phone number of the new owner(s)/keeper(s) of all dogs removed from the subject property no later than March 18, 1998.
C.  As soon after March 18, 1998, as is warranted, the County shall submit a Status Report to the Compliance Hearings Officer confirming whether or not Respondent is in compliance.

Dated: the 27th day of January 1998.

Note from Rob Day:  I have written to the commission asking for the specific law that Ms. Price is being charged with.  As to date, I have not received a reply.  If Clackamas County is citing her with the kennel law, then I must conclude that Ms. Price is in NO WAY violating this code.  The law clearly states that one must have a kennel license if the party is selling or boarding animals.  The five dogs now living under Ms. Price home are her companions, nothing more.