Animal Control Committee Begins Making Headway

By LYDIA BERGLAR
News Editor

After two cancelled meetings due to sickness and spring break, the Trenton-Dade Animal Control Committee met for the second time on April 15. Many details and decisions still need to be hammered out, but the committee started working on an intergovernmental agreement, potential beginning budget, and staffing needs.

As a refresher, this committee was formed at the Feb. 18 joint city-county meeting. Representing the Dade County Board of Commissioners are Bob Woods (District Three Commissioner), Melissa Bradford (District Four commissioner), Don Townsend (county executive), and Gidget Knight serving as the county’s clerk.

Representing the City of Trenton Board of Commissioners are Monda Wooten (street commissioner), Terry Powell (parks and animal control commissioner), Alex Case (mayor), and April Keith serving as the city’s clerk.

Since law and ordinance enforcement is a key part of the animal control discussion, Tommy Bradford (chief deputy) represented the Dade County Sheriff’s Office, and Dylon Floyd (captain) represented the Trenton Police Department.

Audray Luck of Luck’s Rescue, Emily Richards (hired by the city as part-time animal facility manager), and Kathy Ragon (county grant writer) also attended the meeting and shared helpful insight and information.

Melissa Bradford asked that these committee meetings be livestreamed. This one wasn’t, but Townsend said that future meetings ought to be livestreamed.

When discussing the intergovernmental agreement (IGA), Bradford said that this is the most important piece before moving forward. Case seconded this, saying, “How are we going to pay for it, and what’s the split going to be?”

Townsend asked if anyone else had looked at other sample IGAs for animal control facilities or shelters. Wooten said she talked with other towns but found that IGAs vary widely.

Townsend brought two example IGAs, one from Wayne County and one from Coweta County, for the committee to review. He explained that Wayne County’s animal facility is driven more heavily by the city (i.e. the city oversees operations while the county pays a supplement), while Coweta’s is driven more heavily by the county.

Wayne County’s IGA is also much longer and more detailed, so Townsend suggested starting with this sample as a draft and having the committee members make edits before the next committee meeting.

He is in favor of the facility being primarily driven by Trenton because the city has had animal control and a facility for years while the county hasn’t. “We’ve been on a fee basis with the city based on the calls. Y’all bill us, and we pay that bill. It’s worked well.”

Bradford said she’s considered a 50-50 split between the county and city or the county covering the building in its entirety with the city covering all maintenance, but she hasn’t come to a conclusion of what is most fair, so she asked for everyone’s input.

Wooten said a 50-50 split is a great start, but she noted that 85 percent of all animal cases are in the county; only 15 percent come from the city. Luck confirmed this statistic. She uses a software program to track each case that Luck’s Rescue handles, including the locations of all the calls.

Powell said he doesn’t think the city could afford a 50-50 split. Case noted that the city has already budgeted $80,000 for animal services, but adding more would be a stretch. If the county matched this, that gives the facility an annual $160,000 operating budget.

Woods agreed that since most animal calls are out in the county, the county should contribute more than the city. Bradford added that so far, conversations have focused on cats and dogs, but out in the county, all kinds of animals need to be considered: horses, donkeys, pigs, goats, etc.

Fines and fees details will be included in the IGA.

When talking about ordinances, Richards said she’s looked through the existing county and city animal ordinances, and they aren’t bad, but she will bring recommended tweaks to the next meeting.

At the last meeting, the committee decided to form a 501(c)(3) to collect donations and grants. Wooten was excited to report that Jeff Mullis said that if they form a 501(c)(3), he will give the first $1,000.

Throughout the meeting, members noted that adjustments will need to be made once the facility is operational and we have some data for things like expenses, fines, fees, adoption revenue, grants, and donations. As Townsend said, “Time is the best remedy for a budget. We’ll know a year from now more than we do know.”

Case suggested that the county start by looking at the city’s budgeted $80,000 and consider copying that, and the county representatives seemed to like this as a starting point. This would give the facility a $160,000 operating budget for its first year.

Ragon reported that she’s investigating grants for the facility, but many of them require statistics. For example, they often want to know how many animals are picked up or adopted out each year. Once the facility is operational, there will be more statistics, meaning a better chance of receiving grants.

Townsend (and Ragon) echoed what Wooten and Luck have said before about if we build it, the grants will come, saying, “There are grants that say they need to have a shell of a building in place before you can get into the bigger grants. They don’t want to give you half a million dollars, but you take five years to build a building. They want to see your operations in action.”

Under the building timeline and updates, Billy Massengale (director of public works) reported that the pad is ready but may need adjustments once engineering drawings are received. He said it’s about 250×275 feet.

The county representatives agreed on the floor plan that the city approved last May. Once the MEP plan (Mechanical Electrical Plan) and bids are received, the full county commission will vote.

Although both boards had previously agreed to build the basic structure and finish out the interior as donations come in, Wooten said she doesn’t want to limit the building based on donations.

Moving on to staffing needs, Richards (the part-time manager) introduced herself. She’s lived in the area her whole life and done a little bit of rescue work. She’s worked at McKamey Animal Center for the last few years “doing everything from intake to surgery assist to adoption events, marketing, fundraising. I want to take that experience and bring it home.”

The city also hired Jennifer Zarecor as the vet. Case said that about two other full-time staff members will be needed.

The city and county have agreed that one DCSO officer and one Trenton PD officer will be hired specifically for animal control. Townsend said that since the county is also tightening up building code enforcement, the county officer could cover both animal control and code enforcement duties.

Bradford brought a job description draft to the meeting for the committee to review and adjust. He said no current officers were interested in taking on the role, partly because they don’t know what all the job will entail. He noted that the county and city animal control officers should receive equal pay, and all agreed.

Wooten asked Townsend, “Do you have the money [now] to tell Tommy to go ahead and find someone?” Townsend answered, “I budget for reserves, but typically they get cut out by the commissioners because ultimately it could possibly raise the millage rate, and they don’t want to raise the millage rate, so they cut the budget.”

The need to hire an officer is just one example of how the animal control/facility project will create an added tax burden on citizens.

What to name the building was an interesting discussion. Throughout the meeting, the word “shelter” was still thrown around, perhaps because there isn’t yet a consensus on what the government’s responsibilities and the functions of this facility will be.

Bradford clarified that the government’s responsibility is just animal control, rather than animal rescue, and while there are hopes that volunteers and donations will make the shelter side of the facility a success, the name “shelter” is misleading. She suggested “Trenton-Dade Animal Services.”

Richards and Ragon explained that this is a good idea, because using “animal control” or “animal facility” limits grant options.

Woods was initially opposed to the word “services” because some citizens could interpret this as endless services for every type of animal problem. However, he was persuaded by others’ input. He said that exactly what services will be provided must be clarified and, “I think it’s expectation management when we say services.”

At the next meeting, the committee plans to discuss what services will be provided and focus on nailing down the IGA.