Sumner County commissioners vote to keep animal control under sheriff’s office

The Sumner County Commission voted during its meeting to keep animal control operations under the sheriff’s office after a lengthy public-comment period, presentations and debate about costs, enforcement and organizational structure.

Supporters and volunteers urged the commission to continue studying alternatives and to form a new ad hoc committee to develop a plan. “What we want now is to move Sumner County into a place where for the next 5 to 10 years, we will be in a place where animals can get the care that they need,” said Kathy Arlen, a resident who spoke during public comment. Jennifer Howard, another resident and volunteer, told commissioners: “All I’m asking for is if we’re saying we’re gonna do 2, can we just please do it?” Donna DeSoto, who said she prepared an outcomes report, criticized the current model and the county’s past performance on animal welfare, saying, “We have 70 percent euthanization rate.” Gail Zara echoed earlier remarks and said she supported the same changes.

The discussion reviewed three broad options that have been presented to the commission: keep the service with the sheriff’s office, move animal control under the county mayor’s office, or contract with a nonprofit or third party to operate the service. Commissioners and presenters contrasted Sumner County’s current budget for animal control with the budget described by a visiting director from Rutherford County. The visiting director’s presentation included a cited Rutherford budget of roughly $3,200,000 and a staff of 37 full‑time employees; commission materials listed Sumner County’s current animal-control budget at about $800,000.

Commissioners expressed competing priorities. Some members said a formal ad hoc committee would be useful only after the commission decided whether to transition the service; others said an ad hoc should be formed now to examine options, costs, operations and timelines. One commissioner urged caution about tax impacts, saying residents on fixed incomes have left the county because of rising property taxes and that cost is an important consideration for any change.

Several commissioners defended the sheriff’s office model as providing law-enforcement authority on cruelty and dangerous‑dog calls. A commissioner noted that under some third‑party models enforcement of search warrants remains a law‑enforcement responsibility. Supporters of keeping the service under the sheriff’s office pointed to recent operational improvements the sheriff reported, including a recent stretch of adoptions that the sheriff’s department reported were 100 percent spayed/neutered and vaccinated.

After discussion, a motion to keep animal control under the sheriff’s office was made and seconded and passed by voice vote. The meeting record does not include a published roll‑call tally; some commissioners spoke on the record for and against keeping the sheriff’s office model during debate and several voiced “aye” or “no” during the voice vote.

The commission did not approve formation of a new ad hoc committee at this meeting. Commissioners and members of the public said they want continued reporting from the sheriff’s department on metrics such as spay/neuter, vaccinations and euthanasia rates.