White County commissioners debate future of animal shelter, consider switching to animal-control model

White County commissioners and staff reviewed a draft policy for the county animal shelter and discussed whether the county should maintain a taxpayer-funded shelter or convert to an animal-control model that relies on nonprofits for long-term care.

The conversation began when Executive Robinson distributed proposed policy and procedures for the shelter and asked the committees to review them and return comments. Commissioners and speakers raised several operational questions, including the appropriate minimum hold time for stray animals (options discussed ranged from 14 to 28 days), the shelter’s designed capacity (previously 16 but currently holding about 30), and whether animal-control duties should be performed by a Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-certified officer under the sheriff’s office.

Volunteers and longtime shelter workers, including Monica Jacob and former staffers Sarah Lawson and Stephanie Smith, described the range of day-to-day responsibilities historically handled by a higher-paid position listed in the county budget as “other salaries and wages” — hiring and supervising part-time staff, intake paperwork, vaccination and medical coordination, adoption and rescue coordination, web and social-media postings, and supply procurement. Those speakers urged the county to create written job descriptions so employees understand duties and expectations.

Several commissioners and staff said the county must decide whether its primary role should be animal control (enforcement, citations for nuisance animals, and handling bites/strays) or operating a full-service, taxpayer-funded shelter (intake, medical care, adoption and outreach). Executive Robinson and others described two likely outcomes: (1) county-run animal control with a POST-certified officer under Sheriff Page and annual county grants to local 501(c)(3) rescues to handle sheltering and adoption; or (2) county-run shelter operations with the county directly staffing and funding shelter management and veterinary care. Commissioners noted the choice affects budgeting, staffing, liability and whether the sheriff’s office will accept responsibility for enforcement.

Speakers also identified an existing restricted donation (about $65,000–$70,000) tied to the shelter and noted the county holds a five-year lease for the current facility beginning in mid‑2024. Committees agreed it would be premature to make a final switch immediately but directed staff to schedule a formal agenda item at next month’s meeting to discuss the county’s direction for animal control and to invite Sheriff Page to that meeting to discuss the sheriff’s willingness and capacity to accept a POST-certified animal-control assignment.

Other steps discussed included: clarifying job descriptions for current shelter staff, evaluating whether to fund a second full-time shelter position (the committees later agreed to resend that budget request to the budget committee for reconsideration), and deciding whether county funds should be provided annually to local nonprofits that would operate shelter services.

Committees did not adopt a final policy at this meeting; they asked staff to return a focused agenda item next month that would include Sheriff Page and more specific cost and staffing estimates so commissioners could make an informed decision.

Ending: The committees left the matter open for additional information and discussion next month, with a formal agenda item to include the sheriff and staff budget details.