Sumner County creates ad hoc committee to study moving animal control out of sheriff’s office

Sumner County commissioners voted Feb. 3 to form an ad hoc committee to study whether animal control should be operated outside the Sumner County Sheriff’s Office.

The committee will consist of between three and seven members and will ‘‘explore’’ options for separating animal control from the sheriff’s department while continuing to coordinate with the sheriff’s office, Chairman Teachner said. Commissioners voted by voice to create the group and asked residents who wish to serve to email the chairman; the panel will be named at next month’s meeting.

The vote followed extended public comment and commissioner discussion. Several residents, volunteer shelter workers and members of an ad hoc review group urged the county to consider a stand-alone, professionally managed animal-services agency, citing operational concerns and the ability to access private funds and volunteer support.

Donnie Silva, who identified himself as a member of the ad hoc committee and a Hendersonville resident, told commissioners the committee had compiled 16 years of data and recommended a professional, stand-alone animal-control operation. ‘‘Get your best and brightest. If you do that, then you have no controls,’’ Silva said, adding the county faces a ‘‘$1,000,000-plus lawsuit filed Sept. 7, 2023’’ related to the shelter (phrase as stated in meeting). Silva also said the current model — which relies on jail inmates for shelter work — lacks documented inmate-handling protocols and is not best practice.

Kathy Arlen, a Gallatin resident who volunteers at a shelter, said she supported professional management and more community-facing practices at the county shelter, including clearer intake posts, dates and circumstances on social media, volunteer foster lists, a robust website rather than a Facebook page, multilingual outreach and low-cost clinics ahead of kitten season.

Sheriff Craddock reported departmental progress in animal control to the committee, saying vaccination and spay/neuter efforts had reached key milestones and that the sheriff’s office would submit two budget scenarios to the commission — one that keeps animal control in the sheriff’s office and one that funds a transition to another operator. ‘‘I’ll submit 2 budgets. 1 with me keeping animal control and 1 with me turning it over to whoever the county commission opines,’’ the sheriff said.

Commissioners discussed practical issues that an outside agency would need to address, including custody and storage of animals that become evidence in criminal cases, housing for large animals (horses, cattle, goats), and the county’s responsibility as a taxpayer-funded agency to accept animals dropped off by constituents. Commissioner Genung noted that a county animal-control agency ‘‘is not a rescue’’ and must take every animal brought to it.

Commissioner Jones said prior ad hoc work brought broad public engagement, producing volunteers and leaders in the animal community, and argued for continuing community involvement. Several commissioners emphasized the need for a clear mission statement and guardrails for any transition; Commissioner Wright proposed that interested residents submit names for consideration and suggested the panel be no fewer than three and no more than seven members.

The motion approved by voice vote called for the ad hoc committee to ‘‘explore separating animal control from the sheriff’s department, but to work in conjunction with the sheriff’s department.’’ The commission directed that names of those interested in serving be submitted to Chairman Teachner by email; the membership will be finalized at next month’s Health and Emergency Services Committee meeting. The ad hoc’s work will be advisory: any change in operational control would require subsequent legislation and formal action by the full county commission.

Background: public commenters and commissioners cited operational and oversight concerns under the current model, including use of inmates for shelter labor, inconsistent intake communications on social media, limited volunteer and foster coordination, and a recent lawsuit related to shelter operations. Supporters of a separate animal-services entity said a stand-alone model could be more cost-effective and could access private grants and volunteer networks; others urged caution and a thorough review of evidence-handling, large-animal housing and legal constraints.

The committee formation is intended to produce recommendations and a transition framework; commissioners repeatedly noted that any final transfer of responsibility would require further legislative action and legal review.