Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Perry County to create restricted fund for spay/neuter; commissioners ask staff to study structure
Summary
A speaker urged the Perry County Board of Commissioners to establish a county-restricted fund to finance spay/neuter of feral cats in county ‘hot spots.’ Commissioners asked staff to review legal and administrative structure; no formal fund was created at the meeting.
At the Sept. 2 meeting of the Perry County Board of Commissioners, Jim Carter urged the board to establish a county-restricted fund to pay for spay/neuter services targeted to feral cat hot spots in Perry County.
Carter said the Humane Society of Perry County and local shelters are paying out of pocket for spay/neuter work and that, unless additional help is secured, the feral cat population would increase next February. “If we don't get some kind of additional help for the situation specifically in hotspots... the feral cats are gonna start multiplying in February,” Carter said. He reported past activity, saying the humane society paid for about 77 procedures for county residents through a state program and that in the last two years the community paid for more than 200 cats to be altered. Carter said he was seeking a restricted county fund number so he could solicit donations from businesses and the public and, he said, request city and county contributions.
Commissioners and county staff cautioned that setting up a county-administered restricted fund requires a clear ordinance and implementation structure. A commissioner noted that when the county is involved it must be explicit about who may use the funds, who administers them, and how liability and audits are handled. County staff (Andrew) said the county would need to define administration, spending rules and liability; he warned the county would not accept liability for actions taken by outside organizations if the county administered funds without appropriate controls.
No motion was made to create a fund at the meeting. Commissioners asked county staff to review possible fund structures, reporting requirements, and liability/audit implications and to return recommendations to the commissioners for further action.
Carter and others emphasized urgency, citing local capacity limits at the humane society and noting increased rabies reports in the region; commissioners suggested that Carter also solicit donations directly to the humane society or coordinate with existing animal-control funds while staff develops a formal county structure.
The discussion recorded no formal vote establishing a county fund; it produced direction to staff to analyze options and report back.
