Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Collections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate animal control funding, past‑due livestock fines and collections
Summary
Klamath County commissioners reviewed a backlog of delinquent livestock hearing fines, questioned the county's role in paying victims, and flagged animal control's budget as unsustainable under current arrangements; no final change to policy was made during the meeting.
Klamath County commissioners spent substantial time Dec. 17 discussing delinquent livestock hearing fines, options for collections and filing fees, and the future of the county's animal control program.
Sheriff Shane Mitchell and county staff described how the county currently pays restitution to victims following livestock hearings and then pursues collection from the party found responsible. "We are legally required. Statute that we pay up," a county speaker said on the record when explaining why the county fronts payments to livestock victims. Staff explained the standard practice: the county pays the victim and then seeks reimbursement from the liable party; if the liable party does not pay, the county may send the debt to a collections firm, which would add collection fees to the bill.
The sheriff's office asked whether it was prudent for County Counsel to pursue small‑claims filings (incurring court filing fees) rather than sending the delinquencies to a collections agency. County staff explained that a collections firm (Carter Jones) would add an administrative fee to the debtor's bill (on the record staff described an example where the agency would add about 45% to the base amount to cover collection costs), and that when a collections agency is used the county receives the full principal amount owed plus the agency's fee charged to the debtor.
Board members said the animal control budget — $835,617 in total, with about $455,000 from the general fund — is unsustainable in its current form. One commissioner said the program's fee‑supported sustainable budget is closer to $300,000 and recommended a prompt, broader review of the animal control program and its placement within county government. "We need to sit down and have a conversation about the future of animal control," a commissioner said on the record, urging action before the formal budget hearings.
Sheriff's Office staff reported that many of the employee hours for a forestry deputy are billed to grants (forestry grant, BLM grant, and an ATB grant), with only overtime billed to the general fund when responding to emergent calls.
No formal policy change occurred during the meeting; commissioners asked staff to continue the conversation and to return with a holistic proposal. The Board indicated support for pursuing collections on outstanding accounts but did not adopt a final directive at the Dec. 17 meeting.
