Swain County board tables proposed 2025 animal control ordinance after broad public opposition; keeps 2019 rules in effect

Swain County commissioners voted on Sept. 30 to table a draft 2025 animal control ordinance after sustained public comment and internal questions about enforcement powers, fees and the cost of a proposed shelter.

The board ecided to keep the existing 2019 ordinance in effect and send the 2025 draft back to the animal services committee for revision. Commissioners indicated they will retain the 2019 provision that enforcement not begin until a county facility is operable.

The vote followed public testimony from residents and stakeholders who raised legal and practical objections. Tim Hines, a Bryson City resident, urged repeal of the existing proposal and said the county should not open the new shelter because it could cost "about $250,000 per year" to operate. "This money could be better spent in other areas," Hines said, urging the county to prioritize building maintenance and school needs.

Courtney Dils, speaking during public comment, said parts of the proposed ordinance allowed animal control officers to enter private property and to impound animals "solely at the director's discretion," which she said raised Fourth Amendment and state constitutional concerns. "Seizure and impoundment without due process," Dils said, "...violates our Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."

County staff responded that the draft fee schedule as distributed was incomplete and would be revised. Gina, a county staff member who participates on the animal services board, told the audience the fee range would be revisited and described planned reunification tools, including a pet-reunification website and flyers. "It should be $50 to $500 for different things, and that is definitely gonna be revisited," Gina said.

Other speakers described operational gaps and transparency problems. Danny Schuler said the county website lacked clear contact information for animal services and called proposed impound fees "astronomical" and likely to prevent reunification for many residents. Several rural property owners said the ordinance, as written, could allow officers to cross posted property lines without a warrant and risk criminalizing routine livestock care.

On the dais, commissioners expressed frustration about the shelter project—osts and ambiguity in labor accounting for county crews working on the facility. During discussion the board directed that the 2025 draft be revised, preserved the operative parts of the 2019 ordinance (including the restriction on enforcement until the building is ready), and passed the tabling motion by voice vote.

The board did not adopt a new fee schedule or change enforcement policy at the meeting. Next steps: the draft will return to the animal services committee for revision; the commissioners scheduled additional work sessions and a follow-up public comment period was recommended before any new ordinance is adopted.