Board votes to form work group to evaluate animal control ordinance after debate over repeal and funding risks

The Eaton County Board of Commissioners on July 15 approved a resolution to form a work group to evaluate the county animal control ordinance, after a protracted debate over whether the group should study amending or repealing the ordinance.

Commissioner Holmes moved the resolution at the board’s public safety committee report. Commissioners raised multiple concerns during the full‑board discussion. Commissioner Haskell said he worried forming a work group that appeared to consider repeal could signal local units or federal partners to back away from discussions about contracting or grant funding for an animal control facility. "If I'm a local government unit or a congressperson representing this area, I'm gonna start questioning my time on whether I want to put in the time to get monies for a building that might not be used," Haskell said.

Commissioner Christiansen said her earlier motion at public safety had emphasized that the county was collecting taxes for animal control and that parts of the ordinance referenced statutory duties (she cited the 1919 dog law) that the county was not fully following. "We have to be transparent," she said, arguing the ordinance needs updating and accurate verbiage.

Commissioner Droshev (speaking in favor of a focused review) said a smaller work group would allow the county to develop a streamlined recommendation rather than inviting input from many stakeholders at once. "We need to take a look at what's the best way we can reinstate our animal control and in whatever method we need to do it," he said.

To address concerns about phrasing and optics, Commissioner Shaver successfully moved an amendment to the resolution to change the language to form "a work group to evaluate the animal control ordinance" and direct the group to make recommendations back to the board based on findings and facts. The amended resolution passed by voice vote; no formal roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript for the final amendment vote.

Administration (Controller Dawson) cautioned that even if the county were to amend or remove some ordinance provisions, state dog‑law minimums would still require certain functions: "Even if we were to do away with the ordinance, we have obligations under the dog law … and those minimums have to be met whether we have our own facility or we're contracting," he said. He also reported there was roughly $1.37 million under consideration in federal appropriations for a new animal control building, and said the administration would provide a status update to the board next month after outreach to communities.

The motion does not itself change the ordinance; it creates a work group charged with evaluating the ordinance and reporting recommendations back to the board. Commissioners invited municipal partners and interested members to participate in or observe the work group process.

Next steps: administration said it would report back to the board — likely by the next month’s meeting — on which communities are interested in contracting and on whether the ordinance’s language needs revision ahead of any facility funding or contracting decisions.