Animal Control Meeting Reveals Split
None of the agenda items on the February 26 Animal Welfare Quorum Court meeting cleared the Court, although quite a bit of good information was shared.
A flood plain ordinance was tabled, as it did not pertain to animal control, which was the announced reason for the February 26 special Quorum Court meeting.
It seems the animal control topic is split between supporters of an animal shelter and supporters of a broader plan that would first study the situation and then take action. At the end of the meeting, all three proposed animal welfare ordinances were sent back to committees for more work.
First Item Tabled, Not Pertinent
The meeting’s first item — “old business” on the agenda — was a “routine” flood plain ordinance (Ordinance 19-06) mandated by law to be in place by March 23, or else Faulkner County residents lose their ability to obtain federal flood insurance.
After much confusion about details, due dates, and urgency, the Court voted 10-1 to table the ordinance because it did not pertain to animal control, and sent it to the Courts & Public Safety Committee to study the details. JP Randy Higgins (R, Dist. 2) and JP Justin Knight (R, Dist. 1) were absent, and JP Tyler Pearson (D, Dist. 7) voted “no.”
Animal Control Proposals
The Court spent most of the meeting discussing three proposed ordinances on animal control, ultimately deciding to send them all to committee for further discussion:
- JP Jerry Boyer (R, Dist. 12) draft ordinance creating a Faulkner County Animal Control Department Administrator
- JP John Pickett (D, Dist. 11) draft ordinance creating a Faulkner County Animal Control Administrative Board
- JP Kris Kendrick (R, Dist. 9) draft ordinance outlining a Pilot Spay & Neuter Program
New County Department
The most sweeping and expensive proposal, Boyer’s ordinance creates a new county position and his sister ordinance outlined a job description for the Administrator of a new Faulkner County Animal Control Department who would develop a plan to create a county animal shelter.
The new department would be funded by $70,000 from the voluntary animal control tax. Boyer reminded the Court that he brought up the idea back in November, and that the proposal “is nothing new.”
He added that his proposal was based on Ordinance 13-22 and just amends “who’s in charge,” and items related to a spay and neuter program and an animal shelter.
Board Would Plan a Shelter
The Administrative Board that JP Pickett proposes would include five Faulkner County registered voters would would “determine the need for potentially developing a plan for obtaining a County Animal Shelter” by coordinating with Faulkner County cities and towns.
Spay and Neuter Program Would Reduce Number of Animals
JP Kendrick’s Pilot Spay & Neuter Program would spend $50,000 of the voluntary animal control tax to “help establish a free or low cost spay and neuter program” in the county.
Originally, Kendrick sought to exclude Conway but several at the meeting said that omitting Conway would not be “the right thing” to do because, even though Conway has an animal shelter, the city provides no spay/neuter program.
After running for a year, the Quorum Court would get information on the results of the spay and neuter program so it can consider “future continuance” of the program.
Clawson Supports a Board
Friends of the Faulkner County Animal Shelter President Donna Clawson said she liked pieces of all the proposals, but if she had to choose just one, she would support Pickett’s plan for an Animal Control Administrative Board.
Companions Talks Successful Spay and Neuter
Supporting the proposed Pilot Spay and Neuter Program, Marie Betancourt, who manages the Companions Spay and Neuter Clinic in Springhill, told the group about her clinic that has operated for 11 years and does about 6,000 surgeries annually.
When an audience member pointed out that neutering 1 female dog prevents 67,000 puppies over the next seven years, Jack Sotallaro of Faulkner County Reports said it “would greatly impact the county’s needs” if the Court moved forward with the spay/neuter program: “How long do you have to hear those numbers before you realize you can make a big different now without having to do anything more than putting some money behind it?”
Distracted by “Small Things”
JP Tyler Pearson (D, Dist. 7) said he thought all the proposals were “fine,” but felt the Quorum Court was “doing a disservice” if they “get distracted by small things that take away from the main idea of a shelter.” Judge Jim Baker added, “Well said!”
The Court voted unanimously to pass all three proposals to the Courts & Public Safety Committee.
JP Steve Goode (R, Dist. 3) reported there would be no animal control Quorum Court meeting in March, “But by April, we hope to have good news for you.”
At the end of the meeting, Clawson — seemingly spontaneously — asked the Court for $10,000 for her group. After County Attorney Hogue pointed out it would be a violation of the committee’s rules to do so, Judge Baker asked that the committee recommend the $10,000 request “for the next meeting.”
