Animal Control Changes Finished, Revenue Collection Eyed
Faulkner County’s Courts & Public Safety Committee finalized its revision of existing animal control Ordinance 13-22, approved additional funding for the spay and neuter program, and delved into circuit court fines and fees at its August 11 meeting.
(Although on the agenda, the Jail Expansion Project was not discussed at this meeting.)
Ordinance 13-22
JP Jerry Boyer (R, Dist.12) explained the latest revisions:
The proposed ordinance we have in front of us contains some of the housekeeping that we did before … and some additional information….
The counselor and I have got together and we have revised some of the numbers — some of the dollar amounts that are to be assessed as fines and for the citation.
If somebody would like to ask a question about that, I’d be willing to answer.
Boyer briefly mentioned changes to Section 7, Section 14, and Section 17, then County Attorney Phil Murphy said he’d added the “whereas” clause repealing the earlier Ordinance and added Section 18, a legal severability clause that ensures the Ordinance still stands even if a portion were found legally invalid in the future.
Boyer added
There is additional work going on with the animal control ordinance that will facilitate the implementation of vicious animals in the County.
Boyer added that Mayflower Mayor Randy Holland has agreed “in principle” with County Judge Jim Baker to “accommodate the housing of vicious dogs,” and Mayflower “would participate in this ordinance with the accommodation of being able to house vicious dogs.”
Emergency Clause
Chair JP Randy Higgins (R, Dist. 2), apologizing for “not giving you due notice,” asked if it “would be appropriate for us to consider an emergency clause … and therefore not have to go through the three readings due to the fact that we have … uh, legitimate emergencies with this.”
Boyer agreed to amend the Ordinance, and an emotional appeal from an audience member highlighted Boyer’s concern: “I don’t want another dog issue that happened May 29th to happen before this becomes effective,” he said.
Even though JP Kris Kendrick (R, Dist. 9) questioned the need for an emergency clause, the Committee verbally voted to add it (Kendrick voted “no”).
JP Tyler Pearson (D, Dist. 7) addressed several concerns, including:
♦ How fees are to be enforced?
♦ What “reasonable measures” are used to contact owners?
♦ Are impounded animals housed “too far away” from owners?
Pearson suggested a wording change from “the Sheriff’s Office may” to “the Sheriff’s Office shall” pick up at-large animals.
Sheriff’s Department Liability
Former Sheriff JP Andy Shock (R, Dist. 10) pointed out the legal liability of mandating activity when the Sheriff’s Department is short staffed and emphasized that discretion is important in policing:
We don’t need to take the discretion of the deputies — the Sheriff — out of the equation….
Let’s say you’re on a call and there’s an at-large animal and if the wording is “shall” — there’s no reason for us to think at this specific time this dog is dangerous, but say there’s only two deputies on the street. And they get a domestic call and then they get another domestic call, and they think, “well, I’ve got priorities, I’ve got to go by my priorities here, go to these domestics.” They leave, and this animal suddenly becomes dangerous and bites someone.
If you go by this Ordinance, the Sheriff’s office could actually be held liable for not doing what they were supposed to do.
The Committee verbally voted unanimously to send the amended Ordinance to the full Court for consideration.
Spay and Neuter Funding
Kendrick reported that, as Baker mentioned last month, funding for the program is running out, with $3,830 remaining from the $35,000 previously allocated. He asked for an additional $35,000 from the existing animal control tax.
JPs also studied a handout showing services broken out by ZIP code, prompting Pearson to ask if “the County-sponsored program” is subsidizing “the sterilization of the city [program].”
The Committee unanimously agreed verbally to forward the budget amendment to the Budget & Finance Committee for further action.
Circuit Court Fines & Fees
As we’ve reported earlier, the Quorum Court — especially newer JPs — have vigorously searched for revenue as the County faces financial challenges such as the mandated jail expansion and appropriate funding for the Sheriff’s Department.
As part of that search, Kendrick pursued a question-and-answer session about circuit court fines and fees with Murphy, Circuit Clerk Crystal Taylor (online), and Captain Chris Reidmuller of the Sheriff’s Department.
Specifically, Kendrick mentioned “hearing back a couple of meetings that there was a rather large amount of circuit court fines and fees that was out there” and had not been collected.
Murphy explained that, by ordinance, the Sheriff’s Department has the authority to collect all fines and fees — including restitution amounts — whether those fines and fees are eventually repaid to the Sheriff’s Department or to a third party outside the Department. (For example, the $250 “DNA fees” get repaid to the State of Arkansas.)
Fines and fees can be assessed via statute or by the Sheriff’s Department and most defendants “cannot pay those fines,” said Murphy, “so most go on a payment plan…. Essentially the Sheriff’s office becomes almost like a debt collection center.”
Reidmuller explained the Sheriff’s Department “no longer collects District Court” fines and fees. He said that, in addition to running a collection process, to resolve cases they must also prepare and obtain court orders when an individual’s fees and fines are paid.
He emphasized that a relatively small amount of revenue is received by the Sheriff’s Department, compared to the total amount unpaid and uncollected; however, actual dollar amounts are not available at this time. The Sheriff’s Office employee who ran the program has died, and COVID-19 restrictions have severely slowed the replacement process.
JP Jim Houston (R, Dist. 4) asked how much revenue the County might expect to receive “if there’s $20 million owed” in uncollected fines and fees.
Higgins said that he and Murphy had done estimates and “of the roughly $21 million … $3.2 million is restitution.” They determined that around 10% of the remainder
would come to the County…. Then, of that 10% — which would be $1.5 million — maybe half of that … would actually go to the County: $750,000. And, of that,about 88% of it would go to County General and maybe 12% of the half — 12% of $750,000 … would actually go to the Sheriff’s funds that he has.
He added “I don’t think this is a big revenue-generating opportunity;” however, later he supported replacing the Sheriff’s Department position that runs the collection program.
Pearson, reminding the Committee of his father’s work as a warrant enforcement officer, asked if “warrant enforcement [is] an effective mechanism” for collecting the unpaid fines and fees.
The Committee briefly discussed ways to punish non-payers and compel payment, as well as contracting debt collection to a third party. Kendrick suggested that they contact the Association of Arkansas Counties to learn how other counties are handling unpaid fines and fees.
The Committee took no formal action, but Pearson agreed to “get with the Collector” about “the extra position she wanted a while back” and said he’d be “having a few conversations about what other counties are doing,” while Higgins said he’d “work with the Sheriff’s office” to continue the discussion and “see if we can’t do some research.”
Taylor added that she would “reach out and speak to” other circuit clerks about their experiences, as well.
The hour-and-a-half meeting then adjourned.
Videos edited from original video on Faulkner County’s YouTube channel.)
Visit Faulkner County Reports on YouTube for more videos and video excerpts from this and other County meetings.
