Animal control shifts from “ordinance” to “rules” under Board of Health

RICHMOND COUNTY — A public hearing was held to discuss updates to Richmond County’s animal control policies, reflecting a shift in oversight responsibilities.

“I’m here to speak with you regarding the Richmond County animal control ordinance and a request to change it to animal control rules,” said Dr. Tommy Jarrell, special projects coordinator. “In October 2023, we requested you adopt new animal control rules. Since then, the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office has relinquished animal control duties, which have now returned to the Richmond County Health Department. Tonight, we’re requesting that you rescind the Richmond County animal control ordinance and adopt a new set of rules under the Board of Health.”

Jarrell summarized the key changes: References to “agents of Richmond County Animal Division” have been removed, and “animal enforcement deputy” has been replaced with “animal control officer.” The term “Richmond County Sheriff” has been removed throughout the document and replaced with “health director.”

The selection process for animal control officers has also changed, as it is no longer handled by the sheriff’s office. Additionally, “civil citation” has been replaced with “administrative citation” because the Richmond County Health Department does not have the authority to issue civil citations. The appeals process now aligns with public health policies rather than criminal enforcement procedures.

“Our recommendation tonight is that you rescind the Richmond County Animal Control Ordinance and replace it with Richmond County Animal Control Rules under the Board of Health,” Jarrell said. “As commissioners, you cannot adopt rules, but as a Board of Health, you can.”

Commissioner Justin Dawkins asked Jarrell if the shift from an ordinance to rules was due to enforceability.

“There are a couple of reasons,” Jarrell explained. “Through public health, enforcement is generally done through rules rather than an ordinance. The sheriff’s office primarily operates under ordinances, but public health departments function under public health rules.”

Jarrell added that having rules instead of an ordinance would allow for potential enforcement within municipalities if needed, though he noted that most municipalities within the county prefer to enforce their own animal control ordinances.

Commissioner Jason Gainey asked Jarrell if the changes for enforceability would impact punitive actions, such as an individual getting hurt by an animal. Jarrell stated, “No. The sheriff’s office has clearly indicated that they would continue to work with us, and even prior to animal control moving from public health to the sheriff’s department 10 years ago, we still had to rely on them. They’ve indicated they would certainly continue that as needed because there will be cases, unfortunately, from time to time, when law enforcement is needed.”

Kristi Newton of Hamlet asked a question regarding the adoption of these rules: “Will animal control be able to do any kind of enforcement? I realize that they could possibly do a misdemeanor, but will they be able to do anything? I know they’ve had some issues, and they’ve helped me with some issues of neglect with throwaway animals and stuff like that. Are they going to have any power to actually help these animals they come across, or will they have to go to the sheriff’s department and have the sheriff’s department come and actually ticket them besides just a slap on the wrist?”

Jarrell responded, saying, “The rules are still in place and they’re the same as they were even with the ordinances, so the answer is yes, we will still be able to assist with that. Depending on the case, there will still be times when law enforcement may need to be called in, but that part will not change.”

The commissioners made a motion in favor of rescinding the current ordinance and adopting the health rules.