Former JP questions use of tax

The sponsor and author of the ordinance enabling the county’s voluntary tax for animal control services opposes using the proceeds to contract with the city, drafting a letter to the Garland County Quorum Court that expresses her disapproval.

Former District 4 Justice of the Peace Mary Bournival maintains that directing the proceeds of the $10 voluntary tax listed on real and personal property tax bills to the Hot Springs/Garland County Animal Control Budget isn’t what the enabling ordinance intended. It was adopted last November, shortly before Bournival left the quorum court after choosing not to seek a fourth term.

The county tax collector’s office said the voluntary levy raised $156,918 during the 2016 tax year, payments for which were due earlier this month.

Bournival said the proceeds were meant to support the operational and capital expenses of an animal control program for the unincorporated part of the county, but the 2018 budget the quorum court will consider later this year uses the funds to defray the cost of the county’s contract with the city.

The proceeds allow the county to meet the city’s demands for more money without a substantial increase from the $211,000 the county appropriated from its General Fund for the 2017 contract.

The agreement negotiated by County Judge Rick Davis and District 12 JP Darryl Mahoney calls for the county to pay half the city’s $682,910 in projected 2018 animal control expenses. Per the agreement, both parties will receive the same level of service and have equal input in the budget process.

All revenues generated by animal control and all of the proceeds from the voluntary tax would go into the joint budget. Animal control revenues cur-

rently go to the city’s General

Fund.

Bournival said Friday that the county should pay for its half the expenses from its General Fund and repeal the voluntary tax if a county-run animal control program is no longer viable.

“Take it out of the General Fund if they’re not interested in a county animal shelter,” she said. “If they’re looking at staying with the city, they need to repeal the ordinance. It’s the only thing that makes sense and stays within the intent and spirit of that ordinance.”

Davis said the ordinance doesn’t commit the county to using the tax proceeds for a county-run animal control program or building an animal shelter. The quorum court appropriated $10,000 last year to design a shelter on the campus of the Garland County Detention Center. The conceptual design Cromwell Architects & Engineers presented earlier this year outlined a $1 million, 14,000-square-foot animal services building adjacent to the jail.

“The money will only be spent how it’s spelled out in the ordinance,” Davis said Friday. “I’d never commit to building a shelter without first understanding the finances involved. We’ve got too many things going on right to commit to building a facility in 2018.”

The ordinance stipulates the voluntary tax can be used to contract for animal control services, but Bournival said the county is interpreting the provision too broadly. She said it was intended to give the county judge flexibility to contract with groups such as the Humane Society of Garland County for the socialization and adoption of animals and veterinary clinics for animal care.

“It was not intended by anyone that that language would be expanded,” she said. “That they would disregard a county facility and take the funds to contract with the city wasn’t the intent or purpose of that language. Expanding it is a serious violation of trust.”

Bournival’s letter to the quorum court questions the current capacity of city animal control to deliver equal service to the unincorporated area.

“The fact is the city cannot expand the size of its shelter, and they are at full capacity much of the time,” she wrote. “Unless they increase the number of employees resulting in further huge budget increases, they cannot adequately service the entire area.”