South Jacksonville weighs future of animal control after lapse

South Jacksonville trustees are reconsidering how the village handles animal-related calls after allowing its contract with Morgan County Animal Control to lapse in October. The conversation at the January 14 board meeting centered on costs, transparency and who will respond to calls going forward.

Police Chief Eric Hansell reported village staff handled roughly 24 animal calls in the three months since the county contract ended, and only two animals required intake into village care. Village officials ended the contract citing concerns about transparency and documentation of services; the village had been paying about $10,000 per year for those services. With the contract inactive, trustees and staff are weighing whether the police department should continue fielding animal calls and whether the village should update ordinances or add fee structures to recover costs.

Hansell told trustees that Morgan County Animal Control has since offered to waive reinstatement fees and to provide semiannual call documentation, plus after-hours emergency calls on police request. That offer reopened the immediate question of whether to restore the county contract or pursue a different path. No final decision was made at the meeting, and trustees emphasized the need for a sustainable plan rather than a temporary fix.

Trustees discussed several practical hurdles if the village chooses to take responsibility for housing animals. Permitting and facility requirements would have to be met before the village could accept animals routinely, and those obligations could carry new costs and administrative work. Updating local ordinances or adding fee structures were floated as ways to ensure the village could recover expenses when it provides animal care or enforcement.

For Morgan County residents, the discussion has concrete implications. If police continue to handle animal calls, response patterns and officer workloads may change. If the county contract is reinstated, residents may see more formal reporting from the county about calls and outcomes. If the village moves toward an in-house solution, there could be permit requirements or fees tied to animal housing and care. In the short term, Hansell’s figures suggest the volume of animal calls has been manageable, but trustees signaled they want a plan that will hold up over time.

The takeaway? Watch village hall for follow-up and plan for possible changes in how animal issues are reported and handled. Expect trustees to balance costs and officer time with the community’s need for reliable, documented animal control.