Committee members pressed the sheriff’s office on how the K‑9 donations account has been used and whether donor funds have been charged for deputies’ benefits and payroll allocations.

Mister Baker (committee member) raised previous discussions about training money and asked whether training and other canine costs remain charged to the K‑9 fund. The sheriff, identified in the record as Sheriff Sean, said the donations historically were intended to pay for dogs and equipment, not deputies’ wages or benefits: “the people that donate to this fund aren't donating to pay the deputies' wages that already work for the county,” he said, and he urged a change so donations cover canine‑specific items while the county funds deputies’ salaries and benefits.

Another committee member said account records show charges from a canine carryover account into HSA/payroll lines; Kyle (county staff) acknowledged the issue and said staff would investigate a payroll allocation that showed $11.72 charged and determine whether that was appropriate.

A committee member expressed a preference for an eventual policy shift: initial canine costs (purchase and training) could be paid from donations while the county would assume ongoing wages and benefits to simplify accounting and avoid relying on donor funds for recurring payroll costs.

The sheriff also promoted upcoming fundraising and public events tied to the canine program; Mike (committee member) noted a canine UTV/ATV ride with registration at Cedar Shack and encouraged public participation.

Why it matters: the debate addresses stewardship of donated funds, accounting clarity, and whether donor gifts should be used for ongoing personnel costs. Staff said they will review allocations and report back.

Ending: Staff will look into the payroll allocation and return with findings; no formal policy change was approved at the meeting.