County committee reviews animal-control operations, insurance and intergovernmental agreements

Iroquois County officials and community members discussed animal-control operations, shelter capacity and a set of intergovernmental agreements during committee and public‑comment portions of the Sept. 9 county board meeting. Committee members directed review of proposed intergovernmental agreements and recommended revisiting a proposed follow‑up fee.

The discussion matters because the county’s animal-control work involves public‑safety risk, recurring calls and contract questions about how animals are housed, returned or euthanized.

Public comment and agency reports documented demand on the county service and some operational details. Derek, a dog trainer who spoke during public comment, urged the county to prioritize rescue and safe holding for animals: “The job you have control is to rescue the dogs, and in the bad situations, hold them, move them out, and that should be the main goal.”

Plans manager Joe Johnson reported administrative figures for the animal-control program. For August the office recorded $3,345 in administration deposits and fielded 71 calls that month, including intake and follow‑up work. The health‑department report to the committee listed current shelter counts: three cats in the building and six dogs; nine dogs have been returned to owners in recent reporting. The transcript also recorded multiple bite and bat reports, and several animals euthanized on veterinarian recommendation.

Committee members reviewed draft intergovernmental agreements for animal control and referred those agreements to a committee review process; the committee will return the agreements to the state's attorney for concurrence after revisions. Chair McGinnis recommended a $100 follow‑up fee for certain responses; committee members agreed to revisit that fee next month.

The committee also discussed aligning any new animal‑control policies with the county personnel manual and ensuring insurance coverage for animals housed in county facilities. According to committee notes, Compass Insurance indicated coverage would treat animals as property for general liability purposes; the company also said that an intentional act (for example, euthanasia) could fall outside property coverage and thus require additional clarification from the insurer.

Committee members asked for the animal-control administrator, Angela Prairie, to provide input on operational schedules and the agreements. The committee packet shows the intergovernmental agreements were handed to committee members for further review; no final county‑board adoption of those agreements was recorded in the transcript.

The meeting left several open items for follow‑up: committee review of the intergovernmental agreements, clarification from the county’s insurer about coverage exclusions, and a final decision next month on the staff‑recommended follow‑up fee and any policy changes.

Details of calls, shelter counts and the proposed fee were provided during the public meeting and committee reports rather than by a final board vote; the county expects additional committee work before formal adoption of agreements or fee changes.