Adams County Board cuts treasurer office to one full‑time staffer after heated debate

Adams County Board of Supervisors on Thursday approved an amended resolution to set staffing in the treasurer's department at one full‑time equivalent employee in addition to the elected treasurer, following a contentious public hearing and more than an hour of debate.

The resolution, introduced by the board's Administration and Finance Committee, originally proposed a 1.5 full‑time equivalent staffing level for the treasurer's office. A motion to strike the "and 1/2" language and limit the office to a single full‑time staffer passed first as an amendment (13–7) and the amended resolution then passed 14–6.

The vote followed sustained public comment from newly elected County Treasurer Cara Dolesal, who urged the board to retain the additional position and described operational risks if the county reduced staffing. "This position is very important to safeguarding the taxpayers' dollars," Dolesal told the board. She said that, after one month in office, she found the treasurer's duties require a second trained employee for segregation of duties, continuity for property listing, and timely handling of tax payments.

Dolesal described examples she said showed the workload: reviewing mailed payments that revealed multiyear short payments and contacting taxpayers to secure full payment. "When you're in accounting, it is very important that you keep things segregated," she said, explaining that the same person should not both enter payments and verify deposits at the bank.

Board members split over the staff level and the process used to recommend the reduction. Several supervisors said they were persuaded by a memorandum from the county administrator and a work‑study committee that reviewed staffing and recommended the change. "I found the memo thorough and sufficient as to what the staff size should be," Supervisor Baker said when announcing his vote to support the amended resolution.

Other board members and witnesses questioned the transparency and the evidence behind that recommendation. Supervisor Dozel and others said they had asked for documentation of the committee's work and found no formal job study notes were produced; they objected to what they described as a lack of public review. "We have a very huge concern with the integrity of our process in this county," Dozel told the board.

The county administrator defended the memo and the review process, saying the memo was distributed by blind copy and that the task group had a combined 9–11 years of relevant experience. The administrator also said the job description for the real property lister is incorporated into the deputy treasurer functions and had been included in the materials provided to the board.

The HR manager told the board she had contacted members of the task group and that members declined to have their names released because they feared retaliation. The HR manager also said two members of the task group had five years and four and a half years of experience, respectively, contributing to a combined experience figure the administrator cited.

Treasurer Dolesal and the HR manager both told the board that two trained staff are required to handle the county's current workload safely. Dolesal said Adams County handles a higher workload than many peer counties and cited a statistic read into the record by the treasurer indicating Adams County has 38% more workload than the average of counties compared.

Board discussion included process questions about how the county manager communicated with supervisors before the meeting and whether that communication created any appearance of a "walking quorum." The county administrator said staff communications were sent blind copied and did not create a quorum by themselves.

The board approved the amended resolution after the amendment succeeded 13–7 (recorded dissenters: Cherco, Podowski, Noselle, Craviglio, Arpies, Shelton, McLaughlin) and the final amended resolution passed 14–6 (recorded dissenters: Podowski, Noselle, Craviglio, Arpies, Shelton, McLaughlin). The resolution authorizes the staffing allocation as amended; the resolution text and committee recommendation were included in the board packet.

The board did not direct staff to reinsert a second position or require an immediate job study. Several supervisors urged conducting an objective workload study in the future and asked that the county provide clearer documentation of the committee's review.

The meeting record shows the debate took substantial meeting time and included public testimony. The board also confirmed next steps: the county will proceed with the approved staffing allocation and supervisors asked staff to provide follow‑up information on how duties will be allocated under the new staffing level.

Ending: The staffing decision takes effect per the usual county administrative processes; board members who opposed the change said they will continue to press for a formal job study and broader public documentation of any future staffing changes.