Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County weighs new animal-control officer, plans to keep Humane Society funding in 2026 budget
Summary
County leaders debated creating a county animal-control position, possible housing in planning and zoning, and continued a $30,000 annual payment to the Adams County Humane Society while cost and operational details remain unresolved.
The Adams County Board of Supervisors discussed whether the county should hire or contract an animal-control officer and how the county would continue supporting the Adams County Humane Society.
County Administrator (name not specified) told the board the sheriff has expressed a preference not to have animal-control costs housed in the sheriff’s budget, and the county is “trying to consider” whether the county should hire or contract for an animal-control officer instead. The administrator said the county is “leaning” toward keeping the Humane Society payment in the county budget for 2026 while adding an animal-control capacity: “So where I'm leaning right now is the County may be able to afford this more than the municipalities, but we would continue with the 30,000 Humane Society. That's the intention in 2026 is to have that in the budget for '26 still.”
Supervisors raised questions about differing cost estimates presented in the report. One supervisor noted the report listed two monthly cost figures — $1,200 and $2,500 — and observed that $2,500 monthly would equal $30,000 annually. The county administrator acknowledged the apparent jump and said cost-control is a consideration but that many details remain unsettled.
Board members also discussed placing the new animal-control function in the planning and zoning office rather than the sheriff's budget. The administrator said that if planning and zoning's code-enforcement capacity were increased to full time, half of that position’s time could support countywide code enforcement (including animal licensing and proactive enforcement) and the county could either hire an animal-control officer or contract regionally for coverage of north and south portions of the county.
No final decision was made; the administrator described the proposals as “ideas I’m throwing out” while staff continue to assess costs and logistics. Supervisors asked for additional cost detail and for the item to be refined before formal budget decisions.
The discussion occurred during the county administrator’s report and included a range of operational questions: who would pay for dual services if the county continued Humane Society funding while hiring an animal-control officer, whether municipalities could share cost, and how to structure coverage across the county.
Board members asked staff to return with clearer cost estimates and options before including any new position in the 2026 budget.
