Adams County committee sends ordinance on humane-officer appointments back to full board for clarification

Corporate counsel explained that the county must adopt an ordinance to empower the board to appoint a "humane officer" when the appointee is not a law-enforcement or public-health officer and when the officer will hear appeals of abatement orders. "The statute just says that if youre going to appoint a humane officer who is not a law enforcement officer or a public health officer... the county board has to pass an ordinance approving the appointment," counsel said.

Counsel told the committee staff intend to assign some animal-control duties to Planning & Zoning staff but that those employees do not fit the statute's definition of other exempt positions, so the ordinance is necessary. Counsel recommended keeping the ordinance language flexible and using a later resolution to name the individuals and specify whether they are part-time or full-time. Counsel also noted the county must report appointed names to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Several supervisors asked whether leaving the ordinance flexible would invite repeated questions at the full board; counsel replied that the accompanying resolution would provide the exact appointments. "We're not trying to pull anything on anybody... the board will still have to adopt the resolution," counsel said. The committee agreed to have Dusty attend the next board meeting to answer particulars such as training and certification and whether an employee would lose employment if certification is not obtained.

On a motion by Supervisor Kabarski with a second from Supervisor Edwards, the committee voted to send Ordinance No. 126 (chapter 145) back to the county board for further consideration and clarification. The committee did not amend the ordinance in committee; the action was a referral back to the full board.

The committee will consider the matter again after additional staff input at the full board meeting.