Commission signs K‑9 joint powers agreement; trainer disputes claims and county attorney warns against transferring dog to former handler

The commission voted to enter a joint powers agreement with Nelson County to share a K‑9 and include provisions governing the dog's disposition at retirement. Commissioners discussed paragraph 5 of the draft agreement, which states that upon conclusion of the dog’s service life the canine will be returned to Benson County for retirement or other disposition as determined by Benson County.

Later in the meeting, a county attorney (identified in the record as County Attorney Wang) and outside counsel objected to public statements they described as disparaging to the county’s former handler, Deputy Carlson. County counsel said the commission meetings had been used as a public platform to disparage the handler and warned that if the board moved to transfer the dog back to Carlson counsel would seek a court order to stop it.

Mr. Pallotta, introduced by counsel and identified in the record as a K‑9 trainer and consultant, testified that he had raised and trained the dogs and did not believe Deputy Carlson was abusive or negligent in caring for the dog. Pallotta described common working‑dog abrasions and regression in indication following periods of inactivity and said he believed the dog’s issues were consistent with those explanations, not neglect.

Why it matters: interlocal K‑9 agreements determine custody, retirement and liability for working dogs, and the public legal arguments raised the possibility of litigation if the commission attempted to reassign the dog contrary to counsel’s position.

What’s next: the commission signed the joint powers agreement at the meeting; counsel requested a post‑meeting discussion and said parties may pursue legal remedies if the transfer is attempted without agreement.