Huntington council approves budget as amended, shifts $50,000 from jail contract to animal shelter after earlier $100,000 amendment fails

Huntington City Council approved its fiscal 2025-26 budget after adopting an amendment that shifts $50,000 from a contracted services line in the jail bill to the municipal animal shelter. An earlier proposal to move $100,000 from the jail line to the shelter failed in a 5–5 vote earlier in the meeting.

The amendment that passed reduces the jail contracted-services allocation and increases the animal shelter contribution from $200,000 to $250,000, according to roll-call discussion during the meeting. Council members and dozens of public speakers debated the funding changes for more than three hours, focusing many of their remarks on the shelter, libraries and support for people experiencing homelessness.

The defeated amendment (referred to in the meeting as Amendment 4) would have cut $100,000 from a police/jail contracted-services line (one description in the meeting described leaving $450,000 in that line) and increased the animal shelter contribution from $200,000 to $300,000; that motion failed on a 5–5 roll call after council took public comment. Councilwoman Teresa Johnson urged compromise during debate, saying, “I am willing to compromise ... 50,000 maybe something else will.”

After the failed $100,000 proposal, Councilwoman Mount proposed a second amendment, reducing the jail contracted-services line by $50,000 and adding $50,000 to the animal shelter. Multiple residents urged the council to restore shelter and library funding. Anna Atkins, who identified herself from Morton Place on Huntington’s southside, said, “Please restore full funding to the animal shelter.” Josh Gack, a business owner and professor who addressed council, argued that the additional $50,000 would simply cover inflation since the city’s revenue had grown compared with previous years.

During the vote on the $50,000 amendment, the roll call recorded no votes from Archer, Arthur and Holly while Miss Blau, Miss Laymon, Miss Mount, Miss Rumbaugh, Miss Walling and Mister Shockley voted yes; Mister Sweeney was recorded absent. With that amendment adopted, the council then voted on the overall budget as amended. The final roll call on the budget as amended recorded nine yes votes and one no (Miss Lehman); Mister Sweeney was absent. The chairman announced that the budget was approved.

Public comment at the meeting was extensive. Dozens of residents and representatives from nonprofits and volunteer groups spoke to multiple related items in the budget discussion: animal-shelter funding, the status of a low-barrier shelter and the Huntington City Mission, and broader concerns about homelessness, public safety and transparency. Several speakers described active work feeding and sheltering people downtown and warned that closing or defunding existing emergency shelter capacity would put dozens of people at immediate risk. Jeremy Bailey, who said the overnight mission shelter houses more than 70 people nightly, told the council, “This place gives shelter for over 70 people each night ... It's a lifeline.”

Speakers representing the animal-rescue community said they were willing to accept compromise funding if the council would commit to additional assistance later. A speaker who identified herself as representing a local rescue group said the organization would “take 50,000 now” and continue fundraising and volunteer support while pursuing additional funds for the shelter.

Council members and staff also addressed process and timing. At least one speaker noted a legal/time requirement to submit a budget to the state capital (Charleston) on a deadline, and several council members urged using a transparent, application-based process for distributing the city’s contributions line. During the meeting members referenced existing grant funding sources that had been used in planning for a longer-term low-barrier shelter project (including ARPA, HRSA and CDBG grants) and said some contracts related to shelter work had already been executed and funds spent.

At the meeting’s close, council members and many public speakers emphasized the need to continue the conversation, follow the administrative process for distributing contributions already in the budget and work with regional partners and nonprofit providers on homelessness and sheltering solutions. The mayor and staff, several council members said, had pledged a process for transparency and further allocation decisions after the budget year begins.

Votes at a glance: - Amendment (move $100,000 from jail contracted services to animal shelter): failed 5–5. Yes votes included Mount, Rumbaugh, Walling, Johnson, Laymon; No votes included Archer, Arthur, Blough, Holly, Shockley. (Mister Sweeney absent.) - Amendment (move $50,000 from jail contracted services to animal shelter): passed (roll call recorded yes from Miss Blau, Miss Laymon, Miss Mount, Miss Rumbaugh, Miss Walling, Mister Shockley; no from Mister Archer, Mister Arthur, Miss Holly; Mister Sweeney absent). - Budget as amended (final adoption): passed (yes: Walling, Archer, Arthur, Blough, Holly, Johnson, Mount, Rumbaugh, Shockley; no: Lehman; Sweeney absent).

The council left several topics for follow-up: the administration’s planned process for allocating the city’s contributions fund, outstanding contracts or grant draws tied to low-barrier shelter development, and requests from the public for further transparency about library and mission funding.