Residents and commissioners press for accountability at county shelter contract; SPCA board governance and facility needs under scrutiny

Public comment at the work session focused on long‑standing concerns about the SPCA of Bradley County’s operation under the county contract. Several speakers, including volunteers and rescue operators, described facilities they said need major improvement, staff working under difficult conditions, and a lack of responsiveness from the SPCA board to questions about finances and plans for a new facility.

Dave Greer, a volunteer at the shelter, said he had presented questions to the board about tax returns and plans for a new building and received no answers; he said the board “has gone radio silent” and that he believes the board’s lack of public meetings may conflict with the Tennessee Open Meetings Act as he read it. Greer told commissioners the county currently pays about $260,000 a year under the contract and warned that without a plan to access funds or build a new facility the county’s options are limited when the contract comes up for renewal.

Several commissioners echoed the public speakers’ concerns. Commissioner Gilbert and others described a pattern of calls from residents who could not find a place to confine loose dogs and questioned whether county taxpayers are receiving the contracted services. Commissioners and members of the public discussed the community foundation and private fundraising: speakers said the community foundation is holding substantial donations for the shelter (one speaker said nearly $1 million is being held), which complicates the county’s leverage because those funds are tied to the existing organization.

Rescue operators at the meeting, including Michelle Schimpaugh of Journey’s Legacy, said they regularly move animals out of the county when possible and raised a specific case of a special‑needs dog (referred to as “Toby”) that they said needed advanced care not available at the county shelter. Schimpaugh and others asked why animals are being retained locally when external rescues were prepared to take them.

Legal and procedural points were raised: multiple speakers noted that the county’s contract with the SPCA contains a 90‑day termination clause in the lease or contract language, but county counsel and commissioners cautioned that invoking it without documented grounds for breach would risk legal conflict; commissioners said they need an operational replacement plan before ending the contract so that animal control services would not lapse. Commissioners also said the formal contract term extends two more years unless breached or renegotiated; speakers urged the commission to request that the SPCA board appear at a public meeting to answer questions.

Action and next steps recorded at the work session were limited to accepting public comment and discussing how to obtain more information: commissioners agreed staff can accept written questions from the public to forward to the board, and several commissioners said they would be open to seeing an alternate proposal if a qualified organization presented a concrete plan to operate the shelter and a timeline to replace the current contract.

Attributions: the summary above cites statements by Dave Greer (citizen volunteer), Michelle Schimpaugh (Journey’s Legacy), Commissioner Gilbert and other commissioners; quotations and factual claims about the contract and the 90‑day clause were discussed in the meeting by public commenters and commissioners and were not recorded as a formal county determination at the work session.