Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners raise concerns about SPCA performance, ask attorney review of contract
Summary
Multiple county commissioners reported complaints about the SPCA's operations, including alleged refusals to accept animals and apparent overcrowding, and asked county legal staff to review the contract and options for cancellation and continuity of services.
Several county commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), citing what they described as service failures, overcrowding and poor communication with county officials.
Commissioner Beatty said a resident reported that the SPCA declined to take six kittens on a scheduled drop‑off day and returned a check the resident had brought. "This is just the lightest problem I've heard from people," Beatty said, and he questioned whether the county should renew the SPCA contract when it expires.
Commissioner Gilbert said the county contract contains a cancellation provision and suggested commissioners consider exercising it, but warned that canceling would require the county to ensure continued animal services for residents. "The our contract on the SPCA says that we can actually cancel our contract," Gilbert said. He asked for legal guidance and recommended consulting the county attorney before any vote: "I'd like to talk to our lawyer and see if that's possible for us to do and how we go about doing that."
Commissioner Slater said the SPCA currently had 87 dogs in its care while capacity is 40, and he placed a budget appropriation item for a water project on the July 21 agenda separately. Slater’s figure prompted other speakers to cite overcrowding as a specific operational concern.
Members of the public who spoke during the meeting described inconsistent service. One resident said her friend’s daughter was told to bring kittens at a certain time and that the SPCA refused the animals when they arrived. The resident said she left a telephone number with the shelter and that staff never returned the call.
Commissioners emphasized that canceling the contract would not eliminate the county’s need to provide animal control services and that budgeted funds might not cover county‑run operations. Gilbert said, "We we have to remember that when we if if we were to cancel the contract, which is a provision within the existing contract, we have to provide service to the Bradley County citizens. And I don't think there's any money in the budget to provide that even though we'll cancel the contract and have a little few funds there, but that's that doesn't account for anything much."
What the commission will do next: Commissioners agreed to seek legal advice before taking formal action. At the meeting, a formal motion to cancel the contract was not made; instead, members requested that the county attorney advise the commission on options and consequences, and that any proposal for cancellation return to the commission for a vote.
Why it matters: The SPCA contract provides animal control services to county residents. Commissioners said they need to know whether shelter operations meet contractual obligations and whether the county can reliably replace the service if it cancels the contract.
No formal vote or contract change occurred at the meeting.
