Shelton council weighs outsourcing, euthanasia policy after shelter costs rise

City Manager Mark and Community Economic Development staff briefed the Shelton City Council on June 10 about budget pressures and service choices for the municipal animal shelter, including possible policy changes on holding periods and a potential outsourcing contract.

The briefing described the shelter as an integral part of the city’s law-enforcement and animal-control system, with operations that moved into Community Economic Development from the police department a few years ago. Jay Harris of Community Economic Development said the shelter’s operating model shifted after the COVID era, when outside partners that previously took intake animals stopped accepting as many dogs. Harris said the city’s shelter budget had been about $80,000 in an earlier period and has grown as the city assumed more of the work.

Harris told the council the shelter physically holds 12 kennels but is realistically able to care for “about 10” dogs at a time. He said the fully loaded cost works out to roughly $35 per dog per night when the facility is operating at its full budgeted level. Harris added that two dogs kept at the shelter since September had incurred more than $19,000 in combined staff time and medical costs. “It is on or it is off,” Harris said of the shelter’s service level. “There’s very little that we can do related to level of service out there, beyond what we’re currently doing.”

Council members pressed staff for options to reduce the cost burden. Harris outlined three primary paths: (1) adopt a stricter euthanasia/holding policy (for example, the Washington state statutory minimums of 72 hours for strays and 14 days for identified owners), (2) outsource shelter operations to a nonprofit operator, or (3) close the municipal shelter and shift animal-control duties. Harris said he did not recommend a wholesale return to euthanasia as a first option but noted a range of possible holding-period policies could reduce costs and veterinary bills.

On outsourcing, Harris said Mason County Humane Society had expressed interest in operating the shelter under contract. Early estimates from negotiations showed outsourcing could save the city about $60,000 to $70,000 a year net after the city would forgo adoption revenue; Harris described that as about a quarter of the city’s current shelter costs. Council members noted outsourcing reduces the city’s operational burden but may shift policy and control to an outside entity. Council Member Tom Gilmore said he favored returning some shelter responsibilities to the police department so law enforcement and shelter operations are coordinated. Deputy Mayor Sherman and other council members said they opposed option 1 (stricter euthanasia policy) and preferred exploring outsourcing or maintaining the service.

Council members also discussed the separate but linked question of who would provide animal-control enforcement if the city stopped running the shelter. Harris and Police Chief (name not provided in the transcript) said animal-control functions would still be required — dangerous-dog responses and impounds do not disappear if the shelter’s operating model changes — but shifting those duties to the county sheriff or to code enforcement would not necessarily eliminate cost or workload.

Council direction and next steps: Council members asked staff to return with more detailed cost comparisons and a clearer estimate of net savings under an outsourcing contract, and to identify what statutory obligations (holding periods and related rules under Washington law) would mean for costs and operations. On the record at the meeting, the council expressed interest in the outsourcing option as the working preference for more analysis rather than pursuing a strict euthanasia policy.