Commissioners weigh Humane Society contract terms, seek multi-year stability while keeping jail kennels available

Cowlitz County prosecutors, the sheriff’s office and commissioners discussed a proposed contract with the Humane Society of Southwest Washington for animal-control services after the county received an email outlining the society’s fee positions.

Jason Lorraine of the prosecutor’s office briefed the board on the society’s January correspondence, which linked a reduced first-year fee to the county ceasing use of its jail kennels. Lorraine said the society’s earlier message (Nov. 22, 2024) described a proposed $111,000 annual service cost as a minimum for 2025 and “strongly encouraged” ending jail-shelter operations; the society’s January email then tied that $111,000 figure explicitly to cessation of county kennel operations and said the county would face higher charges if it continued using the jail facility. Lorraine told commissioners the later linkage appeared to change negotiation terms and raised concerns about “moving target” expectations.

Commissioners and the prosecutor discussed trade-offs: county jail kennels currently serve as a short-term (72-hour) county-held stray/impound location that often helps animals return quickly to owners and reduces burden on the society. Humane Society staff had told the county that centralizing services at its facility and ceasing jail kennel operations would allow the society to reduce charges; in contrast, continuing county kennel use could increase the county’s annual cost.

Commissioners discussed possible approaches: one suggested accepting a first-year concession at $111,000 while negotiating a multi-year (three- to five-year) contract that caps fees thereafter (commissioners discussed a potential top rate the society cited in correspondence and press coverage, roughly in the $600-plus-per-animal range in later years) and includes modest CPI indexing. Commissioners also requested contract language limiting county exposure for any citizen drop-offs (residents who voluntarily present animals) and sought explicit billing/audit documentation for any additional per-animal charges or special services. Prosecutor staff said they would request the society’s Clark County contract and further documentation.

Why it matters: animal-control services involve public safety, county liability and recurring budget exposure. Contract terms affect municipal partners (several cities contract separately or through county arrangements), the public’s ability to reclaim pets and the county’s long-term budget for animal control.

Direction from the board: commissioners directed staff to pursue a path that would accept a first-year concession (the $111,000 figure discussed by the society) while negotiating a multi-year agreement (three to five years) that provides stability, contains an agreed escalation mechanism and includes auditing/ documentation requirements and clear definitions for which intakes the county will cover. Commissioners also asked staff to clarify whether municipal partners such as Kelso and Longview will be affected and to return with draft contract language.

Ending: Staff and attorney’s office will return with proposed contract language and related documentation for a future agenda. The board gave staff discretion to seek multi-year protections and audit rights while preserving county options if a final agreement is not acceptable.