Cowlitz County weighs options as Humane Society seeks higher fees and control of county facility

Cowlitz County commissioners heard a report this week that negotiations with the Humane Society of Southwest Washington could raise the county’s animal‑sheltering costs sharply and would require the county to stop using a temporary holding facility at the jail.

Why it matters: Commissioners and county legal staff said the Humane Society’s proposed terms would place the county in a weaker bargaining position by making the nonprofit the only long‑term shelter option in the area. That, officials said, could drive further price increases and reduce the county’s ability to control sheltering policy and operations.

Jason Loreen, a prosecutor with the county, told commissioners the Humane Society’s negotiators have “made clear that they want the county to end all use and function of the current facility that was created by the board,” and that the group has proposed large fee increases for municipal partners. Loreen said the society initially sought what he characterized as a steep increase and later offered a reduced figure; the most recent number discussed in the meeting was $111,000 for the county’s contract for the upcoming year, down from an earlier figure Loreen cited of about $170,000.

Sheriff’s office and legal staff described the negotiation as complex and said the Humane Society’s position — including closing the county’s temporary jail holding facility — would leave the county dependent on a single outside provider. That dependence, they said, would weaken the county’s ability to negotiate rates and terms in future years.

Commissioners and staff reviewed options raised in the meeting: continuing a short‑term contract with the Humane Society while exploring other models; developing a county‑run shelter (either solo or together with nearby municipalities); or issuing a request for proposals for a private operator. Prosecutor Loreen noted that operating a county shelter could be structured as a government‑owned service or as a county‑run facility that charges fees, giving the county more control over costs and services.

County staff and elected officials discussed the budgetary impact of the Humane Society proposal. One staff member noted budgeted animal control and sheltering funds for the year are approximately $420,000 and said under normal circumstances the latest offer would likely fit within that appropriation unless the county experienced unusually high veterinary or large‑livestock costs.

Several commissioners expressed frustration with the Humane Society’s pricing method and with what they called inconsistent pricing across municipalities. Commissioners also said the Humane Society’s proposed requirement to halt use of the county jail facility — which the county and some cities helped equip and operate — effectively eliminates an option the county could use to avoid certain per‑animal charges.

At the meeting’s close commissioners instructed county counsel and the sheriff to ask the Humane Society for one more concession or clarification on the facility requirement and pricing. The board members said they would be prepared to accept a one‑year extension of the current arrangements if no better terms are attainable, while they pursue alternatives for the medium and long term.

Quotes and context

• "They wanted to negotiate away a facility and the sheriff is not able to negotiate away a facility that is for the board to determine," Jason Loreen, prosecutor, said describing the Humane Society's demands.

• "Once they're into you, they're gonna really wanna raise that," one commissioner said of the risk of becoming dependent on a single shelter vendor. (paraphrased from discussion)

Next steps

County counsel and the sheriff will seek further clarification or concessions from the Humane Society and report back to the board. Commissioners also asked staff to explore alternatives, including a county‑run shelter or a regional multi‑jurisdiction arrangement, and to consult with nearby counties about their approaches.

Ending

County leaders said they see little immediate alternative to keeping short‑term coverage while working on longer‑term options. The board previously extended the county’s interim arrangement through Jan. 31 to preserve sheltering services while discussions continue; commissioners said they will use that breathing room to seek clarity from the Humane Society and to develop contingency plans.