Residents, volunteers press Clermont County over animal shelter operations as RFP for outside manager moves forward

A chorus of volunteers and residents told the Clermont County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 22 that the county shelter is failing dogs and people and needs immediate operational changes, from behavior testing to how volunteers are used — even as county staff said a request for proposals (RFP) seeking an outside manager for shelter operations remains open.

The concerns came during the meeting’s public-participation period, where multiple speakers described dogs euthanized after long stays with little behavioral intervention, volunteers being blocked from playgroups and an RFP that critics say sets unattainable insurance and liability requirements for trainers and rescue partners.

Why it matters: The county operates the shelter under the board’s authority. Residents said shortcomings at the facility undercut Clermont County’s stated “no-kill” commitment, increase liability risk, and alienate experienced volunteers who run foster and adoption activities.

Volunteer advocates and several residents gave detailed accounts. One speaker, identified in the meeting as Megan (volunteer/advocate), said, “This shelter represents a resource meant to save lives and uphold the no-kill philosophy cherished by the community,” and accused the county of using “bureaucratic excuses” instead of contracting behavior specialists. She said volunteers who raised concerns had been deactivated from the shelter’s volunteer-management system and that dogs needing intervention were being labeled “staff only,” which she said worsened their behavior and adoption prospects.

Volunteer Roger Vogel, who told the board he had volunteered since February 2023, said volunteer exclusion dates back to a large hoarding case last November and has continued. “Volunteers are being excluded from activities,” Vogel said. He urged commissioners to recognize recurring volunteer contributions and to better use community rescuers and behavior resources.

Multiple speakers named specific dogs euthanized after long shelter stays and asked the board to hire or contract qualified behaviorists, to use playgroups and testing to rehabilitate at-risk dogs, and to change contract terms that require external trainers to carry insurance covering county staff and volunteers — a requirement volunteers and prospective contractors say is a barrier to signing.

Shelter director Angie was referenced repeatedly by speakers. Roger Vogel told the board, “Angie, you’ve been the shelter director now for 7 months,” and asked the board to address volunteer relations and behavior programming. Several speakers also criticized the process and terms of the RFP for shelter management.

County staff described the RFP as seeking management services for daily operations while maintaining current county employees. Tom (county staff) said the RFP is “a request for proposal for management services for the shelter” and that proposals should describe how a bidder would operate and manage employees. “That’s what the proposal process is about,” he said, describing the RFP as intentionally open so bidders can propose operational approaches.

Board members did not adopt any immediate operational changes during the meeting; no vote to change shelter policy was taken. The commissioners added the RFP discussion to the public record and confirmed the process is ongoing.

What’s next: The RFP will proceed through the county’s procurement process; residents pressed the board to consider interim changes while proposals are evaluated, including contracting behavior specialists, restoring volunteer access to playgroups and revising any contract clauses volunteers and trainers find prohibitive.

Speakers at the meeting representing the shelter issue included: Lindsay Kiefer (shelter representative), Darlene Williams (volunteer), Angie (shelter director), Megan (volunteer/advocate), Roger Vogel (volunteer), Deanna Smith (resident), Jody Wilson (resident), and Tom (county staff).