Commissioners debate Humane Society three-year sheltering contract, TNR and ordinance language
Loading...
Summary
Sheriff Brad Thurman and municipal representatives presented a proposed three-year contract with the Humane Society of Southwest Washington; commissioners questioned costs (county share presented as $225,000 for year one and rising thereafter), whether the Humane Society should require ordinance changes (trap-neuter-release for feral cats), and legal/operational implications for the county.
Sheriff Brad Thurman and Longview officials outlined a proposed three-year animal-sheltering contract with the Humane Society of Southwest Washington and answered questions from the Board of Commissioners.
Thurman said the county's 2026 share under the proposal would be $225,000, rising in later years to the figures presented by staff (a 2027 increase and a 2028 figure transcribed in meeting material as $304,003). He described a cost-allocation formula based on historical usage that would place the county and Longview at roughly 41% apiece, Kelso at about 12%, and the remaining municipalities covering smaller shares. Thurman said the Humane Society's proposal included a request that participating jurisdictions adopt an ordinance authorizing a trap-neuter-release (TNR) program for feral cats and ear-notching on return.
Commissioners pressed on cost and control. One commissioner summarized the fiscal concern: "How much do we keep spending to take care of animals that people should be taking care of for themselves?" That commissioner and others said they were uncomfortable with what they described as a private provider effectively proposing county ordinance language as a condition of service.
Longview representatives and the county negotiator said the TNR element was presented as a cost-saving measure and that it substantially reduced the Humane Society's proposed price. "If we don't want to do a TNR program...it's just it's gonna cost more money," a Longview representative said, explaining TNR reduces holding and processing costs for felines. Longview also emphasized the Humane Society's capacity to handle surges (litters and large-scale surrenders) and noted prior analysis showed running a county shelter would not be cost-effective.
County legal staff and the prosecutor cautioned against adopting an ordinance written by a private provider. One attorney said such a step could expose the county to legal and financial risk by shifting liability to the municipality while protecting the provider; he recommended the county draft any ordinance language itself or take comments through counsel rather than treating the provider's draft as final.
Operational questions included whether jail-inmate volunteer programs or temporary kennels could reduce costs; staff said inmate volunteer programs would require further legal and operational review. Thurman said a temporary agreement extends 2025 contract terms through February while the county and municipalities finalize negotiations and any retroactive payments.
Why it matters: the contract would reshape how the county funds and operates animal control and sheltering, shift recurring costs to the county budget, and could change county code if the board accepts ordinance language tied to service delivery.
What's next: commissioners asked staff and counsel to return next Tuesday with more information on legal risk, the possibility of inmate volunteer programs and alternatives to the proposed ordinance language.
