Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Sheltering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press staff for more analysis as Humane Society sheltering contract raises cost and ordinance concerns
Summary
Sheriff Brad Thurman, Longview officials and county counsel presented a proposed three‑year animal sheltering contract with the Humane Society of Southwest Washington; commissioners expressed strong concerns about cost, a requested trap‑neuter‑release ordinance and potential liability, and asked staff to return with more detail next Tuesday.
Sheriff Brad Thurman told the Board the county and several cities negotiated a three‑year animal‑sheltering agreement with the Humane Society of Southwest Washington after issuing an RFP and that the Humane Society was the only responsive proposer.
Thurman said the county's share of the proposed contract was estimated at $225,000 for 2026; later‑year figures were discussed in the meeting but a 2027 amount was unclear in the transcript and the 2028 figure appeared as $304,003. County staff and Longview said the cost‑sharing formula was based on recent usage; staff reported the county and Longview each account for roughly 41% of the animal control workload.
Longview assistant city manager Chris Collins and counsel James Goodman told the board the Humane Society included a trap‑neuter‑release (TNR) approach for feral cats as a cost‑saving population‑control measure. Collins said TNR was presented as the most humane and cost‑effective approach for felines and that participation percentages could be reviewed annually.
Multiple commissioners objected to language in a sample ordinance the Humane Society provided and raised liability and definitional concerns. One commissioner said the Humane Society was "holding a gun to your head here and say, you don't have a choice," reflecting unease with a private provider asking jurisdictions to adopt specific ordinance language as a condition for contracting. County counsel cautioned that adopting supplier‑drafted ordinance language could expose the county to legal risk and recommended the county draft its own ordinance if it chooses to authorize TNRs.
Commissioners also questioned alternatives, including whether resurrecting the county kennel program or using volunteer programs (including inmate volunteers) could reduce costs. Chief civil deputy prosecutor Doug Jensen urged legal and municipal counsel to take negotiation‑level discussions to a separate forum rather than use the public meeting for attorney‑to‑attorney debate.
What happened next: staff said a temporary agreement will extend 2025 terms through February while the board reviews additional information. Commissioners asked staff and counsel for follow‑up materials and scheduled the subject for further discussion next Tuesday.
Why this matters: the proposed contract would materially increase the county's sheltering costs; commissioners must weigh fiscal impact, partner participation, liability implications and alternatives such as in‑house sheltering, modified services or volunteer programs before authorizing a multi‑year obligation.
