Valley County commissioners discussed whether support for McPaw’s animal shelter should be provided via an annual contract or routed through the county’s new pooled grant program, during a 20‑minute agenda item at the Oct. 29 morning meeting.

The question centered on whether county funds should guarantee 24‑hour access for the sheriff and cover routine county impoundments through a contract, while any additional operating support would be requested through the grants portal. “It costs us roughly $45 per day to house that animal,” McPaw’s executive director Courtney said, describing the shelter’s per‑animal operating cost and a typical length of stay of about 30 days.

The discussion matters because the commissioners this year consolidated nonprofit contributions into one $200,000 expense line that requires organizations to submit requests through a grant scoring process to receive funds. Historically, McPaw’s received $25,000 annually from the county; this year McPaw’s requested an increase (the transcript records a prior city contract payment of about $41,000 for a jurisdiction that sends fewer animals than Valley County). Courtney said the shelter’s market rate to cover county‑origin animals would be about $150,000, and that the $40,000 request was partially benchmarked against what a nearby city pays.

Commissioners raised two separate funding paths: (1) an annual contract to ensure the sheriff’s 24‑hour access and to invoice the county for impounds beyond a baseline, and (2) a grants request for any supplemental funding. One commissioner suggested a minimal annual contractual payment so the sheriff would always have guaranteed access while the shelter could still apply to the pooled grants for additional needs; another said a contract could instead be charged back on a per‑impound basis to the sheriff’s department to improve cost accounting.

County staff reiterated the shift in budgeting for fiscal year 2026 that placed nonprofit contributions into one pooled line and said nonprofits were notified that they needed to submit requests through the grant scoring system to receive funding. Commissioners acknowledged McPaw’s provides services beyond law enforcement impounds — including intake from the public and return‑to‑owner services — and that county statutory obligations around impoundment and hold periods were relevant. Courtney cited Idaho code sections she had collected and read aloud for the record: 25‑2803, 25‑2804 and 25‑3510, which she said relate to impounding animals found at large and required hold periods for strays.

No final appropriation was adopted. For follow‑up, the board asked the prosecuting attorney’s office to research statutory obligations and return the matter with counsel’s findings. The commission set a follow‑up agenda item and legal review: the matter will return to the commissioners’ agenda on Nov. 10 so counsel can present research and McPaw’s representatives can consult with their board. The chair and staff said the county could consider a modest annual contract to guarantee sheriff access (one commissioner suggested $10,000 as a placeholder), with any additional requested funds submitted through the grants portal.

The record shows the board directed legal review rather than making a final funding decision; staff will provide a memo outlining the applicable statutes and options for a contract versus grant approach.