To take part in a proposed King County regional animal control system, the City of Auburn would have to pony up about $250,000 each year.
Auburn residents would lose their dedicated animal control officer, and the county would replace him with another officer, he or she also serving the cities of Algona, Pacific and Enumclaw, and the unincorporated areas east of Auburn to the King County line.
Auburn is among 32 cities contracting with King County for animal control and sheltering that would henceforth pick up the full cost of services the county has subsidized for years, according to a proposed regional model between the cities and county.
“King County would continue to provide services to everyone in the county under a model where the cities pay us to do that,” Carrie Cihak, director of strategic initiatives for King County Executive Dow Constantine, said in announcing the plan earlier this month at the Kent Animal Shelter. “We strongly believe we can provide the services more cost efficiently and better services at a regional level.”
Cihak added that the county can no longer afford to provide a subsidy of “well over $2 million” from its general fund.
A major source of city heartburn is that King County only gave the cities until April 30 to decide whether they would be willing to pay for the service or run their own animal control departments as of July 1.
“We have to decide by April 30, then we have to sign up for either six months of 2½ years on July 1, which is not exactly a lot of lead time,” said Auburn Mayor Pete Lewis. “So we’re not very happy about how it’s being done to begin with, although we are trying to work with King County.”
The proposal calls for the cities to come up with a combined $1.1 million to $1.9 million out of their pooled general funds for sheltering, control and licensing services.
For Auburn, another big question is – does it have the money?
Lewis checked his pockets, shrugged his shoulders, rolled his eyes.
The issue dates to the mid 1980s, when King County agreed to provide animal services on behalf of cities on a regional basis in exchange for the revenues from pet license fees to pay for the system. That arrangement has stayed as it is ever since, even as over the past 25 years the gap between license revenues and the cost of the system has grown to a level that the county says it can no longer sustain.
In recent years, the county has subsidized the system with more than $2 million per year from the county general fund. Based on direction from the King County Council to enter into new cost-recovery arrangements with the cities, the county recently issued termination letters to cities for existing animal services contracts, effective July 1.
King County provides animal services to all residents in the unincorporated areas, and contracts with every city within the county except for Seattle, Renton, Skykomish and Milton. Three cities purchase limited contract services: Des Moines, Newcastle and Normandy Park. Five cities buy an enhanced level of service: Auburn, Shoreline, Kirkland, SeaTac, and Tukwila. The city of Federal Way recently decided to establish its own animal control system.
Nearly 200 volunteers provide care for animals at the shelters, and the county has incorporated their concerns into the new regional model, such as closing the Crossroads shelter in Bellevue to focus more resources on Kent, involving the private sector through the partnership with PAWS, and dedicating resources to increase the rate of pet licensing for the fees that fund the system.
Auburn’s Human Resource Director, Brenda Heinman, told the Municipal Services Committee Monday that the City takes issue with county data reflecting the number of animals from Auburn who populate the animal shelter in Kent. If the number is found to be lower, it could, because of the formula used, reduce the city’s costs.
A joint cities-county work group came up with the new regional model following three months of meetings.
====
Some basics of the proposed agreement:
Animal control
• King County would be divided into four districts: north, east, and two in the south. Six full-time animal control officers would be dedicated to work in the field five days per week, one officer dedicated to each district. Cities could coordinate to buy enhanced levels of service.
• Resources for the region would include one field sergeant, one animal cruelty sergeant, and a call center staffed by three people with after-hours dispatch through the King County Sheriff’s Office.
• Field staff and shelter staff will have separate, clearly defined responsibilities.
Animal sheltering
• Animals from all four districts would be housed at the county shelter in Kent, with support from two staff transferred from the Crossroad shelter in Bellevue. A volunteer and foster care coordinator would be added.
Animal licensing
• The county would administer a single licensing system for the region, but license fees collected from residents of each individual city would be credited back to that city against its share of the program’s cost. The idea is to give each city a strong incentive to increase its rate of pet licensing to lower its costs.
Benefits
King County claims that the new regional system would provide one place to call to find a lost pet, get a license or register a complaint. The public health system should be better able to identify and track issues related to animals, such as rabies, officials say. For the cities, county officials say, a regional system would allow local police to focus on traditional law enforcement.
Costs
Pet licensing revenue from fees and related fines currently cover about 60 percent of the proposed regional service model. With a total program cost to cities estimated at $4.1 million, after their license fees are credited back their net cost is estimated at $1.9 million.
The proposal allocates costs 50-50 based on the relative populations of cities and their use of the system. For example, if a city has 20 percent of the population but accounts for only 10 percent of the animals that arrive at the shelter, then that city’s cost allocation for sheltering will be about 15 percent of the total.
The “Agreement in Principle” proposes a 2.5 year agreement, through the end of 2012, during which time the parties will work to increase system revenue and reduce costs. The agreement could be extended by mutual agreement for an additional two years.
