Auburn City Council members must decide on a possible new animal contract with King County by June 21, their last chance to act before the current contract expires June 30.
King County has given Auburn and other contracting cities two options:
• Enter into a six-month contract on July 1. Afterward, they would be on their own.
• Enter as of July 1 into a 2 1/2-year contract.
The deadline has set up a scramble a la musical chairs for scarce sheltering services. Federal Way found its alternative with Pierce County, but time is running out for Auburn.
“The deadline is looming, big time,” said Brenda Heineman, human resources director for the City of Auburn. “If I can find some sheltering services, we will most likely go with the 2 1/2-year contract, then, as one option, meet regionally, probably with King County at the table. We’ll also keep looking, because we’re talking with others like the Pierce County Humane Society about shelter services, which is our number one choice.”
Heineman added that if Auburn should choose the “spendy” six-month option, it wouldn’t get any transition fees from King County.
“After the six months are up, you are on your own. But under the 2 1/2-year contract, you are given transition fees for each year you are on the contract. King County understands that you may not be able to come up with the total cost up front,” Heineman said.
“In the meantime, as far as transition fees, King County is working really hard on the marketing to increase the pet licensing — now only 18 percent in Auburn — and also to file with the state to make it easier to have donations so that the costs will come down over those 2 1/2 years,” Heineman added.
The City had to give King County an indication of the way it means to go with the contract because the county had to recalculate the costs to each contracting city when Federal Way, Burien and some smaller cities pulled out. The greater the number of cities participating, the less the costs will be.
There’s history here.
What King County collects in licensing fees has not paid for animal control, including sheltering services, for many years. Indeed, for more than 20 years the county has subsidized the services. Now, the county wants to fully recover its costs by asking cities that choose to contract with it to pick up more of the expenses. To do that, the county has devised a formula based on the number of animals from each city brought to the shelter and the city’s population.
Regardless of whether Auburn goes with the 2 1/2-year long contract, it will still work towards some type of future regional shelter model. City officials have been studying different models seeking the best, most-cost-effective solutions that would still provide for animals.
“We just don’t have a shelter that’s big enough or modern enough,” Heineman said. “Look at the King County shelter in Kent. It’s a very old shelter. They’re trying to make a lot of upgrades to it. They made some great strides, but they have a way to go.”
Recently, Auburn solicited proposals of interest from people interested in providing shelter services. It received one from Dan Richardson, owner of No Place Like Home Pet Resort in Puyallup. Richardson told city officials his boarding facility isn’t set up to handle impounded animals at the moment. To do so would require a number of improvements, he said, but he will study the idea and get back with the City.
“We just want to see who’s out there,” Heineman said. “Most veterinarian hospitals don’t want to do it, because you can’t mix the animal populations. If you bring in stray animals, you don’t know if they have diseases,” Heineman said. “They brought some stray cats into Pierce one time, and they had diseases and didn’t isolate them, and they had to kill all the cats because the disease spread.”
Councilmember John Partridge told the Municipal Services Committee Monday that he had met recently with local veterinarians who believed the City should have its own animal control program “down the road.” Partridge said they proposed the use of the Montessori building at 10th and Harvey Road for an interim animal shelter that could be used for as long as two years could be ready in six months. Such a facility in a residential neighborhood, however, would have to clear zoning regulations and meet noise and other restrictions, cautioned Deputy Mayor Sue Singer.
====
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.
