Kent city officials expect to join with other cities to form and pay for a new regional animal care and control service group as King County prepares to get out of the animal-care business by next June.

But any details about how to form or pay for the new service or even where animal shelters might be located remain to be worked out as 32 cities in the county look to replace a service each city contracted with the county to provide.

"We fully endorse a regional approach to this and not each individual city," said John Hodgson, Kent chief administrative officer, in a phone interview Friday. "We're not interested in having our own animal-control program."

Because of county budget shortfalls, County Executive Kurt Triplett proposed Thursday that the county get out of the animal care and shelter business by next June. He wants the cities that contract with the county for animal services to take over the animal-sheltering business.

"We had heard this was being discussed by the county executive during his budget process, so we are not surprised," Hodgson said.

The city of Seattle has its own animal-control officers and operates an animal shelter. Renton has two full-time animal control officers and takes stray animals to the Seattle Humane Society shelter in Bellevue for a three-day holding period.

Kent and most other cities in the county have agreements to allow King County to collect pet license fees in order to provide animal control officers and shelters in Kent and Bellevue.

But the pet-license fees do not cover all of the costs. The county spends about $1.5 million per year from its general fund to pay for animal care and control.

Under Triplett's proposal to the County Council, county officials would reserve $3 million in one-time funding in the 2010 budget to help transition both animal control and sheltering services to new contractors over the next nine months.

The Suburban Cities Association, a regional group with representatives from most of the cities in the county, has had discussions and will continue to meet about alternatives to address taking on animal control and sheltering, Hodgson said.

Whatever regional plan might be proposed, each elected city government will need to approve the new animal care program. Any new plan is expected to cost the cities a chunk of money.

"There's no doubt it will have a financial impact on other programs the city provides," Hodgson said. "But we don't know a (budget) number yet."

Brenda Barnette, chief executive officer of the private, nonprofit Seattle Humane Society, said in a phone interview Friday that her group is ready to talk to the cities about how it can help be part of a new animal-care plan.

"Absolutely, we'd be glad to chat," Barnette said. "If a regional group wants to talk to us, we'd be very happy to talk to them."

Barnette emphasized the Humane Society would not want to take on any animal-control services.

"We would not be able to provide any investigations or animal control to pick up dangerous dogs," Barnette said. "We can do what we do best and that is shelter animals."

Sgt. John Diel, president of the Animal Control Officers Guild that represents 28 county officers, said he likes the idea of a regional group formed by the cities to replace the county in the animal care business.

"I look at it as a positive step forward because we no longer would be under county mandates and the county government," Diel said in a phone interview Friday. "We look forward to it as getting a fresh start."

The County Executive's Office and the County Council have battled over the last couple of years about animal care after a September 2007 citizens committee report called shelter conditions in Kent “deplorable.”

Councilwoman Julia Patterson joined Council members Dow Constantine and Reagan Dunn last October to ask the county executive to find an outside group to run the animal shelter operations.

“I want to thank Kurt Triplett for heeding the call from the (Council) to reform and improve shelter services as well as better protect people from dangerous animals,” said Patterson in a county media release Thursday in response to the proposal by Triplett.

Triplett said the change needs to happen.

“This is a transition or evolution for regional animal care and control, not an ending,” Triplett said in a county media release. “We must phase out the county’s general-fund support for animal control and sheltering because although protecting animals and protecting people from animals are both important, providing animal care and control as a contractor for 32 cities is neither a required nor a core business of King County, nor is it self-sufficient.”

• email
• letter
• print
• follow