HomeMy WebLinkAboutFS 2008-09-16 Item 2C - Discussion - Animal Control IssuesFrom: Dennis Robertson
Subject: Animal Control in Tukwila
Date: September 11, 2008
To: Finance and Safety Committee
Discussion Goal
To determine if there is a need for the City to take different action to provide animal
control service to its citizens.
There are three related issues.
First, is it the City of Tukwila's public safety responsibility to ensure animal control is
provided within its borders? Second, if it is a public safety responsibility of the City's or
the City decides it is willing to take `some' responsibility, is what we are providing today
sufficient? Third, if the City is not satisfied with what it is providing today in the way of
`animal control' what should it do differently?
Discussion
First issue, the City Attorney stated that the City is not, according to Washington State
Code, statutorily responsible for providing animal control services to its citizens. The
City Council in the past was willing to make a policy decision that it would provide
limited animal control evidenced by the interlocal agreements with King County.
Second issue, is what we are providing our citizens today adequate? Does it meet our
policy goals?
Third issue, if we decide we need to do something differently, what are our options?
1. Continue trying to work/contract with King County
2. Partner with a neighboring city
3. Provide the services (street officer, licensing, shelter) ourselves
Hire an officer and/or other staff
Background
The City has received its animal control services from King County with an Interlocal
Agreement that dates back to at least 1993. King County agreed to "Perform consistent
with available resources all services relating to licensing and enforcement of City
ordinances pertaining to animal control as set forth in the City Ordinance 1453.
Compensation for this service was to be all fines and fees collecte3d by the County
pursuant to licensing of dogs, cats, kennels, pet shops, etc.
In 2003 the Interlocal was amended because the City added some `accountability
requirements and wished to supplement animal control services in the form of an
additional 625 hours of animal control officer work per year for approximately $30./hour
budgeted at approximately $30,000. per year.
Since then there have been numerous City (Administration and Council) meetings with
various County animal control officials and staff and various attempts to improve and
refine County support. Issues of major concern were whether King County or City
Animal Control ordinances would be applied by the animal control officers and the
quantity and quality of the animal control services.
Recently citizens have commented to the City that King County Animal Control is very
`unresponsive' to their calls and attempts to receive service for vicious and problem dogs.
In addition, citizens in other jurisdictions have been dissatisfied with King County animal
control services as witnessed by newspaper articles.