Riley County police outline costs, facility needs if animal control shifts from city to county

Riley County Police Department Director Brian Pete told the county commission on May 26 that his department can assume the city’s animal control officer (ACO) functions but recommended written agreements and additional funding to avoid unplanned costs.

Pete said RCPD staff have reviewed operational needs and estimate initial facility conversion and relocation costs if the county absorbs the service. He said two short-term facility options exist in the department’s current building but that building out a ventilated, environmentally controlled kennel or dedicated holding area would likely cost roughly $200,000. He added the county could repurpose a conference/interview room or half of an existing basement storage area but that either option requires funding and planning.

The nut graf: The presentation focused on contingencies the commission must resolve before approving any transfer — chiefly who pays for shelter services, how veterinary and holding costs will be covered, and whether a memorandum of agreement will protect the county budget if the existing shelter contract ends.

Pete reviewed other line items that could grow when the county takes over animal-control work: vehicle insurance and maintenance, medical care for injured animals, and temporary holding costs. He said the city’s existing practice uses a roughly $5,000 line item for medical expenses and that Prairie Paws (the current shelter partner) told him a more realistic starting point for a jurisdiction of this size is $10,000–$12,000 because of emergency vet costs and surgical care. Pete said a fourth ACO, if needed, would add about $63,329 in salary and benefits.

Commission discussion centered on whether the county must accept a transfer if the city adopts a resolution to hand off the program, and on the legal and fiscal risks of using a shelter that sits outside Riley County. Commissioners and staff discussed drafting a letter or formal resolution to the city and the law board expressing the county’s concerns and possible non-support for the transfer absent clear MOAs. The board asked staff to draft a message making the county’s position clear to the law board and city leadership.

Pete recommended that any MOA addressing the transfer include: (1) how shelter and veterinary costs will be shared or reimbursed; (2) contingency plans if the contracted shelter ceases operations; (3) a clear designation of who collects and controls revenue from fees or citations; and (4) performance or funding triggers for adding additional ACO staff. He also said staff will seek insurance-cost estimates and explore partnerships such as foster networks or 501(c)(3) arrangements to reduce operating costs.

The session included requests that the law board consider a separate resolution if it intends to transfer the program; multiple commissioners said they favored a county statement opposing a unilateral transfer at this time. No formal vote was recorded on accepting or rejecting the ACO transfer during the public portion of the meeting.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to draft a letter for the board’s consideration that would convey county concerns to the city and the law board and to continue budget discussions next week with the law board; staff will also pursue additional cost estimates and draft MOA language for future consideration.