Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County counselor urges interlocal agreement to clarify animal‑control roles as Prairie Paws contract renews
Summary
County legal counsel told commissioners that if county law enforcement takes on animal‑control duties, the arrangement should be an interlocal agreement that clarifies ownership and operations; staff also discussed current payments to Prairie Paws and the need for coordinated city/county ordinances.
Riley County’s legal counsel advised commissioners that any transfer of animal‑control responsibilities to county law enforcement should be governed by a written interlocal agreement clarifying which government owns facilities and what services each party will perform.
The discussion came as commissioners and staff reviewed the Prairie Paws animal shelter contract and debated funding while the county and cities consider how animal control duties should be provided in the future.
County Counselor Bridal Parker told the commission the county should avoid assuming ownership of a city‑owned shelter and described an interlocal agreement as the appropriate vehicle: “If one or more governments is participating in an interlocal agreement and has the power to do something, then all of the participants would have that power,” Parker said, adding that a written agreement would also make clear the county would not be responsible for ongoing facility maintenance if it does not own the shelter.
Officials said Prairie Paws had been documenting animals voluntarily surrendered from Riley County and surrounding jurisdictions while the county currently lacks a full animal‑control pickup system. Staff reported the current contract period and payment review would reach a milestone “as of the end of this month,” with March 1 identified as the date when the county would set an amount for future remuneration.
Commissioners and staff discussed the need to harmonize city and county ordinances and enforcement practices. One commissioner noted past discrepancies between city and county animal codes, and counsel advised the county could draft a model ordinance to help smaller municipalities adopt consistent rules.
County staff said they would present current contract numbers and proposals to the commission at a future meeting to seek direction on negotiation and any changes to funding. No final decision to transfer animal control duties to Riley County Police Department was made at the meeting; staff said a detailed study and law‑board discussions remain ongoing to determine whether RCPD will assume services and how costs and facilities would be handled.
