Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Psers Eligibility Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee opens study of PSERS eligibility for animal control officers after testimony from Snohomish County staff
Summary
Staff briefed the committee on PSERS eligibility rules and statutory lists; Snohomish County animal control officers testified they were placed in—and later removed from—PSERS and urged reconsideration. Staff said additional data gathering and legal review are needed before any policy change.
Committee staff briefed members on whether animal control officers meet criteria for the Public Safety Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) and received public testimony from Snohomish County animal control officers urging restoration of PSERS membership.
Aaron Gutierrez, committee staff, explained PSERS’s original intent (limited-authority law enforcement) and the current three-part test staff is using for eligibility: (1) full-time employment, (2) performance of specified job duties (for example, limited-authority law enforcement, certain corrections duties, 9-1-1 dispatch), and (3) employment with a PSERS employer. Gutierrez told the committee that DRS data do not include job titles, which complicates automatic identification of who should be in PSERS and requires additional outreach and data work.
Multiple witnesses from Snohomish County described on-the-job risks and said they had previously been placed in PSERS around 2004–05 and were removed by DRS in 2021. Rich Wiersma said Snohomish County animal control officers regularly respond to volatile scenes, work with law enforcement and sometimes face felony-level incidents; C. R. West, a senior animal control officer, described animal-cruelty investigations and the emotional and safety toll of the work and said entry to PSERS would provide earlier retirement options and improved disability protections.
Staff noted statutory references and employer lists in the presentation (transcript cited RCW references shown in staff slides) and said some jurisdictions employ animal-control functions through police departments while others use parks, code-enforcement or third-party humane societies, creating statutory and practical complexity. Committee members asked staff to pursue additional analysis: identify employing agencies, determine how many officers meet PSERS job-duty tests and evaluate cost and equity implications if PSERS membership were extended or restored.
No formal vote was taken on eligibility. Staff recommended continued data gathering and consultation with statewide associations and actuaries before the committee considers any statutory recommendation or legislative change.
