Washtenaw County staff warn animal control is a service the county values but a growing budget problem

Deputy County Administrator Andrew DeLu told the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners on May 6 that the county’s animal control system is functioning but under financial strain, and that decision makers must resolve a growing funding gap ahead of a contract renewal in 2027.

DeLu’s presentation laid out the distinction between the county’s narrow statutory mandate — limited largely to seized animals in cruelty cases and minimum hold periods — and the broader set of services the county currently pays for through its contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), including stray intake, medical care and adoption services. DeLu said HSHV has handled roughly 28,000 intakes from mid‑2017 through 2025 and that more than half of intakes originate with the public.

Why this matters: the county moved several years ago from a fixed‑price contract to a full cost‑recovery model. That change, plus the county’s role as the lead contracting entity for multiple jurisdictions, means the county’s contribution has grown from under $1 million in earlier cycles to about $1.8 million in the current contract year and projected to exceed $2 million by 2027. DeLu said the county’s general‑fund contribution (about $1.16 million) and local revenues (about $210,000) leave a structural shortfall that administration has been trying to close through outside revenues and contractual approaches.

Administration presented options rather than a proposal. Among the alternatives DeLu described: (1) negotiating a cost‑sharing formula that would have the county pick up a portion of the contract and bill other jurisdictions for their proportionate share based on where animals originate; (2) pursuing greater dog‑licensing compliance and the related civil infraction enforcement as a revenue source; (3) renegotiating hold periods or other contract provisions that drive days‑of‑care costs; and (4) evaluating whether a county‑operated shelter is financially feasible. DeLu said a minimal, budget‑conscious county shelter would still likely cost more than the current net contract after capital costs and staffing were included, in large part because HSHV already owns and operates a facility.

Several commissioners pushed for clearer, per‑animal accounting. Commissioner (Ravi) said he has requested a per‑day cost to shelter each animal for years and urged a contract with transparent unit costs; DeLu answered that the county uses audited HSHV financials and an allocation method based on days of care and intake types but has not forced HSHV to produce a single simple per‑day figure acceptable to the board. Other commissioners cited equity concerns for small jurisdictions that lack taxable bases and asked whether an ordinance or other enforcement could raise licensing revenue.

Public comment and discussion noted trade‑offs. City of Ypsilanti Manager Andrew Helanga asked the board to account for the fiscal constraints of smaller municipalities, and public commenters later reiterated concern that shifting costs to local jurisdictions could disproportionately affect communities with limited tax capacity.

What comes next: staff asked for guidance and said they will return with additional data — including jurisdictional revenue tallies, a clearer breakdown of the county’s cost‑allocation method, and more recent performance metrics tied to county‑contract animals — to inform negotiations ahead of the 2027 contract renewal. No formal action was taken at the meeting.