Claws come out over Burien CARES as city council debate deepens

EDITOR’S NOTE (Oct. 29, 2025): An earlier version of this story may have left the impression that Washington Health Outreach is seeking Burien’s animal control contract. Washington Health Outreach Board President Anna Ludwig clarified that the organization has never expressed interest in such a contract and does not have facilities or capacity to provide animal control services. The article has been updated to reflect this clarification.

The controversy swirling around Burien CARES, the non-profit organization tasked with local animal control, concerns accusations of neglect and whispers of political vendettas.

This investigation explores the undercurrents of a community divided around a shared concern for animals. On the surface, it’s all about a handful of negative public health reports, but look deeper and you’ll find a minefield of accusations and a bitter, years-long feud tied up with homelessness and land use.

When concerned citizens came recently to a Burien City Council meeting with claims of disturbing levels of incompetence at the shelter, councilmembers wondered whether there was a breach of contract or if this organization was being unfairly targeted. But while the council argued over what could be asked of contractors, another question emerged: Is the outrage driven by genuine concern for the animals, or is it a calculated attempt to sink the shelter?

If you appreciate our award-winning, local, independent journalism:

Allegations of Malfeasance at Burien CARES

CARES is currently at the center of public anger and concern following the circulation of several “Unsatisfactory” King County Public Health inspection reports, which have been circulated by the president of another animal service (view/download the Oct. 30, 2024 one here). The reports sparked significant community concern over animal welfare at the facility, leading a number of advocates and residents to speak out at the Oct. 20 city council meeting.

The issues raised at the meeting include “disturbing” problems requiring “robust overhaul” such as the “failure to follow and maintain an infection control plan” and general “malfeasance and incompetence.” Speakers warned that animals at CARES are not being provided with adequate food and water, or appropriate vaccinations. They asked for periodic public updates from this organization; they wanted greater transparency from the tax-funded organization, whose contract is valued at $276,725 per year.

One CARES volunteer spoke during public comment, asking that the organization be granted the opportunity to give a presentation to the council and the public. She described this small operation as filled to capacity, and said the need for animal services has only increased with a worsening economy. She said CARES staff would like to give a public presentation, rather than have to field endless calls, questions, and visits from each member of the council and public individually.

While there seemed to be consensus about the desire to have a presentation from CARES, subsequent council discussion became deeply fractured, revealing a complex mix of community concern, political friction, and differing views on accountability for the city’s contracted service providers. Jimmy Matta, Stephanie Mora, Hugo Garcia, and Deputy Mayor Sarah Moore favored a presentation from CARES along with other major contractors. On the other side, Linda Akey, Alex Andrade, and Mayor Kevin Schilling worried about the fairness of singling out organizations, with Akey asserting the request felt “politically motivated.” The discussion went on so long that no vote was taken, and eventually the acting city attorney cut in to say that they would need to table the discussion for “legal review.”

The Political Undercurrent: Animal Shelter vs. Unhoused

Some supporters of CARES suggest that the controversy may be tied to competition over the city’s $276,725 animal control contract. Opponents dispute this, saying their concerns are strictly about animal welfare. Washington Health Outreach, whose president obtained public information requests about CARES and shared inspection reports, has clarified it is not seeking the city contract and does not provide animal control services.

The red notes on the inspection reports did ring alarm bells, but I later learned from the public health department that each concern has been addressed properly. While Public Health – Seattle & King County confirmed that cited issues were promptly corrected, a lingering question remains: Why is the negative sentiment about this organization so strong among some within the community?

As I researched the organization, the suspicion arose that the controversy is not merely about animal care, but about the $276,725 city contract. Is the goal to bring down the organization and ruin CARES so the animal control contract is given to another service provider? CARES Executive Director Debra George said she didn’t think this likely, as the money from the city contract is not enough to keep it running; CARES is also powered through constant fundraising and donations.

It could be that, as Councilmember Akey said in Monday’s meeting, the motivation is political. A few years ago a homeless camp, which had been stationed around the Burien Library for months, was forced to relocate for the safety of library staff and patrons. A couple of homeless advocates helped the campers move to the corner of 6th Ave SW and SW 152nd Street. This spot in the heart of Downtown Burien had previously been an unofficial dog park. For some time this corner became a homeless camp, with over 50 residents tightly packed in a jumble of tents and tarps. Neighbors and businesses continually voiced frustrations about impacts to public safety. They argued that the camp was a hotbed of drug use and crime.

When the city decided to clear the camp and lease the land to Burien CARES to become an official dog park, advocates for the homeless were angered and concerned for the campers. They argued that the homeless service providers would not be able to find and help this population if they scattered to new locations. When CARES Director George spent the day cleaning up the vacated corner, she said, the area was rife with evidence of fentanyl use.

More recently, CARES has been accused of taking pets away from the homeless. Accusers assert that CARES assumes the homeless are not fit to care for pets, and will remove an animal from its owner without just cause. When talking about this issue at the facility, I was told that CARES is responsible for collecting lost, loose dogs. They do what they can to return pets to their families. Their website says they have a “remarkable” 65% return-to-owner rate. Some of these returned dogs belong to people who are homeless. 

CARES staff respect the ownership of an animal, whatever their circumstances, but they do charge a fee for repeatedly having to collect an errant pet. The fees to return a lost pet to its owner can be onerous, with rates for nuisance pets running from $50 up to $1,000, depending on the number of occurrences. People in the community have sometimes helped the unhoused with these costs in order to get their pets back.

CARES staff painted a sobering picture of animal welfare in local encampments, stating that the lack of stability can be detrimental and even toxic to a pet. Animals are frequently shuffled between owners and rarely microchipped, leading to difficulty tracing ownership. Staff also raised concerns about dogs being intentionally trained to be aggressive, and noted evidence of uncontrolled breeding within tent camps and at facilities like DESC.

If you appreciate our award-winning, local, independent journalism:

Inside the Shelter

CARES Director George met with me at the animal shelter on Friday, Oct. 24. She said the scrutiny from the public had been intense. They had to put a freeze on training new volunteers, because a number of concerned citizens were signing up to “volunteer” with the aim of undermining the organization. 

George showed me the most recent health inspection report from August, which had been marked “Complete.” Kate Cole, of Public Health – Seattle & King County, explained to me that inspections are not “Pass or Fail”, but rather “Complete or Unsatisfactory.” If marked Unsatisfactory, then steps must be taken to get in compliance with health codes.

Cole said, “It is not uncommon for our team to identify areas needing improvement when inspecting animal shelters.” She added that CARES has been working with her team to address a number of issues identified during inspections, and has resolved the issues cited in the 2024 inspection. CARES has not had its permit revoked, and the facility continues to operate and work to improve issues as they arise.

George walked me through the facility, pointing out things that had been called out during inspections. She acknowledged citations for issues such as inadequate food and water or waste found in enclosures. She attributed these incidents to timing, such as a water bowl being knocked over or a puppy soiling just before inspection. Critics argue, however, that these findings reflect larger concerns about whether staffing levels are sufficient to ensure consistent animal care. I was assured that they are providing all necessary care for the animals in their facility.

George pointed out a spot on the wall where the paint had been chipped off, noting that a dog had just done this the day before, and they hadn’t gotten to fixing it yet. She said if there was a random health inspection today, that spot would be called out. Clutter has been a recurring issue in inspection reports. While CARES attributes this to the volume of donations and supplies coming in and out, some community members argue that clutter may compromise cleanliness and safety in the shelter environment.

I was told that while they do not have an on site vet at CARES, a veterinarian visits each week to tend to the animals and administer appropriate vaccinations. In addition, they will transport animals to area vets as needed for immediate care. I was assured that animals are properly neutered or spayed and vaccinated before they are adopted out.

George told me she would be more than happy to present the work of CARES to the council, they just haven’t asked. She also showed me the monthly report the organization submits to their liaison at the city, tracking all the animals taken in and adopted out, along with revenue from fees.

Ultimately, the controversy reflects broader questions about accountability, transparency, and the city’s role in overseeing contracted service providers. Whether the debate is primarily about animal welfare, political disputes, or both remains a point of contention in Burien.

The next move rests with the city attorney and, subsequently, the city council, which must decide whether to grant the public presentation that many stakeholders, including CARES, have requested.

If you appreciate our award-winning, local, independent journalism: