Years ago, Flynn had owned a cocker spaniel, and when it came time to put the animal down, Flynn went to the Humane Society Silicon Valley. "They were really tremendous," Flynn says.

The 76-year-old Flynn returned to the Humane Society in September 2003—this time to find a dog to take home. And right away he met Elvis, an 8-year-old Siberian husky/German shepherd mix.

Elvis had been at the Humane Society for 77 days by then, a stray who had had no luck in finding a home. He'd been picked up in Milpitas by police officers who found him tied to a post. At the time, he was wearing a collar with a phone number, but when Humane Society staff called, the number had been disconnected.

It didn't take long for Flynn to decide that Elvis was the companion for him. In the months since, the dog has had to have an abscessed tooth removed and endured two operations. Under the policy of the Humane Society, Flynn could have taken him back—but he declined. "He's quite a dog," Flynn says.

An empty nest

The Humane Society Silicon Valley is where, for the past few decades, most of the cities in Santa Clara County have housed their strays and where they've gone for their animal-control services.

All that's about to change, however, as early as this summer, when the city of San Jose is scheduled to open its new animal-care center on Monterey Highway. The cities of Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga will join in the effort.

About 90 percent of the animals at the Humane Society will move to the new center, leaving behind the strays picked up from Santa Clara, Campbell, Monte Sereno and Sunnyvale.

And within two years, those animals, too, should be gone: Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority—an independent joint agency—hopes to have its own shelter open by spring 2006. Originally formed by seven cities, SVACA will be operated by just three of those cities—Santa Clara, Campbell and Monte Sereno—starting July 1.

Sunnyvale, on the other hand, decided in 2003 to leave SVACA and look to the city of Palo Alto to house its strays. But because Palo Alto needs to remodel its shelter to accommodate Sunnyvale, the city will keep its animals at the Humane Society until the remodel is complete.

These changes mean the Humane Society will finally be able to focus on its primary goal—something it's been trying to do for the past six years."The core of our mission ... is adoption, spay/neutering and education," says Christine Benninger, president of the Humane Society Silicon Valley. "The basic mission of animal control is to protect people from animals. The mission of the Humane Society is essentially the opposite."

Losing the battle

The Humane Society's struggle to separate itself from animal-control services goes back to late 1998, when the state of California approved Senate Bill 1785, a "No-Kill" bill sponsored by then-Sen. Tom Hayden, that changed the way animal-care providers would operate.

"The new policy is to maximize efforts at saving the lives of lost and stray animals," Hayden said recently. "It includes partnerships with activist adoption groups and mandates longer, flexible times for keeping animals before killing them ... It has become a lightning rod in a culture war over the commitment and resources we give to the abandoned animals in society's care."

Jon Cicirelli, San Jose's deputy director of animal care and services, says the key component of SB 1785 was to increase the amount of time organizations were required to hold strays before euthanizing them. Before the bill took effect, strays had to be held for 72 hours; after, the requirement was four days plus the day of surrender—essentially five or up to six days, depending on the hours of the facility. The holding requirement also applied to owner-surrendered animals. Previously there was no holding requirement for those animals.

An important element of the bill was a requirement that facilities provide nutrition, shelter and prompt veterinary care, including spaying and neutering prior to adoption.

The idea for the bill originated in 1996, when Hayden unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Los Angeles; the race exposed him to animal-care issues in the city.

"I was shocked by the figure of 65,000 dogs and cats killed by shelters in L.A. yearly," Hayden says.

According to a case study of the bill, by Sarah Balcom from Tufts University's Center for Animals and Public Policy, the bill faced much opposition, and no one expected it to pass because of its high costs. Most animal-care organizations—including the California Animal Control Directors Association—opposed the bill, as did the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties.

"As a result, shelters assembled very little active opposition to the bill and contributed very little to it," Balcom wrote. Balcom says, "Many legislators voted for SB 1785 as a way of showing their concern for animal-welfare issues, believing that the governor would not sign it ... SB 1785 virtually sailed through the California Legislature."

Benninger says the law forced the local Humane Society to spend more of its resources on unadoptable animals and less on adoptable animals. "Many more adoptable animals have to be euthanized to make space for the unadoptable animals," she says. The end result was that more, not fewer, animals were euthanized.

Cicirelli says Hayden's bill led to an inability to control animals because dogs had to be doubled up in kennels. He remembers constantly breaking up dog fights at his Southern California shelter.

Dan Soszynski, executive director of SVACA, was with Santa Cruz SPCA at the time and says the SPCA had to euthanize adoptable dogs because of injuries suffered in fights.

"I don't think anybody would argue with you that it's not a good idea to hold animals for a longer period of time," Cicirelli says. Those in the animal-care business would love to hold animals for 10 or 20 days, he says, but in some cases that is not healthy nor practical.

Cicirelli also points out that more animals crowding the shelters led to higher overhead. An increase from a 72-hour to a six-day holding period meant that "by 66 percent, you've increased the cost of sheltering animals," he says. "Had this bill given out money and time to improve infrastructure, I think you would find a more accepting animal-control, animal-welfare community."

Going in different directions

The Humane Society Silicon Valley announced in December 1998 that it would terminate its contracts with cities—due in part to SB 1785, but also because it wanted to move away from animal control to focus on a more humane purpose.

Benninger told the cities, however, that the termination of the contracts was not immediate but was an eventual goal. She asked the cities to help facilitate the transition. Today, all of the cities still house their animals at the Humane Society.

After the Humane Society's announcement, the nine cities started discussions about forming their own agency.

The talks failed when San Jose insisted on having more than 50 percent of the vote because it would produce most of the animals in the proposed shelter and fund a majority of the costs.

San Jose left the partnership, forming its own animal-care division and planning its own shelter together with the city of Milpitas.

Meanwhile, the other seven cities formed the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. The board hired a staff and took over animal-control services for the cities in July 2001. Sunnyvale was the exception, maintaining its own animal control and looking to SVACA only for sheltering services.

Soszynski says that at first, the board was amenable to a shelter with a projected $8 million to $8.5 million price tag.

"And that's when the economy started to tank," he says. "As the economy started to change, everybody really started to reevaluate their animal-service needs." In the midst of budgetary woes, SVACA scaled down its shelter plan, bringing the price down to $5.7 million.

On March 18, 2003, Sunnyvale became the first city to opt out of SVACA.

The city felt that it was paying more than its fair share, says Sunnyvale Public Safety Capt. Greg Kevin, who was on SVACA's technical advisory committee in 2003. "We had some concerns about the way SVACA had done their accounting."

Going with San Jose was not an option because at the time, Kevin says, "they weren't entertaining bids from other agencies." And, "it made more geographic sense for Sunnyvale to be aligned with Palo Alto."

Sunnyvale would have had to pay an estimated $2.2 million to help fund construction of SVACA's new shelter; in contrast, Sunnyvale will have to pay $1.1 million as its share of the Palo Alto shelter's remodel. And while operating costs with Palo Alto for the first year—2005­2006—will be $20,000 higher than they would be with SVACA, Kevin says, they should be $50,000 lower than with SVACA for every following year.

With Sunnyvale's departure, other cities also began to rethink their commitment with SVACA. Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga pulled out; all three cited financial reasons.

Those cities still attend the organization's meetings, however, to discuss reimbursement. In the joint powers agreement, cities that leave are entitled to get back a portion of the net profit in the years that they contributed to SVACA. While the exact number still needs to be hammered out, Kevin says, "It'll be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Three cities remain with SVACA: Campbell, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara. Soszynski says the agency is reworking its shelter plan based on capacity from three cities instead of seven, but SVACA has gone ahead and purchased a building in Santa Clara.

New digs

Soszynski's plan for SVACA to open a shelter in March 2006 coincides with the Humane Society's vision to open its facility in Milpitas by April of the same year.

Benninger says the current shelter doesn't fit the values of the Humane Society. She envisions a place that people want to visit on a regular basis and one where they can share experiences.

"You won't see chain link, you won't see cement, because all of that communicates backyard," she says. "We want to break the mold of a traditional animal shelter." The animal community center will have a dog park, performance stage, areas for education on pet training and gallerias for people to visit with the animals.

Instead of accepting all animals that are turned in, the Humane Society will have a selection process, choosing only adoptable strays from SVACA and San Jose.

The fundraising process, in its "silent phase"—where Benninger is working with target individuals to obtain investments in a Founders Fund—has raised about a third of the $25 million needed for construction and for endowment. Some of the money will be raised through the sale of the Humane Society's Santa Clara facility.

San Jose is close to finishing its 52,000-square-foot animal-care center. The $18 million project will see approximately 20,000 animals each year and be an open-door facility, accepting all animals that the public turns in, Cicirelli says. "That shelter is the largest single shelter in California, which puts it in the running as one of the largest shelters in the United States."

According to Kerrie Watkins, operations supervisor for the San Jose shelter, the new building is a far cry from the old dog-pound design.

With the shelter's courtyard, classrooms and cat-socializing rooms, Watkins says she hopes to eventually provide obedience courses and agility training. "Primarily, it's a city shelter, so we've got to focus on our job, but I want to focus on education as well," she says. "We've got to get the basics first and do it well."

Cicirelli says the shelter will start by offering spay/neuter procedures to rescue groups at a fraction of normal costs and in the future will do pet vaccinations. "Ideally, in the long term, we would be able to attract donations to support this program," he says.

It may sound like the shelter's goals compete with the Humane Society's goals, Cicirelli says. But there is a sameness of purpose with the animal-care groups—putting animals first. "This isn't about you and me. It's about us as leaders in the animal-welfare organizations in the community," Cicirelli says.

"It's very, very important that we communicate together," Watkins says. "It used to be shelters versus nonprofits. We can't have that anymore. That has to go out the window ... It's important that we develop relationships and communication."

Undoing the law

With major changes happening in the local animal-care scene, a twist has entered the equation: the "No-Kill" bill may be suspended for the next fiscal year.

According to Cicirelli, when the state passes a mandate, it also must provide funding for it. Cities across California have submitted claims to the state for SB 1785, asking for reimbursement. "Our contract fees with the Humane Society went up as a result of this law. That's a claim against the state," he says. "All of these claims go into a pile and the state doesn't pay them."

As a result of the budget crisis in California, the proposed state budget for 2004­2005 could slash funding for SB 1785. "When the state suspends funding on something, local governments are no longer required to follow it," says Nancy Patton, staff services manager for the Commission on State Mandates.

A special committee, chaired by Assemblyman John Laird, examined the Hayden bill but couldn't recommend suspending funding because of some unanswered questions. "It's a big mess," Laird says. "But if the governor proposed no money, that would effectively suspend the mandate for year."

What would happen, then, if SB 1785 were suspended for a year?

Cicirelli says animal services would probably not decrease the holding period for strays. However, San Jose would most likely not hold owner-surrendered animals, instead making a quick decision to either euthanize the animals or put them up for adoption.

As for SVACA, Soszynski says, "Immediately, it would affect us because we could go back and renegotiate our contract with the Humane Society [for a lower cost]. As far as our field operations go, I don't think it would impact anything."

Benninger says some good has come of the Hayden bill.

"We have created more holding space in the state of California," she says, pointing to the state's new shelters. Benninger has also seen cities fund more medical care for animal treatment.

"In hindsight, has it really made a difference in the state? Are the animals better off? I can't really say," Benninger says. "Our commitment has always been to find homes for 100 percent of our adoptable animals. What Hayden did is make that job more difficult."

Cicirelli says the bill lacked structure and explicit instruction. "Tom Hayden was right," he says. "The intent was good. But there were some bad parts in it."

Soszynski agrees. "It's very well-intentioned and it's something we're all striving to do—not to kill animals."