Council holds animal shelter portion of CIP after county, townships and donors discuss possible support

The Superior City Council separated the animal-shelter project from the capital improvement program (CIP) and voted to hold that portion in committee while discussions continue with county officials, townships and prospective donors.

The CIP as revised was otherwise approved by councilors. Councilor Bridal moved to hold the animal-shelter portion in committee; Councilor McKenzie seconded the motion and councilors voted in favor. Councilors also approved a friendly amendment to preserve the option to expand the shelter later if the county, towns or capital campaign deliver extra funding.

Why it matters: Council members and presenters said the shelter is an important regional service for the city and Douglas County, but the city cannot shoulder the full cost of a larger facility without commitments from other governments and donors. Sheltering choices affect operations, future operating costs and whether nearby nonprofit shelters can remain open.

What the council heard Representatives from Animal Allies and the Humane Society of Douglas County urged the council to delay any decision to downsize. Rick Salestak of Animal Allies said the organizations advising the project have cautioned ‘‘not to overbuild’’ but also warned that ‘‘underbuilding will harm the animals in your community for years and years to come.’’ He asked the council to ‘‘table the animal shelter portion of the CIP at this time’’ while the county, townships and capital campaign solidified commitments.

Marcy Barbee, treasurer of the Humane Society of Douglas County, told councilors that the Humane Society serves roughly 300–400 animals a year and that fundraising has declined; she said a smaller facility could jeopardize the nonprofit’s ability to continue operations and that the group needed more time to secure county operating commitments.

Township and county officials voiced support for collaboration. Roger Letourneau, a Town of Superior board supervisor, said several towns have pledged annual contributions and that the county chair, Doug Finn, had signaled willingness to meet again to find operating funds. County Chair Doug Finn addressed the meeting and said the county donated a parcel for the project and is willing to cooperate; he cautioned that the county’s ability to provide significant capital funding would be limited.

Finance and project details discussed Staff materials and speakers described a revised city CIP allocation of $2,300,000 for the shelter, a figure that includes capital-campaign commitments to date (described in the materials as about $110,000). The project had earlier been scoped at roughly 10,000–11,000 square feet on a different Tower Avenue site, with professional estimates for that site approaching $3.8 million once site work and access were included. To reduce the city’s capital exposure, council and staff had proposed a smaller facility (approximately 6,300 square feet) and a funding package built around bonding, capital campaign donations and partner contributions.

City staff and an assistant director cautioned that operating costs will rise for a larger facility; one staffer indicated minimum operating estimates near $160,000 per year. A county/town contribution model mentioned a possible shared monthly contribution figure during discussion, but staff said that number had not been formally agreed and should not be relied upon in the city’s budget planning. Director Deidle said she had ‘‘never heard of an $850 a month charge’’ as a sufficient county contribution and urged caution.

Council action and next steps Councilor Bridal moved and the council approved holding the animal-shelter portion of the CIP in committee and directed staff and council leaders to continue negotiations with Douglas County, the towns and prospective donors. The council also approved the remainder of the CIP as presented, with the city retaining the option to increase the shelter allocation should outside funding be secured.

Ending: Councilors asked staff to pursue additional fundraising and intergovernmental agreements and to return with updated cost estimates and recommended terms for town and county participation before finalizing the shelter scope and funding.