Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs committee review after divided comments over proposed city animal shelter site
Summary
Council accepted mayor’s recommendation to advance analysis of a proposed shelter site at Bear Creek Park/Itasca to a committee of the whole, after debate over alternatives, county participation and aesthetics of the park entrance.
The Superior Common Council voted Dec. 18 to send mayoral recommendations on a proposed city animal shelter to a committee of the whole for further study, after weeks of site search and public comment that included county and nonprofit stakeholders.
Mary Higgins, leading the city’s animal-shelter advisory work, briefed the council on site-selection history. She said the originally preferred site near the airport (40 Sixth and Tower Avenue) would require lengthy Bureau of Aeronautics and FAA approvals, so the committee is recommending Bear Creek Park/Itasca as a site that “has all the attributes that 1 would want and wish for” and that public-works soil borings and site-prep work are already under way.
Council debate was sharply split on the park location. Councilor Bridal said she strongly opposes the Bear Creek Park location, arguing it would “clog up our … nice park” at the city’s entrance and is not centrally located for most residents. Supporters said finding a buildable, fundable site has been difficult after four years of work and that naming a site would help fundraising. Vice President McKenzie noted prior consultant work recommending a single, combined shelter for Douglas County rather than continuing separate facilities.
Public commenters urged including county towns and the county Humane Society in planning and funding. Jean Kioski of the Humane Society of Douglas County said the society had been informed of large bequests and “we believe that if we were included in the new shelter for 02/2013, that we could give a substantial amount to the capital campaign.” Tom Johnson, representing town interests, asked the council to “include the county and the towns and villages in your discussion in the future.”
Councilor Olsen moved — and the council approved — a motion to send the mayor’s recommendations to the committee of the whole for coordinated review (finance, public works and other committees as appropriate) and to return with deeper analysis and cost/feature studies. The mayor had asked that the committee report back by the third Tuesday in February, though councilors noted that schedule may conflict with Superior Days and will be adjusted.
Higgins said the next steps include site analysis, cost estimates for building and operations and coordination of a capital campaign; city staff will bring more detailed design and cost information to the committee for review.
Outcome: motion to forward recommendations to committee of the whole approved; no final site selection or construction authorization was made at the Dec. 18 meeting.
