Architects recommend Site 5 for new Santa Cruz County animal shelter; estimate $9–10 million

David E. Schombach, principal architect at David E. Schombach Architects Inc., told the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 21 that his firm’s feasibility work identified Site 5 as the top location for a new county animal care and control facility and recommended a roughly 10,000-square-foot building and about 1.25 acres for future expansion.

The 10,000–square-foot building would include a secured sally port, an adoption/meet-and-greet area, medical treatment rooms and associated equipment, and an approximately 20,000-square-foot outdoor yard for future kennel expansion. Schombach said the project budget is “$9,000,000 to $10,000,000,” a figure that includes furniture, kennels, medical equipment, security fencing, shade elements, contingency funds and escalation assumptions tied to a late‑2025 construction baseline. He recommended finishing and publishing a full feasibility study to support grant and loan applications, including through the Greater Arizona Development Authority.

The recommendation resulted from an 11-site review in and around Nogales that the architect said was reduced to four finalists by a scoring matrix; Site 5 scored highest (14 points), followed by Site 6B (13 points), Site 2 (12 points) and Site 6A (10 points). Schombach said Site 5’s score reflected roadway access, distance from nearby buildings (to limit noise effects), and proximity to utilities.

Jose Pena, Santa Cruz County animal control manager, described operational reasons the county says it needs a new facility. Pena said the current shelter has 22 kennels and fills “in a week or less,” which forces the shelter to rely heavily on rescues and temporary transfers. “This facility will house about 50 kennels, which will double our capacity,” Pena said. He said the department’s live-release rate has improved substantially and that in recent months the shelter has been “almost close to 90 percent” live-release; he added staff consider a larger, modern facility necessary to sustain that rate.

Mary Dahl, special projects coordinator, addressed a potential land-lease constraint raised by supervisors. Dahl said the federal recreation-public-purpose lease covering certain county parcels “includes administrative functions of county government,” and that animal care and control would fall under that category, which she said should reduce the risk of a lease-based impediment to siting the facility on the recommended parcel.

Supervisors and other participants pressed on funding, cost escalation and siting. Board remarks recalled earlier cost estimates that began near $1 million five years ago, then rose to roughly $4 million in later planning, and now sit in the $9–10 million range; Schombach and staff said escalation reflects site work, earthwork, utility extensions and included contingencies. Schombach said the building’s raw construction cost would be materially less than the total project figure once site preparation is separated from building cost, and estimated the building portion might be nearer to $400 per square foot after site development.

The presentation did not include a formal board vote on site selection or funding. Schombach said next steps include confirming a site selection, completing the published feasibility study for use in fundraising/prospectus materials, pursuing grants/loans, finalizing architectural and engineering contracts, completing construction documents and then bidding and construction. He proposed a target to publish the feasibility study in late 2025 to support funding applications and potential construction starts in early 2026 if funding is secured.