JASCOM review finds current animal shelter failing; new 20,000-square-foot facility estimated at $33M–$41.5M

Joint Animal Services commissioners heard detailed findings and a concept plan for a new regional animal shelter Thursday, after a multi‑year facilities study concluded the current Lacey facility is functionally failing and undersized.

The presentation, led by Joint Animal Services staff and consultants from Animal Arts and the City of Lacey, said an updated facilities condition assessment identified immediate repairs of roughly $684,000 (2025 dollars) and near‑term repairs approaching $937,000. Consultants presented a refined concept for a one‑story, roughly 19,000–20,000 square‑foot shelter with an attached veterinary clinic option, site layouts, and a budget range of about $33 million to $41.5 million depending on site work and whether a veterinary clinic is included.

Why it matters: Commissioners were told continuing to operate in the current 8,000‑square‑foot building will increase costs over time and consume reserves that could be used for construction. The decision affects operations, standards of care and long‑term capital needs for the four jurisdictions that fund JASCOM.

Joint Animal Services Executive Director Sarah Hawk summarized the assessment and the building‑condition history, telling commissioners the existing facility was rated poorly in the 2022 capital facilities plan and that continued occupancy requires escalating emergency repairs.

Consultant Ashley Smith, City of Lacey engineering design manager, described schedule and phasing expectations and offered a timeline: “If a new facility was fully funded, it would be about 2 years before we'd probably break ground,” she said, noting an additional roughly 18 months of construction would follow. Smith and the consultant team said realistic project timing from today to occupancy would likely exceed three years and stressed the need to advance site acquisition and design funding concurrently.

Design and program highlights: Consultants said the final concept reduces the footprint from earlier estimates (initially as high as 30,000 sq ft) to about 19,000–20,000 sq ft while keeping room for growth. The plan separates dog and cat zones, includes isolation and recovery/holding kennels inside the veterinary area, dedicated volunteer and staff spaces, a sally port for field‑team vehicle loading, and pathways to minimize animal stress and disease transmission.

On veterinary services, staff presented the tradeoffs of including an in‑building clinic. “The benefits to having a built‑in veterinary space are first and foremost is we would actually be meeting standards of care,” Sarah Hawk said, adding that a clinic would allow concurrent surgeries, exams and post‑op monitoring. The consultants estimated the in‑building veterinary suite would add roughly $2 million to $3.5 million to construction costs.

Costs and funding: The presentation broke the estimate into construction ($15.5M–$17.8M for the building shell and systems), site acquisition ($1M–$4M depending on parcel), site development (widely variable by parcel), and soft costs (design, permitting, equipment, moving). Consultants presented an overall range of approximately $33.0M–$41.5M. Staff identified potential local contributions including roughly $1.0M in JASCOM reserves, an estimated $3.0M from the sale of the existing property, potential grants and donations (roughly $500,000 estimated), and a regional legislative ask for $2.0M to advance schematic design.

Next steps and finance options: Staff recommended jurisdictions weigh site acquisition strategies and financing options, including a bond or loan repaid on a per‑capita basis per the interlocal agreement. Hawk told commissioners the legislative $2 million, if awarded, would buy schematic and design development work and reduce jurisdictional share of those costs. Commissioners were asked to take the materials back to their respective legislative bodies and to continue discussions about financing and site priorities.

Discussion points and constraints: Commissioners and staff discussed site shape, proximity to service areas (consultants prioritized sites within about a 15‑minute drive of Lacey city limits), and the operational downsides of a two‑story facility (elevators, vertical animal movement and plumbing constraints). Presenters said the concept is intentionally single‑story to control operating and lifecycle costs. Consultants also noted potential constraints on the existing site — limited usable acreage due to wetlands and flood zones, safety incidents at the current location, and the need to remain operational during any on‑site construction — and said commissioners had previously agreed the existing site is not a viable option for full replacement.

No formal vote was taken. Commission leadership asked staff to continue refining site options, return with any identified parcels and more detailed site‑specific cost comparisons, and advance financial planning with partner jurisdictions.