Davis County budget hearing reviews animal-care workload, new shelter financing and staffing needs

Michelle Hicks, the new director of Davis County Animal Care, told the Budget Committee that the county’s animal-care workload and some revenue streams have increased in 2025 while key costs and the operating model for a planned new shelter remain uncertain.

Hicks said field and shelter services are the division’s main units and that the department has already recorded more than 4,000 calls in 2025, a level that appears likely to exceed 2024. She said the department recently moved from Chameleon to Animals First software, which provides more precise reporting and may affect year-to-year comparisons.

“The quickest way that I have found that get stray animals or animals that don't belong in a shelter … is having those animals microchipped,” Hicks said, describing microchipping and licensing as priorities to reduce shelter intakes and speed reunifications.

Why it matters: Commissioners focused on how the department will cover operating costs for a new, larger facility planned to begin construction in April 2026, and how funds from a recent tax increase are being used. The committee questioned whether county capital funds should pay construction costs while ongoing operations are funded separately, and how leases, donor gifts and existing revenue sources fit into that model.

Key details from the presentation

- Workload and programs: Hicks said proactive return-to-owner efforts and the foster program have produced measurable results; the department reported 671 pets returned to owners at September adoption events. Staff said the foster program handles neonatal and medically fragile animals that cannot remain in the shelter.

- Licensing revenue and software: The department reported a notable licensing-revenue uptick after contracting with a third-party licensing vendor (DocuPet). Hicks said the department recorded about $38,000 in licensing fees during a large May push and that revenue totals rose further in the following month; she said she will provide more complete year-to-date figures to commissioners.

- Fee schedule: Hicks said the animal-care fee schedule presented to the committee has not changed. (The presentation packet contains the specific fee amounts.)

- New shelter timing and scale: County staff reiterated an April 2026 target to begin site work for a new shelter. Committee members and staff discussed construction and long-term maintenance funding, noting the county used Davis County capital-project dollars for the building’s construction budget.

- Financing and lease-back concept: County staff described a lease-back concept in which Davis County Corporation would own the new building and charge animal care a market lease (presented as an example at $25 per square foot on a roughly 16,000-square-foot building, which would generate about $400,000 annually). That rent would flow back into capital-projects funds to replenish funds used for construction and to cover future major repairs.

- Donations and fundraising: Committee members discussed private fundraising and large donor gifts as possible supplements for program elements such as a clinic, cattery or multipurpose space. Staff recalled a past estate gift (discussed at roughly $215,000 in the meeting) and said the county’s updated donation policy made it easier to accept bequests.

- Veterinary services and contracting: The department currently spends roughly $200,000 a year on contracted veterinary services and emergency care, staff said. Hicks and commissioners discussed shifting some of that spending into personnel to hire an in-house veterinarian (a fully loaded salary figure referenced in the discussion was roughly comparable to current contract costs). Commissioners asked staff to clarify how much professional/technical spending would be avoided by an in-house hire and which emergency or specialty services would still require external contracts.

- Jurisdictional limits and pest control: Committee members and staff noted that wildlife/pest issues (for example, raccoons) are treated as pest-control matters rather than animal-control responses in some cases; staff said responding to a broader pest-control role would require additional positions.

What the committee asked staff to do

- Provide clearer reconciled counts for animals handled in 2024–2025 (staff flagged potential overlap in early metrics and agreed to verify totals).

- Provide a more detailed budget comparison showing current annual contract costs for veterinary services and the projected fully loaded cost of an in-house veterinarian (salary, benefits and supplies), with estimates of any remaining contract spending for emergencies or specialty care.

- Share licensing and call-volume data broken down by city and provide the yearly licensing totals after the DocuPet rollout.

No formal votes or motions were taken on the animal-care budget during the hearing. Commissioners signaled interest in exploring the lease-back model and donor fundraising but asked staff for additional financial detail before any final decisions about funding the shelter’s operations and staffing are made.

Staff and commissioners set follow-up items and a schedule for returning with clarified numbers and options to the committee.