Council presses Humane Society contract as city seeks 15% cuts; staff and HSPPR propose two options

City staff told the Pueblo City Council on Sept. 22 that negotiations with the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region (HSPPR) remain unresolved as the mayor’s office presses non‑departmental budget requests to a 15% reduction.

Melissa Cook, director of the Department of Housing and Citizen Services, presented the city’s financial review of HSPPR’s municipal contract and said staff and the Humane Society have held multiple meetings but had not agreed on revenue allocation and which services constitute core city functions.

Cook described the contract as a joint city/county venture that splits costs historically as 60% city and 40% county. She said the city owns the land where the shelter sits and the county owns the physical building. “The way that the city and the county would split the contract,” she said, “60% is to be paid by the city and 40% is to be paid for by the county.”

City staff said a central point of contention is that HSPPR retains adoption and shelter revenue on HSPPR’s books rather than crediting any portion of that revenue back to the municipal contract. “You can see that we were not credited back any of the revenue for that associated, expense,” Cook said, describing HSPPR’s fiscal year June 2024–May 2025 financials.

Staff presented two options HSPPR offered as its final positions: a $2,300,000 contract for sheltering services only, with animal law enforcement to be absorbed by the city, or a roughly $3,300,000 contract for near‑full services that excludes dead‑animal pickup (the city would absorb that specific function). Cook said HSPPR had been unwilling to credit shelter revenues back against the municipal portion of contract expenses and that the organization described that as consistent across its municipal contracts.

Finance Director Danny Nunn joined staff comments on revenue and expense analyses. City staff said that under the June 2024–May 2025 actuals, the municipal contract covered about 74% of sheltering expenses and roughly 59% of veterinary expenses, yet the city received no offset for shelter revenue and adoption fees. Cook told council that, if shelter revenue were allocated to offset municipal expense proportionally, it could reduce the city’s contract obligation by an amount “which would well exceed the 15% that the city was requesting, be reduced.”

HSPPR’s volunteer president (identified in the meeting as President Aleph) addressed the council and urged consideration of the organization’s community role; several HSPPR staff and supporters attended the meeting.

Council members pressed staff and HSPPR for more transparency and for a public meeting. Councilor Flores urged a follow‑up meeting that includes county representatives and HSPPR’s financial explanations; Flores said he wanted to be involved and understand police‑department costs if animal law enforcement were shifted to city agencies. Others noted the timing of the city budget process and asked for full budget context before making a final decision.

Cook told the council HSPPR had offered only one additional meeting to city staff and had requested a decision by Sept. 30; staff asked the council for instruction on whether to accept one of HSPPR’s two options or to seek further negotiation. Several council members said the matter should be resolved in a public work session rather than at the dais.

Council directed staff to place a public work session on the calendar so HSPPR can present and answer questions; the council agreed to schedule a follow‑up meeting on the next available work session (council staff indicated HSPPR sought a decision by Sept. 30). The council did not take a formal vote but set the process for an additional public meeting before final budget adoption.

Key contract and budget details disclosed during the meeting: - Contract split: 60% city / 40% county (as presented by city staff). - HSPPR earlier asked for a large increase compared with 2021 levels; Cook said “The request this year was actually a 61% increase from 2021.” - HSPPR initially proposed a larger increase earlier in the process; staff said the current HSPPR position reduced that request to a near‑10% increase in the offered option while excluding dead animal pickup from the municipal scope. - Two options presented by HSPPR (per staff): $2,300,000 for sheltering only (animal law enforcement to city) and about $3,300,000 for near‑full services excluding dead‑animal pickup.

Council members expressed strong support for HSPPR’s mission while also pressing for transparency on revenues, costs and the fiscal tradeoffs required by the city’s 15% reduction directive. Several council members asked that the county be included in any follow‑up meeting.

The council’s staff packet and financial exhibits were referenced several times; council members requested copies of the materials and more time to review. Staff indicated they would return with the requested HSPPR financial details and the organization will have an opportunity to present directly in a public work session before the budget is finalized.