Commissioners authorize preliminary planning for new Multnomah County animal services facility

The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve a FAC‑1 preliminary planning proposal that authorizes siting analysis, community engagement and procurement of architectural and engineering services for a potential new county animal services facility.

Commissioners and staff described the existing Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) shelter as outdated, undersized and unable to meet industry standards for medical isolation, quarantine and humane care. Erin Greyheck, director of MCAS, cited the 2022 Association of Shelter Veterinarians guidelines and said the current facility cannot meet multiple "must have" standards, including adequate quarantine space and avoiding the use of offices and hallways for animal housing.

"Our current isolation area can only support cats and does not allow for isolation for multiple diseases at one time," Greyheck said, describing a shortfall flagged in a 2024 warning from the Oregon Department of Agriculture. She and other presenters also said the shelter’s location and lack of public‑transportation access create equity barriers for owners trying to reclaim lost pets.

Staff presented conceptual programming and preliminary cost ranges. Department of County Assets staff said past programming work suggested an ideal facility footprint of about 45,000 square feet and a minimum of 35,000 square feet. Two early cost estimates produced a conceptual range in current dollars of roughly $55 million to $70 million; county financial staff later showed an expanded conceptual range with example estimates of about $62 million for a 35,000 sq. ft. option and $84.6 million for a 45,000 sq. ft. option, noting these are conceptual numbers produced without a selected site, contractor or detailed systems.

Eric Arellano, the county chief financial officer, told commissioners $3.5 million in proceeds from a 2014 surplus property sale (sometimes called the “pig farm”) is reserved for this project. He said the board’s action authorizes using roughly $660,000 of that balance for the next phase of planning work; staff said the remainder would be available for the project’s short‑term planning tasks but that a larger funding strategy will be required if the board advances to full design and construction.

Public testimony included multiple volunteers and regular shelter supporters who described crowded kennels, inadequate clinical space, animals housed in staff offices during high intake periods and serious accessibility problems for people who rely on public transit. Volunteer Diane Zitlowski told commissioners: "How is it possible that a vibrant, modern, progressive community that loves its cats and dogs presents such a squalid and desperate picture when it comes to animal care?"

Commissioner Brim Edwards, who sponsored the FY25 budget note that launched the project leadership team, said the FAC‑1 action is an initial step that does not commit the board to a site or final budget. Commissioner Moyer noted she toured the shelter and said she was "very supportive of the project," but asked for a future board work session to discuss decision points — for example size, capacity and delivery method — before design locks in high‑cost decisions.

The FAC‑1 approval authorizes: a siting analysis and land‑use review, a community engagement and design advisory group that will include community and professional expertise, procurement of an architect/engineer to produce conceptual designs and cost estimates, and further work on financing options. Commissioners voted to approve the FAC‑1 preliminary planning proposal. The roll call vote was Commissioner Moyer—Yes; Commissioner Singleton—Aye; Commissioner Brim Edwards—Yes; Commissioner Jones Dixon—Yes; Chair Vega Peterson—Yes.

What’s next: staff will begin the site analysis and community outreach, bring a funding strategy and refined cost estimates back to the board, and return for future FAC‑1 and subsequent approvals if the county pursues design and construction. Staff emphasized this FAC‑1 does not authorize construction or final contracting; those steps will return to the board for approval and a formal funding plan.

All direct quotes in this article come from speakers on the record at the meeting and are listed below.