Multnomah County briefs board on plan for new animal services shelter, estimates $55–70 million cost

Multnomah County officials on a board briefing described the need for a new Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) facility and outlined a conceptual program, estimated costs, and preliminary funding options.

County staff said the current MCAS building does not meet key Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV) guidelines and county access and equity expectations and identified programmatic space needs that would require between about 35,000 and 45,000 square feet. Erin Grahick, Division Director for Multnomah County Animal Services, told the board that the facility must operate as “a shelter, a hospital, and a long-term holding facility” and that the current building forces staff to use hallways and other nonhousing spaces for animals at times, a practice the ASV characterizes as unacceptable.

The presentation compared the county shelter’s existing spaces with a conceptual program across nine program areas: public/nonhousing space, cat and small-animal housing, dog housing, isolation, shelter medicine and surgery, staff and administration, program support (warehouse and storage), and related support functions. County facilities staff said existing space totals are roughly 8,000–11,000 square feet in several program areas while the conceptual program ranged from about 35,000 square feet as a minimal facility to about 45,000 square feet in a preferred layout. Dan Zalko, Division Director of Facilities and Property Management, said the conceptual program assumes a larger site (roughly four acres) if the county builds a new facility on a new site.

Why it matters: staff said the building’s physical constraints limit MCAS’s ability to meet animal-care standards, perform surgeries safely, isolate multiple diseases, and provide equitable access for county residents. Grahick told the board that the current isolation area “can only support cats and does not allow for isolation of multiple diseases at one time,” and that the shelter’s location and lack of transit access create added hardship for reunification with pets, especially for lower-income residents.

Cost and funding: county staff presented a very rough capital estimate of $55 million to $70 million in today’s dollars for a new facility. Eric Cardiano, Chief Financial Officer, said about $3.5 million is currently available in a dedicated capital fund from proceeds set aside after a land sale in 2016; staff estimate that funding will be sufficient to continue programming and design work through fiscal year 2026. Cardiano said that unless the board limits the project scope or secures additional non-debt revenue, the county will likely need additional financing in fiscal year 2027 to continue the project at the current pace.

Cardiano described financing options under county and state constraints, including full-faith-and-credit bonds (which do not require voter approval) and general obligation bonds (which do). He presented scenarios showing that financing the entire project would produce materially larger annual debt service and total interest costs, and that combining debt with grants, donations, or one-time county funding could substantially reduce interest paid over the bond term.

Site and program next steps: staff said prior planning iterations date to 2007 and 2016 and that recent programming work included consultations with design firms and shelter experts. The county engaged consultants to perform a siting analysis that will review zoning, land use, noise, transportation access and available properties. Staff told the board they intend to return on March 20 to seek authorization under the county FAC-1 procedure to proceed with a formal procurement for design (and later for a construction manager/general contractor). The county has also considered renovating and expanding the current site; staff said early estimates show comparable costs between a new-site build and renovating the existing site because of phasing and operational complexity.

Board questions and concerns: several commissioners thanked staff and raised questions about cost estimates and schedule. Commissioner Sharon Moyer, a former general contractor, described being “sticker shocked” by the per-square-foot estimate and requested a deeper review of cost assumptions and contingencies. Commissioner Loretta Singleton asked whether the cost estimate included phasing or relocation work if the county rebuilt on the existing site; staff said those costs were considered and that the challenges of operating on the current site drive up renovation costs.

What’s next: staff said they will refine program and cost estimates through a formal design procurement and further site analysis, continue a quarterly briefing cadence required by a 2024 budget note, and develop a funding strategy. The county emphasized that decisions about exact location, final program size and financing approach will come after further planning and are not yet set.

Ending: the board did not take action on the shelter at the briefing; staff will return with specific design contracts, site recommendations, and a proposed funding approach in future meetings.