Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Shelter Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Angelo staff propose outdoor kennel "pod" plan using $2 million in council‑earmarked funds
Summary
City construction and animal‑services staff proposed building three to four outdoor kennel "pods" to reduce disease, noise and plumbing issues at the San Angelo animal shelter; staff said $2,000,000 is currently earmarked and that design and construction would proceed in phases.
Construction manager Al Torres and Animal Services Manager Amanda Wheedle presented a phased plan to replace large indoor kennels with smaller outdoor "pod" buildings at the city animal shelter, saying the approach would improve animal health, reduce noise and limit disease spread while using council‑earmarked funds.
The proposal calls for roughly four pods of about 24–25 kennels each, arranged so dogs have outside runs and limited direct sightlines to one another. "We currently have just a little over $2,000,000 available that council has, earmarked for this project already," Torres told the committee, and staff said that funding should be enough to build at least three pods now and possibly a fourth depending on finishes.
The plan grew out of earlier designs to overhaul the existing large‑dog kennel and to build a temporary off‑site facility. Torres said an off‑site temporary facility had an initial contractor ballpark of about $200,000 but later came in closer to $500,000. Rather than spend that amount on a temporary structure that would be retired after construction, staff recommended investing in permanent pod buildings.
Wheedle and Torres described several practical benefits: improved air flow and sanitation from separated runs, reduced echo and noise by lowering ceilings in indoor spaces, individual drains to limit cross‑contamination and new meet‑and‑greet areas where the public can view dogs outdoors. Torres said the pods are intended to be more animal‑first: "It improves airflow, sanitation, and reduces disease spread," he said.
Staff provided revised cost estimates: design and administration expenses were reduced from an earlier $900,000 figure to closer to $300,000 in the current plan, while each pod is estimated at $350,000–$500,000 depending on finishes. The committee heard that the construction and design team will again include the firm Friese Nichols, this time with its architecture division leading both architecture and engineering work.
Committee members sought clarifications about capacity and operations. Torres said the pods would provide about 96–100 runs total but "that doesn't mean that our capacity is gonna be at 96" because operational capacity depends on isolation, quarantine and puppy areas that remain in the main building. Staff said the project is not intended to increase staffing levels; rather, cleaning time per run could fall substantially and some labor savings could be redirected toward foster and volunteer programs.
The presentation noted lessons from a peer facility visit in Abilene: avoid trench drains that have caused plumbing failures elsewhere, prefer individual drains to reduce cross‑contamination, and choose HVAC and plumbing installations suited to local conditions. Torres added that recent utility complications — a neighboring facility that tapped into the same power source — required coordination with the electric provider and adjustments to the original designs.
Staff said they will complete design work and bring more specific plans and cost breakdowns back to council or the committee as needed. The committee did not take a formal vote on construction authorization at this meeting; staff said they will return with firm design proposals and any requests for additional funding if shortfalls appear.
The committee moved on to other business after the presentation; next procedural steps include finalizing engineering proposals and coordinating any required utility upgrades with the electric provider.
