February 20, 2011 in City

City-owned warehouse seen as ideal for regional animal shelter

Whether Spokane will join remains unclear

John Craig The Spokesman-Review

Tags:animal-control shelteranimal shelternancy hillproperty taxesSCRAPSSpokAnimaltaxesTodd Mielke

A regional task force believes it has found the perfect site for a new animal-control shelter if not a way to pay for it.

Numerous questions remain unanswered, but Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke says one possibility is a voter-approved property tax levy.

Unlike a traditional 20-year bond measure or a special levy, which require 60 percent approval, a regular levy can be approved with a simple majority.

Because Spokane County’s property tax rate is well below the statutory maximum, voters could authorize a relatively short-term tax increase by lifting the 1 percent cap on annual levy growth.

Rough calculations indicate a tax of 4 to 6 cents per $1,000 of assessed value could pay for a $10 million project in nine years. Officials say such a levy might cost the owner of a $200,000 home around $8 a year.

“If our partners say they’re comfortable going forward, that puts the county in a much better position to make this decision,” Mielke said.

The Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service has contracts with Spokane Valley, Cheney, Millwood and Liberty Lake, and the group is working to bring Spokane into the system.

Spokane’s animal-control provider, SpokAnimal C.A.R.E., has asked to end its contract.

The key to avoiding a long-term bond measure on a shelter large enough to accommodate Spokane is a warehouse the city owns at 1001 N. Havana St.

The building is ideal, according to SCRAPS director Nancy Hill.

“When we made a wish list, it pretty much had everything,” Hill said.

She was looking for a centrally located site, near the Spokane-Spokane Valley border, and the warehouse is exactly on the line.

It’s highly visible, cater-corner from the county fairgrounds, and easily accessible from Interstate 90, Trent Avenue and the Freya-Market corridor.

It’s also the right size – 41,000 square feet on 6.8 acres – and is zoned appropriately. Except for a two-story office portion, the building lacks internal walls.

“It’s kind of a blank slate,” Hill said. “We would be able to take that and make it our own.”

In her mind, Hill said, she’s already moved in.

The current shelter, at 2521 N. Flora Road, is already overcrowded and can’t be enlarged. The two-acre site is at the edge of a county gravel pit, near the tail of a dead-end road and cut off by railroad tracks.

Hill said fire inspectors recently denied permission for a portable office and storage building because the only fire hydrant in the area is on the other side of the tracks. The crossing is frequently blocked by slow-moving or parked trains.

Animal-control task force members hoped to make a new shelter affordable with available revenue, but have been unable to do so.

Mielke and Gerry Gemmill, Spokane’s assistant public works director, said the city might have been able to finance the warehouse conversion if the cost hadn’t exceeded $6.3 million. But $7 million to $10 million is as close as they could get.

Officials pared an architect’s $8.3 million renovation estimate to $7 million. Hill attributed much of the savings to less costly materials and a reduction in the number of cages and air-exchangers.

Hill squeezed $350,000 out of her proposed operating budget to make the project more affordable, but it still wasn’t enough.

The biggest problem is that Spokane is obligated to reimburse state and federal agencies that paid 85 percent of the cost of the warehouse.

The property was purchased for $2.7 million as part of an ongoing project to build a Havana Street railroad overpass. The city is expected to repay whatever diminished value the property has when the bridge work is finished this winter.

Spokane could ask the funding agencies to forgive some of the debt, but internal auditor Rick Romero said the chances are slim if the property passes out of city ownership. Fair market value likely would be required.

Even if SCRAPS had to pay nearly as much as the city paid and even if city officials decide not to contract with the county program, Hill would still want the warehouse. New construction on another site was estimated to cost $15 million, she said.

Mielke and Spokane officials emphasized that the animal-control task force has reached no conclusions about how to proceed. Hill will deliver the group’s preliminary report Friday at a meeting of government officials throughout the county.

Delays on the project have caused some on the Spokane City Council to consider sticking with SpokAnimal if the nonprofit organization changes its decision to quit providing enforcement service.

Councilwoman Amber Waldref said she prefers a countywide system, but she’s open to sticking with SpokAnimal.

Councilman Bob Apple is the council’s biggest critic of regional animal control. He has said that, as long as the city treats SpokAnimal with respect, it likely would continue serving Spokane for a lower price.

“We have no problem with that provider,” Apple said.

Councilman Steve Corker said he wouldn’t support a regional animal-control solution if it requires bonding or use of money that otherwise could be used for police, fire or streets.

Corker said he’s willing to consider regional animal control, “but it’s not one of my top priorities.”

Councilman Jon Snyder said he’s encouraged by the proposal to purchase the city-owned warehouse.

“I still think that regional animal control is within our grasp,” he said.

Mielke and Hill share that sentiment, but said time is running out.

“I have put SCRAPS on hold, waiting for regionalization to come forward,” Hill said. “It’s crunch time.”

Hill said a new shelter is needed with or without Spokane, and she wants to put the issue to voters this year.

“I don’t know that I want it on the same ballot as the jail (construction proposal), but I don’t see a reason to keep it off the ballot this fall,” Mielke said.

Staff writer Jonathan Brunt contributed to this report.

19 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

thevoice on February 20 at 8:21 a.m.
I have been looking for a dog lately, and every time i go out to the facility on flora there are about ten empty cages, where exactly is the overcrowding?
lewis8457 on February 20 at 8:24 a.m.
at the cremation station
misjustice on February 20 at 8:35 a.m.
Charge the animal owners & not those that don’t have pets. Raise the fees to adopt or spay & neuter the animals. That should help raise the funds you need.
Why should I have to pay for you to house your dog or cat when it gets out of your yard? Place a bigger fine on the careless owners when they pick up their animals.
I’m just tired of everyone thinking someone else should pay for what they want. I don’t have an endless amount of money coming in & every time someone wants something they say, “It’s JUST $0.06 for every $1,000 assessed value on your property. Well all those JUSTS turns into hundreds of dollars every year on my real estate taxes. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!
Cut some things out of your budget to replace other things. That’s what I have to do if I want something in particular & can’t afford it!!!!
SK on February 20 at 10:15 a.m.
Gramma, it’s because you are part of a community, and that’s how it works. We all live together, cooperatively, sharing the cost of a functioning system.
Your job is to ensure the elected officials are making good decisions that will have long term positive benefits on the community. Since this levy will go to a vote, you’ll have your say in the process.
No one wants to lose their pet. Not every pet lost has a careless owner. Pets are a valuable part of a family, they help to foster caring, compassion and responsibility.
If you raise fees to adopt, the allure of a ‘new pet’ from the pet store becomes that much more attractive. The goal is to re-home animals so they won’t have to be housed longer, and cost more to do so. The goal is also to screen and educate the public on the dog they are adopting. This helps insure the owner is reliable, and the animals wont return.
Same goes for spaying/neutering, if it’s more expensive, people tend to put it off, by cutting things out of their budget since they need that particular service, until they can afford it…and that can lead to overpopulation, more unwanted dogs…and the cycle repeats itself.
monkeyman on February 20 at 10:37 a.m.
@ Gramma on February 20 at 8:35 a.m.
“Charge the animal owners & not those that don’t have pets.”
Hi there, …that would further discourage people from buying licenses for their pets, i.e. to pay the “pet tax”. And then you would run into the problem of needing to hire and pay for more people to enforce it.
Also, on your lines, we all pay taxes that go to kid’s free schooling. What if I don’t have any kids, or pay for private schooling. One could have a similar gripe about any number of such situations.
Property tax is essentially a method to collect a pool of funds in an efficient manner. At least it is based on the size of your house etc…
monkeyman on February 20 at 10:49 a.m.
@ thevoice on February 20 at 8:21 a.m.
“I have been looking for a dog lately…”
I have been thinking about it too. Do you know if you can put in a request for a particular breed/size of dog, so that they can call you when they get a match? Anybody else know whether this is possible? Thanks.
healinhand on February 20 at 11:13 a.m.
Never going to happen!!!!!!! Quit trying to figure out ways to RAISE Tax`s.
You idiots just don`t get it!!!!!!
rkellie on February 20 at 12:09 p.m.
SK - well said!
Dazzeetrader11 on February 20 at 12:54 p.m.
Verner and the County want to spend another $8 million for a worn out empty building. verner does. County doesn’t.
Verner loves empty buildings. She thrives on them.
And she wants to buy more far far away from the central core. She already bought that evidence room but won’t show the figures. She won’t show the figures on any of the City’s spending. She is incompetent. The county commissions know not to spend. They have conservative brains.
Nice.
woamike on February 20 at 1:03 p.m.
SK said:
“Since this levy will go to a vote, you’ll have your say in the process.”
Yes, we’ll all have our “say”, but everyone won’t have the same on the line or pay the same if it passes. Some will pay virtually nothing and others will pay a lot.
Do you think this levy (or nearly every other levy) would pass if we all had to pay the same?
The property tax levy system is inherently unfair. A majority of people who would pay little, if anything can vote to raise the taxes of those who will be paying a lot.
Do those who pay more use the levied service more? Do those who pay less use the service less? Or, do we all use it the same?
This is fair? This is just?
Politicians need to stop going to the tax-payer for more money. Those who already pay, pay enough. Learn to live within your means. Get rid of non-essential programs, stop wasting money on pie in the sky programs, stop paying your “public servant” employees bloated salaries/benefits. In short, start living like the rest of us in the real world.
PhiltheBibliophil on February 20 at 1:50 p.m.
Tax every “Dog Breeder” through the roof and put them out of business. I swear, look at all the ads in this aper, all the Nicel Rags, they are in there by the 100’s. Stop Breeding Dogs! $500-$1500 for a dog? What you think you’re taking it to the Westminister Dog show or something? And if you have that kind of money to throw down the drain, why don’t you donate it to someone who needs medical help and can’t get it? We are a truly, sick and twisted society. And for the person who said here that he found about 10 cages empty at the shelter, thats probably because they gassed that 10 the same morning!
SK on February 20 at 2:05 p.m.
Hello woamike,
You are right, based on property taxation not every house is valued the same, not everyone owns the same sized house. Not everyone owns multiple properties and not everyone owns any property at all (though I’m sure they, with their rent payments, help in their way to pay for the property taxes.)
You seem to be upset with the status quo, and the way things are. What are you doing to do to change it?
misjustice on February 20 at 2:54 p.m.
Daisy states, ” The county commissions know not to spend. They have conservative brains.
Nice.”
I have two words for Ms. Minken, RACE TRACK!
As I recall, the RACE TRACK was bought and “paid” for by
2 County Commissioners with the names Richard, and Mielke; both “conservatives”.
Just sayin’ Daisy…
; )
Dazzeetrader11 on February 20 at 3:13 p.m.
WRONG J. They don’t spend ANYMORE! French has finally stoipped the spending. Fiscal conservative. Those other two have been convinced. And they won’t e buying buildings for Verner. She got her Waste to Energy comfy agreement not only by them but by the surrounding mayors. She turned red and sat in the corner. New Mayor will work wonders.
Meanwhile though,….I love animals. Have 3 cats and two big dogs. Always have had animals. What they might do.these big spenders is keep the cops in the present evidence room and spend to fix it. Give the 5 million dollars building they bought for the NEW evidence building up for the shelter. They are remodeling to the tune of an additional tune of $ 4 million. Nothing done yet.but it brings the pricetag to $6 million.
And it’s out in the valley. Why pay more?. We are tightening our belts .Why not them too?
They love to spend.that’s why. Webcams show it’s full of sun there…go outside! NO MORE TAXES and NO MORE NEW SPENDING! Verner’s quietly pushing through her new property taxes for you. Throw her out!
misjustice on February 20 at 3:55 p.m.
From the article, “…Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke says one possibility is a voter-approved property tax levy.”
Doesn’t sound like Mielke has seen the light (or been convinced not to spend more), Daisy.
Just sayin’.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 20 at 7:00 p.m.
J…it won’t happen. I do think that sometimes these people say things they don’t mean just to make em float like a you know what. Not a single commissioner will spend money on this type of thing. Honestly (and I’ve seen some of the data) the racetrack will go away. They knew it was bad.it looked like a good deal on paper and , of course, it was a treat for th racing crowd. Now, the goal is to shed it, keep some of the land and call it a day.
Diana the fake nurse knows nothing. Nothing’s changed there.
MaoTenDoo on February 20 at 7:36 p.m.
For those of you looking to adopt a dog or cat, start your search on www.petfinder.com. It’s an excellent resource that combines the listings of all local animal shelters/rescues.
greenlibertarian on February 20 at 9:20 p.m.
“The county commissions know not to spend.”
-Daisy
Yeah, right, except for spending taxpayer dollars on a toxic wasteland on which to run a FAILED auto race course.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 20 at 10:02 p.m.
Sissyman greenie…that’s over now.. no more spending anymore.