The first set of general obligation bonds for Pima County’s animal shelter were sold March 24, marking the next step to providing yet another facility to the University of Arizona at taxpayer expense.
The $2 million in general obligation bonds sold will cover the project’s initial planning and development costs. The interest rate is 2.53 percent and the bonds will be repaid over a 15-year term.
Pima County officials enlisted big donors to push voters to support Proposition 415 on Nov. 4 as part of a bond election. Last week, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to put another bond before the voters this coming November.
Pima County Director of Facilities Management Michael Kirk is leading this project. According to the County’s press release, “one of the largest challenges this project faces is that the current Pima Animal Care Center shelter has to remain in operation while the new facility is being constructed.”
In the immediate future, taxpayers can expect the following next steps in the process:
• June 2015: Architectural team and general contractor selected and under contract.
• July 2015: Design team planning session scheduled
• August 2015: Community planning session scheduled
• August 2015: Sustainability planning session scheduled
• Fall 2015: Completion of Design
• TBA: Groundbreaking ceremony and beginning of construction
Due to a dispute with the City of Tucson over animal care costs, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry issued a memo on April 20, in which he stated that he not willing to increase euthanizing unclaimed animals. As a result, the County may cut back on responding to calls for service from within Tucson.
Many have questioned why the City of Tucson does not find a lower cost provider. The administrative overhead costs at PACC are unusually high at nearly $23,000 a month.
The County’s animal care center is filled usually with pit bulls that have been turned over after their owners have skipped town or entered a correctional facility. Many of those dogs are considered unadoptable. As a result of Huckelberry’s compassionate “no-kill” policy, those dogs will languish in small pens at the taxpayer’s expense for years.
Related article: