Shelter director warns of intake surge and seeks phased facility rebuild; council debates county cost sharing

Dustin, director of Weatherford’s animal shelter, told the council the shelter has experienced a substantial rise in intakes over the last decade — from about 4,400 in 2014 to an estimated 7,800 in the current fiscal year — creating capacity, health and noise issues in aging facilities built in 2006–2008.

"We've got to right size our capacity with our current needs," Dustin said, outlining a three‑phase master plan. Phase 1 targets replacement of two dog kennels and the main office to separate cats and dogs and improve sanitation and adoptions; Phase 2 is an isolation/intake center next to the medical suite; Phase 3 would add quarantine and holding capacity. Dustin said earlier cost estimates have risen sharply: a building that once priced near $1.1 million now bids closer to $4 million because of increased square footage standards and construction inflation.

Dustin said the shelter has taken interim operational steps — reducing length of stay for dogs from about 18 days to about 11 days and launching TNR and community spay/neuter clinics — and has partnerships with retailers (Petco, PetSmart) to extend adoption reach. He also said many intakes are transient or short‑term entries that can be excluded from some trend calculations (staff estimated roughly 1,000 such transitory intakes).

A central funding question was county contract payments: shelter staff said Parker County pays under an existing contract (now escalated by a 10% annual kicker), but the county’s share does not currently match the 60% utilization the shelter reports. Several council members urged staff to explore contract alternatives (intake‑based billing or renegotiation) and to consider short‑term funding options while pursuing longer-term solutions.

Why it matters: The shelter serves multiple jurisdictions and operates under a long-running county contract; the discussion affects both city capital budgeting and intergovernmental cost allocation.

Next steps: Staff asked for direction on prioritizing Phase 1 as a short-term capital need and to pursue clearer cost‑share proposals from the county; no appropriation was made at the retreat.

Ending: Council signaled support for treating Phase 1 as a near‑term priority and directed staff to refine costs and funding options, including potential county contract renegotiation.