|
Only have a minute? Listen instead
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
EDINBURG — As the costs of dealing with stray and lost animals continue to rise, Hidalgo County officials are considering cutting ties with the nonprofit organization that has run animal control services here for decades.
The county is mulling the idea of severing its contract with Palm Valley Animal Society due not just to rising costs, but also to what one official called “performance issues.”
“We’ve had some service issues from the standpoint that they were understaffed, and in COVID, and rain — different types of events that caused different kinds of setbacks,” Hidalgo County Precinct 1 Commissioner David Fuentes said Friday.
“When we can’t respond to our communities more reliably, we have to really look at what is the best for us and for our constituents,” he added.
To that end, beginning last May, the county embarked on the process of conducting a feasibility study.
On Tuesday, the Hidalgo County Commissioners’ Court officially accepted the findings of that study, which was conducted by Mission-based B2Z Engineering.
The county had tasked B2Z with pursuing a laundry list of objectives — among them, determining the operating costs and capacities at PVAS and other shelters across the Rio Grande Valley.
The county also asked the firm to come up with new animal control center options.
“We’re looking to be the most efficient and effective at the lowest cost of dealing with unattended animals,” Hidalgo County Judge Richard F. Cortez said Friday.
“We’re reviewing the process. Obviously, the fact that we’re doing that would mean that we would consider severing our relationship with them (PVAS), but that’s a decision that hasn’t been made,” he added.
PVAS PROBLEMS
Over the last few years, PVAS has required more and more funding from the county.
According to data gathered by B2Z, the county currently pays PVAS $250 per animal. In fiscal year 2022, that added up to more than $1.06 million for its services.
That figure represents a 27% increase compared to 2021, when the county paid PVAS $840,000, as per the terms of a three-year contract between both parties.
In December 2021, the county renewed the contract for an additional two years to run from Jan. 1, 2022 through Dec. 31 of this year.
Based on the terms of that contract, the county allocated another $$840,000 this year, according to figures found in the county’s FY 2022-23 budget.
But, again, costs have exceeded projections.
Those overruns prompted the county in April to authorize $250,000 to be made available to PVAS.
How exactly PVAS uses the money remains unclear.
Of all the animal control facilities B2Z reached out to since they began the feasibility study last November, PVAS was the only one that refused to provide data on its operating expenses.
“PVAS would not release their operating costs,” reads an April 26 B2Z presentation obtained by The Monitor via a Texas Public Information Act request.
Fuentes said B2Z’s findings illustrate the county’s growing frustrations with PVAS, which for years has been considered a “sole source vendor,” or the only available option for a particular service.
And PVAS’s transparency with the county has only gotten murkier since the pandemic.
“We have to create a more reliable process for us to feel comfortable that the money we’re spending is being applied appropriately to the services that need to be rendered,” Fuentes said.
“We’re kind of at the mercy of what they’re asking for — within reason. At some point in time, that just doesn’t fly anymore and we’ll have to figure out something else,” he added a moment later.
OTHER SHELTERS
In addition to PVAS, B2Z spoke with Cameron County, as well as the cities of Weslaco, La Joya and Mission.
Both Cameron County and Weslaco have maintained animal control operations of their own for years.
They each provided B2Z with extensive data regarding their operating expenses, construction costs and animal intake figures.
Data on Mission, which recently merged with the RGV Humane Society in Harlingen, was not available as part of B2Z’s presentation.
And though La Joya is still awaiting quarantine certification from the Texas Department of State Health Services, the city nonetheless provided information regarding its projected holding capacity and size of the shelter.
B2Z’s data shows that Cameron County spends just under $300,000 per year to fund operations and takes in about 4,500 animals annually at its 5,130-square-foot facility.
Cameron County also partners with most of its municipalities, excluding Harlingen, Brownsville, Port Isabel and South Padre Island.
Meanwhile, Weslaco spends just under $400,000 to take in about 7,800 animals per year at an animal shelter that’s less than half the size of Cameron County’s.
But like Cameron County, Weslaco also contracts with other cities, including Pharr, San Juan and Alamo, as well as Willacy County and half a dozen smaller towns in Hidalgo County.
By contrast, PVAS took in 12,599 animals in fiscal year 2022, according to B2Z’s data. Of those, 4,253 came from the county’s jurisdiction, while the remainder came from McAllen and Edinburg.
WEIGHING OPTIONS
With all the data gathered, Hidalgo County is now considering what to do next.
One of B2Z’s tasks included coming up with options for the creation of a county-owned animal control center.
During the preliminary phases of the feasibility study in January, B2Z floated five potential ideas.
They ranged from the county continuing an unchanged partnership with PVAS, to forging new partnerships with Edinburg or McAllen instead, to the county striking entirely out on its own.
By the time the engineering firm again met with county officials in late-April, it had winnowed down those options to three.
None of them make mention of Palm Valley Animal Society.
The first option calls for the construction of an 8,000-square-foot facility that would be able to accommodate more than 7,700 animals per year.
B2Z estimates it would cost just under $3 million to build, not including costs to purchase land and install drainage and utility infrastructure, if needed.
With the county in charge of the facility, it would also be the sole entity shouldering personnel and operating expenses to the tune of approximately $1.13 million annually, according to B2Z’s estimates.
The second option B2Z proposed would be a facility twice as large at 16,000 square feet.
This option — which would also be fully controlled by the county — would cost about $5.5 million to build, though the facility would be capable of handling more than 15,500 animals per year at a cost of about $1.95 million.
The third and final option B2Z presented involves building a 32,000-square-foot facility in partnership with both McAllen and Edinburg.
The $10.5 million facility would be able to intake nearly 2,600 animals per month, or about 31,000 per year.
B2Z further estimates it would take $3 million to fund operations annually.
The engineering firm also identified three county-owned properties that might be suitable for the animal control center — one in San Carlos along Sunflower Road, another along Mile 1 1/2 Road West just north of Mercedes, and the third in Monte Alto.
NEW DEBT
As for how to pay for it, the county is currently considering issuing $44.3 million in certificates of obligation to fund not only the potential animal control center, but other projects, too.
That borrowed money would go toward funding road and drainage projects, the demolition of the current county courthouse, vehicle purchases, and other projects.
County officials were set to discuss the certificates of obligation during Tuesday’s meeting, but wound up taking no action due, in large part, over the lingering uncertainty about which path the county will choose to take.
“Nobody likes to borrow money because you have to pay interest and you have to pay it back,” Judge Cortez said. “But the need is there and I don’t see any other choice but for us to go with those general obligation bonds.”
Editor’s note: This story was updated to clarify that Hidalgo County authorized $250,000 for PVAS.
