Harrison County Commission moves forward on animal control shelter; chooses site and asks consultant to refine adjacent pad

The Harrison County Commission on April 1 voted to begin work on a county animal control shelter on county‑owned land and asked county consultants to revisit site plans to make a nearby development pad larger.

Commissioners debated three candidate sites on the 40‑acre ‘Ellis’ property and the tradeoffs between lower initial earthmoving costs and longer‑term utility and development expenses. After more than an hour of discussion about site layout and cost, the commission first approved a motion to start the project behind the former projection screen where utilities are available and minimal dirt movement would be needed. Commissioners then approved a separate motion to send CEC back to revise its plan for “pad two,” increasing it from 2.7 acres to about 3.5 acres so the county maintains flexibility for future uses.

Staff and consultants described the options as “pad one, pad two and pad three,” with excavation estimates ranging from roughly 10,000 to 335,000 cubic yards depending on the chosen location. Using $6–$7 per cubic yard as a working figure, commissioners and consultants estimated earthmoving alone could range from about $140,000 for smaller cuts up to roughly $2.3 million for the largest regrades, with additional costs for utilities, roads and sewer upgrades. One commissioner emphasized the county purchased the property for approximately $500,000 with an expressed intent to build an animal control facility and urged the board to begin work rather than delay another year or two.

Commissioners discussed several goals: minimizing upfront site work to reduce cost and time to open the shelter, preserving large flat areas for fairs or livestock in future phases, and avoiding long utility extensions that would raise the overall project budget. Staff noted potential environmental constraints (a mapped stream near one back‑lot option) and said CEC and McKinley (site design and building design consultants) would coordinate to provide updated footprint options quickly.

The two motions both passed on voice votes with no roll‑call tally provided. Commissioners instructed the administrator and consultants to prepare updated drawings and cost estimates for the chosen location and for an expanded pad design so that detailed construction planning can proceed.

The commission did not approve a construction contract or set a construction schedule at the meeting; members said the next steps are refined site drawings, cost estimates and further administrative work before bidding or funding decisions.