Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Shelter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff urges schematic RFQ for animal shelter while construction funding remains unresolved
Summary
Staff told the board a prior feasibility study sized a new shelter at about 20,000 sq ft with a high-side cost of $12.5 million but said construction funding has not been identified; staff proposed an RFQ limited to schematic design and site evaluation while pursuing funding and community partnerships.
County staff presented updated findings on a proposed replacement for the Cabarrus County animal shelter and asked the board whether to proceed with limited planning work while construction funding remains undetermined.
“Kyle Billifer said the county has funding for the design of the new animal shelter. What we don't have identified is funding for the construction of the new animal shelter,” staff told the board, noting a prior space-needs assessment recommended roughly 20,000 square feet compared with the current facility’s just-over-7,000 square feet. Billifer also said the study’s high-side cost estimate from several years ago was $12,500,000, a figure that excluded some equipment and furnishings.
Billifer highlighted operational requirements—quarantine flow, HVAC and transfer-air systems—and estimated current infrastructure operating costs for the existing shelter at about $75,000 annually. He also warned the county does not own the land beneath the current facility, which sits on a ground lease with the City of Concord that expires in 2047, complicating options to sell or repurpose that site.
Commissioners discussed funding pathways and next steps. Several members suggested producing schematic renderings that could be used for grant applications or community fundraising; others recommended exploring public–private partnership models and private donations as used by nearby counties. Billifer proposed issuing an RFQ limited to schematic design and site evaluation (stopping short of full design) and asked which commissioners would participate in selection review; two commissioners volunteered to provide input.
The board did not vote on full design funding during the work session; staff said they will investigate funding options and return with more detail at a future meeting. The board’s tentative direction was to proceed with limited planning (RFQ for schematic/advanced planning) while staff pursues funding and community outreach.
