Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) Regional Animal Control Facility Feasibility Study 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Waterbury, Connecticut S/P+A Project No. 13.014 Draft Report: November 14, 2013 Final Report: February 12, 2014 Prepared by: Silver Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue Hamden, CT 06518 P: (203) 230-9007 F: (203) 230-8247   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 1 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Acknowledgements We wish to thank the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley for the opportunity to serve the Central Naugatuck Valley Region in the conceptual planning of their future regional animal control facility. We w ould also like to thank the member s of the Regional Animal Shelter Study Committee for their enthusiasm, helpfulness and input, as their feedback and comments have been invaluable to the thorough ness of this report. It has been a privilege to be a part of this collaborative effort to provide a more efficient animal care syst em to better serve the public and animals of the region.   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley TOC Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SECTION I INTRODUCTION 3 Report Overview & Purpose Report Services Data Collection, Meeting Minutes & Notes Code Standards Preliminary Code Review SECTION II PROGRAMMING 8 SECTION III SITE OBSERVATIONS AND SELECTION 9 Existing Pound Site Visits – Memorandum #1 Middlebury Zoning – Memorandum SECTION IV PREFERRED CONCEPTUAL PLANS & RENDERINGS 10 SECTION V SITE, BUILDING & SYSTEM NARRATIVES 11 Site Architectural Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing & Fire Protection Systems SECTION VI OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS 22 Construction Costs Operating Costs Conceptual Cost Analysis SECTION VII MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS 24 SECTION VIII APPENDIX A 25 Meeting Minutes and Notes Previously Presented Program & Plans SECTION IX APPENDIX B 26 Connecticut General Statutes Section 22-336 – Dog Pound Regulations SECTION X APPENDIX C 27 Alternative Program, Floor Plans, Site Plan & Estimate   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 1 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Executive Summary This report is the result of a study commissioned by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) to evaluate site a nd management options for providing a regional animal care facility intended to serve eight (8) towns in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR). Under Section 22-336 of th e Connecticut General Statutes (CGS), all towns are required to provide pounds or other suitab le facilities unless they are participating in a regional dog pound. The objective of utilizing the regional dog pound approach is to provide the region with humane, yet cost effective animal control methods that will reduce capital expenses and improve outcomes for animals. This report was prepared by Silver Petrucel li & Associates, Inc. (S/P+A) of Hamden, Connecticut, an architecture, engineering and interior design firm specializing in municipal town planning, historic restorati on, master planning and design. Civil and site planning and engineering solutions were prep ared by Donald W. Smith, Jr., P. E. of Seymour, Connecticut. This report was developed with the frequent and insightful input of the COGCNV, Regional Animal Shelter Study Committee (Committee) and animal control staff of the participating towns. Report Process & Findings The information contained in this report was ga thered by S/P+A and consultants through visual observations of the region’s exis ting animal control sites and facilities, analysis of existing construction drawings and historical impound st atistics, and meetings with COGCNV, the Committee and town staff. This data was organized and appears in sections of this report in the form of meeting minutes, program matrices, conceptual plans, renderings, cost estimates and narratives. All information bound in this report has been developed with, presented to and approved by the COGCNV and Study Committee. Per COGCNV and Committee directive, the Towns of Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury an d Woodbury are looking to establish a regional animal care facility that will provide primary care for all eligible animals, including but not limited to sheltering, medical treatment and adoptive service. The Town of Wolcott is also participating in this study but intends to continue caring for its animals at their recently refurbished pound. The Wolcott pound also houses dogs from the adjacent Town of Plymouth, which was arranged through an agreement between the two towns. Of the se ven (7) fully participating towns, only four (4) towns currently have local animal car e facilities. All four (4) of these facilities are 20-30 years of age or older and in need of re pairs and upgrades, which is not unc ommon due to the heavy traffic and daily abuse inherent to these types of facilities. After review of historical impound statistics dating back to 2007 and projection of future impounds for the participating towns, it wa s determined that none of the four (4) existing animal care (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 2 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © facilities are large eno ugh to accommodate the spatial require ments of a regional shelter. Furthermore, it was determined that only one (1) of the four (4) animal care sites, Middlebury, has a large enough parcel of land to accommodate a regional facility of a size necessary to meet the needs of all seven (7) participating towns. Conclusions and Recommendations It has been determined, in conjunction with COGCNV, the Study Committee and local officials and animal control officers, that a regional animal shelter of roughly 8,000 square feet in size is required to meet the needs of the seven (7) full y participating towns. This 8,000 square foot number accounts for a cattery and (44) interior dog runs (as determined from historical and projected impound data), provisi ons for public visitation and viewing of animals, and office/support space for staff. The preferred, conceptual plan, A5, meets the pr ogrammatic goals of this regional shelter through creative and economic planning; specifically by propos ing to construct a 6,500 square foot addition off of the existing 1,750 square f oot Middlebury pound. By maintain ing and re-using the current Middlebury facility, construction co sts can be lowered and existing infrastructure can be reused to significantly reduce project costs. Furthermore, the existing parking lot and building entry off of the Middlebury Public Works site can be maintained for animal shelter staff and deliveries, with a new public parking lot and public entrance constructed off Woodside Avenue. This separation of public and private parking/access has numerous benefits, with the most important being that it minimizes environmental, visual and audial im pact on the surrounding residences and restaurant on Woodside Avenue. The conceptual cost estimate for the preferred pl anning option indicates that construction for the new, regional animal shelter will cost roughly $300/square foot, or $2.52 million. Including soft costs, which traditionally account for 20-25% of total project costs, the total project cost is estimated at just under $2.9 million. Additionally, preliminary estimates based on 2014 fuel costs indicate that anticipated utility costs (electric and gas) fo r this facility will run $40,000 annually. Alternative management structures for this regional facility were researched and evaluated as part of this study, and it has been recommended that th e regional facility operate under the control of the host municipality (Middlebury) or one of the other participating municipalities. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 3 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section I – Introduction Report Overview and Purpose Silver/Petrucelli + Associates, Inc. Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers (S/P+A) was retained by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) to perform a feasibility study for a new, region al animal care facility serving eight (8) towns in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR). With gui dance and oversight from COGCNV and the Regional Animal Shelter Study Committee (Committ ee), particular emphasis was placed on site evaluation and management options for this region al facility. Additionally, a space program, floor plan, site plan, conceptual rende rings and cost estimates were de veloped to address the region’s animal care needs. This report provides limited analysis of the regi on’s current animal care facilities and grounds with emphasis placed on existing building condition, build ing systems, available site utilities and potential for expansion. Analysis and recomme ndations have been included in this report to address projected regional impoundments, necessary building system upgrades, utility tie-ins and building and site circulation. Additionally, ma nagement options and operating costs for the proposed regional shelter have been examined, with recommendations and estimates included to assist the CNVR in establishing a cost efficien t operation while providing improved service to the public and animals of the region. Report Services The following services were provided by S/P+A and consultants as part of this study to evaluate alternative sites and management options for the pr oposed regional animal care facility serving the CNVR. 1. Attended a project kickoff meeting with COGCNV and the Committee to discuss the overall directive and goals of the study includi ng but not limited to current animal care management structures for each town, existing animal care protocol for each town and programmatic needs for the regional facility. The existing Middlebury animal care facility and site was also toured at this time. 2. Analyzed existing impound statistics for the (8 ) participating towns and projected future impound statistics for a regional shelter ba sed upon documented population projections and historical data. 3. Prepared a preliminary building program ou tlining public, staff and support spaces based on animal care facility standards, and ou tlined the recommended quantity and size of dog runs based on projected impound statistics a nd Connecticut General Statute (CGS) Section 22-336. 4. Visited the remaining (4) animal care faci lities located in Wolcott, Woodbury, Southbury and Naugatuck. Documented the existing size and condition of each facility, available utilities, current HVAC provisions and potential for building expansion. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 4 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © 5. Reviewed existing construction documents , site plans, and planning and zoning information for the Middlebury site, as this was the only identified site capable of accommodating a regional animal care facility. 6. Developed three (3) preliminary floor plans and site plans, outlining alternative animal care facility layouts specific to the CNVR regional animal care facility. 7. Attended a progress meeting with COGCNV a nd the Committee to discuss findings to date, and to make necessary programming and plan layout decisions. 8. Refined the preliminary space program and floor/site plans to incorporate comments from the previous progress meeting. 9. Compiled a draft report of all information de veloped to date, including program, plans, building condition and system narratives, conceptual renderings, estimates and management options. Presented the findings and recommendations of the draft report to the COGCNV and Committee at a progress meeting. NOTE: All items following Item #9 have not been completed at this time, but are anticipated following the presentation of this draft report. 10. Edited and revised the draft report ba sed upon COGCNV and Committee feedback. 11. Prepared a final report incorporating all information, recommendations and comments to date. Presented the final report to the COGCNV and Committee. Data Collection, Meeting Minutes and Notes An integral part of any site evaluation or planning study for a regional facility is a thorough understanding of the current facilities that exist and will be affected by the implementation of a regional plan. It is equally or more importa nt to understand and develop a common mission that all participating towns can agree with and commit to. This process began by investigating the current animal care facilities of participati ng towns, through the use of site visits, site investigations, existing doc ument review, planning and zoning research, and interviews/discussions with local town officials and animal control officers. All meeting minutes generated during the course of this study can be found in Appendix A of this report, and are a compilation of the architect’s discussions and meetings with COGCNV and the Committee. The approved space program, narrati ves and conceptual planning options contained within the following sections of this report reflec t and build upon the invaluable input and directive that was received during these meetings. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 5 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Code Standards The following is a list of the current building codes which are applicable for the State of Connecticut. Please note that these codes have not been thoroughly reviewed for this space study, but a cursory code review was completed for ma jor codes with significant cost and life safety implications, and the results can be found on page 6 of this report. Current Building Codes State of Connecticut Effective December 31, 2005 2005 State of Connecticut Building Code 2009 Connecticut Building Code Supplements 2005 Connecticut Fire Safety Supplement 2003 International Building Code (IBC) 2003 International Fire Code 2005 National Electrical Code 2003 Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) 2003 International M echanical Code 2003 International Plumbing Code 2009 International Energy Conservation Code 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 Handicappe d Accessibility Code 1973 Uniform Federal Accessibi lity Standards (UFAS) Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 2009 Connecticut Public Health Code 1999 Connecticut O.S.H.A. Regulati ons – Title 29 Dept of Labor 1996 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission – Playground Safety 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) Standards for Accessible Design – Title II State and Local Government Facilities, Services and Activities – Title III Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities As the codes are updated, they will affect the pertin ence of the information contained in this report, and applicable changes may result in the need for revising this report and the associated cost estimates. Most importantly, the codes that are in effect at the time the building permit is applied for by the Contractor are the ultimate determinant c odes, so changes in the codes and their adoption dates should be closely m onitored and planned for. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 6 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Preliminary Code Review A cursory code review was completed during this conceptual phase to help identify current, significant code violations and fu ture code challenges that may arise due to the proposed expansion of the Middlebury animal control faci lity. Like the plans, this code review is conceptual in nature and will need to be revisited in greater depth during the design phase of this project. This review was conducted through the reference of the codes lis ted on the previous page, review of existing construction drawings provided by the Town of Middlebury and visual observations made by the design team during field visits. BUILDING OCCUPANCY & CONSTRUCTION TYPE At the time of construction, the existing Middlebur y animal control facility was designated as a type 2-C construction type (non- combustible) with a Business (B) occupancy. This designation was per BOCA, the recognized building code at that time. Since that time, a new building code has been adopted; the International Building Code (IBC). The correlating construction type of the new code would be II-B (non-combustible) with the occupancy type remaining as (B)usiness. The proposed building addition could easily be constructed as the same II-B construction, but would require that all building elements outlined in the IBC be non-combustible. A second option would be to use a different and less stringent co nstruction type – preferably IV-B, which would allow building elements to be constructed of an y combustible or non-combustible material. The benefit of this change would be the ability to use wood framing, which may be a more economical option for the roof trusses. This change of construction type woul d not have any negative impacts, as the proposed building would still be within th e allowable building area and height allowed for type IV-B buildings. FIXTURE COUNTS According to the preferred, concep tual plan (A5) and the occupancy counts as determined per the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) for type (B) occupancie s, the following fixture counts will be required for the new, manuf acturing laboratory addition. Water Closets ( Total Male + Female ) (3) Lavatories (2) Drinking Fountains (1) Service Sinks (1) The proposed layout meets these criteria, with (1) wa ter closet and lavatory at each of the three toilet rooms (male, female and staff). An area fo r a drinking fountain will be provided in or near the public waiting area and service sink(s) will be located in the support spaces near the dog runs for ease of cleaning. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 7 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © MEANS OF EGRESS, TRAVEL DISTANCE AND ACCESSIBILITY The means of egress and travel distance for all ne w construction areas will meet code, and all new spaces will need to be fully acces sible. This includes the need for a ramp structure between the new and existing portions of the facility, which will likely need to be constructed with different finish floor elevations due to th e sloping topography of the site. A full code review of these and all other items will be conducted during the design phase of the project. BUILDING AREA & FIRE PROTECTION The existing Middlebury facility does not contai n an automatic sprinkler system, and it is recommended that a sprinkler system not be included in the future, re gional facility. While a fire suppression system such as auto matic sprinklers would provide an added level of safety for building occupants and property, they are not common in these types of facilities due to the small building size and high installation costs.   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 8 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section II – Programming The following Space Program is a culmination of the site visits, meetings and presentations outlined in Section I of this report, and all info rmation contained herein has been reviewed and approved by COGCNV and the Committee. The pr ogram outlines all anticipated public, staff, animal and support space needs within the proposed regional animal control facility and was used as a guide in the development of the preferred c onceptual plan contained in Section IV of this report. 13.014 COGCNV Regional Shelter – Impound Statistics.xls Silver/Petrucelli + Associates, Inc. 23-Jul-13 Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers Council of Governments – Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) Regional Animal Shelter Study – Impound Statistics YearPopulation of (8) Participating Towns Average Impounds (PER MONTH) Maximum Impounds (MONTH) Average Impounds (w/o WOLCOTT) Maximum Impounds (w/o WOLCOTT) 2000 97,849 n/an/a n/an/a 2007/08 103,514 4560 3955 2008/09 103,780 4255 3647 2009/10 104,218 4160 3651 2010/11 105,209 5062 4461 2011/12 104,827 4255 3749 2015 107,988* n/an/a n/an/a 2020 110,267* n/an/a n/an/a 2025 112,140* n/an/a n/an/a AVERAGE 2007-2012 104,310 4458.4 38.4 52.6 3190 Whitney Avenue Hamden, Ct 06518 (P) 203-230-9007 silverpetrucelli.com * Future population projections obtained from the UCONN Connecticut State Data Center Page 1 of 1 7/23/201310:35 AM 13.014 COGCNV Regional Shelter – FINAL Space Program.xls Silver/Petrucelli + Associates, Inc. 3-Feb-14 Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue Hamden, Ct 06518 (P) 203-230-9007 silverpetrucelli.com Council of Governments – Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) Regional Animal Shelter Study – FINAL Program Summary – Option #5 Regional Animal Shelter Program Space PROPOSED SF ACTUAL SF Comments 1Vestibule (Air-Lock) 80 95 Front entrance 2Public Lobby/Waiting 120 129 Reception counter& waiting area 3Viewing Room 85 120 4 Shared Office 425 430 Desks for (5), including reception; room for conference table 5Staff Break / Kitchenette 120 123 Tables, sink, microwave, refrigerator 6Men’s Toilet Room 64 62 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 7Women’s Toilet Room 64 62 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 8Staff Toilet / Shower Room 90 92 Includes shower and locker area 9Indoor Dog Runs (40) 3200 3200 80 s.f. per run – Includes pen & solid separation per Regulations 22-336-13 10Isolation Runs (4) 320 320 80 s.f. per run – (1) Isolation run / (10) indoor runs per Regulations 22-336-13 11Cattery 220 214 (20-25) cats 12Cat Quarantine 100 96 13 Grooming/Laundry 120 144 14 Exam Room 120 144 15 Food Preparation/Storage 225 240 W asher / dryer, sink, and storage 16General Storage 400 470 Divided into multiple areas 17Mechanical/Electrical 300 318 Exterior Access Net Total Usable Area6053 6259 Circulation + Structure (35%) 2119 2154 Total Facility 8172 8413 Space Needs Page 1 of 1 2/12/20143:54 PM   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 9 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section III – Site Obse rvations and Selection Chris Nardi (Silver/Petrucelli + Associates) an d Donald Smith, Jr. (consulting civil engineer) visited all five (5) of the existing animal control facilities serving the eight (8) towns participating in this study; Middlebury – 2 Service Road Wolcott – 775 Boundline Road Woodbury – 271 Main Street South Southbury – 66 Peter Road Naugatuck – 508 Cherry Street Extension The existing facilities were analyzed based upon multiple criteria including current building size and condition, utilities available, existing electrical service and mechanical systems, proximity to highways, centrality to the pa rticipating towns and most importantly, potential for expansion. Of all five (5) sites visited; only one, Middlebury, had enough developable land to support the size building required for a regional an imal control facility. Fortunately, the Middlebury site was more appealing than the others for additional reasons su ch as centrality to participating towns, highway access, and available utilities. With the four (4) sites in Wolcott, Woodbury, Southbury and Naugatuck being deemed not-viable due to the in ability for site expansion, only the Middlebury site was investigated and studied in further depth as part of this study. There were not any other town owned sites presented by the Committee or region for potential investigation. The following memorandums outline the findings at the four (4) non-viable sites and summarize discussions between D. Smith, Jr. and Mr. Ku rt Bosco, the Middlebury Zoning Enforcement Officer, pertaining to the zoning of the existing and adjacent Middlebury sites. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 1 SILVER / PETRUCELLI + ASSOCIATES Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT 06518-2340 Tel: 203 230 9007 Fax: 203 230 8247 silverpetrucelli.com MEMORANDUM #1 SITE VISIT NOTES PROJECT: Regional Animal Shelter Study CLIENT: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) MEETING PLACE: Wolcott Pound – 775 Boundline Road Woodbury Pound – 271 Main Street South Southbury Pound – 66 Peter Road Naugatuck Pound – 508 Cherry Street Extension DATES: July 11 – 17, 2013 Purpose: To perform visual inspectio n of existing pounds and pound sites for the towns involved in the Regional Animal Shelter Study. A) Wolcott Pound The Wolcott Pound, serving the Towns of Wolcott and Plymouth, is located on Boundline Road, directly adjacent to the Wolcott State Fire Training School. The pound, which was originally constructed in the early 1960’s, has seen renovations in the late 70’s and 2007 after being condemned in 2005. The structure consists of concrete masonry unit (cmu) walls, with a wood framed, shingled roof. The roof was replaced during the recent renovations, which also included repairs to the building structure. The windows vary in ag e and condition with the area of greatest concern being the single pane window s located about the dog runs. The pound has a small administrative office/en try/storage area in the front and (10) covered, exterior dog runs w/ indoor pens in the back. (1) Quarantine run is provided through a separation provided using plastic pane ls. At the time of the visit, five of the ten runs were occupied which would be considered average for this facility. The COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 2 dogs that are housed here are a combination from the two towns served, typically at a 50/50 split per town. There are 4 +/- cat cages located in the front office area, all of which were empty at the time of visit. The building’s heating and hot water system s are fueled by an above ground propane tank located behind the facility, while air conditioning is provided through a window unit in the front office area. The building’s waste and water are served by septic and well. Toilet facilities do not exist within the buildi ng, however a portable toilet (recently donated) exists on site. The fac ility has an active security system serving the building and exterior runs, with motion sensor technology used to monitor the exterior runs after hours. The Town owns a portion of land behind the existing building, extending about 20- 25’ past the existing vegeta tion line. While this site could accommodate some growth due to this additional land (exact numbers unknown at this time), it is Wolcott’s proximity to the other participati ng towns which limits its ability to serve as a regional location. Additional site amenities include a new stor age shed, outdoor exercise area for the dogs and a small garden/seating area. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 3 B) Woodbury Pound The Woodbury Pound, serving the Towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem, is located off of Main Street South behind the W oodbury Police Department. Town records indicate the structure was built in 1986 a nd it appears that renovations and repairs have been minimal since that time. The st ructure consists of wood framed walls and roof over a cmu wall base. The windows are single pane and in fair to poor condition. The pound consists of one, large open area that includes a refrigerator, sink, washer/dryer, hot water heater and storag e. Animal provisions consist of (5) covered, exterior runs w/ indoor pens. A dedicated quarantine run is not provided, although if needed, a quarantine run is set up through the use of separation by plastic panels. At the time of the vi sit, four of the five runs were occupied which is above average, although at certain times all five runs will be occupied with overflow support needing to be provided by adjacent towns. (Southbury is currently housing some animals from Bethlehem that could not be accommodated by Woodbury). Provisions for cats are not provided at this facility, although the animal resource officer (ARO) will often try to make al ternate accommodations for the animal if needed. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 4 The building’s heating and hot water syst ems are fueled by above ground propane tanks located near the front entry door. Air conditioning is not currently provided at the facility although the ARO is looki ng into purchasing a window unit for the comfort of the dogs. The building’s waste and water are served by septic and well and toilet facilities do no t exist within the building. The site is very constricted and provides little to no room for growth, and therefore is not viable to house a regional shelter/pound. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 5 C) Southbury Pound The Southbury Pound is located off of Peter Road behind the Southbury To wn Highway Department. Although the construc tion date of the building is not known, it appears that the facility was likely cons tructed in the 70’s or early 80’s. The structure consists of cmu walls with a wood framed, asphalt shingle roof. The windows are single pane and in poor condition. The pound consists of an office/administrative/storage area at the entry with exterior dog runs and interior pens on either side. Currently, there are (10) runs available for holding dogs, and (2) runs av ailable for cats. The building was originally designed to hold 16-20 runs, but many of those have been decommissioned to allow for a toilet room and interior/exterior storage space. (2) Dedicated quarantine runs are provided, separated from the ot her runs by plastic panels. At least half of the runs were occupied at the time of the visit, which is about average as this pound will house anywhere from (1) to (12) animals on any given day. The building’s heating and hot water syst ems are fueled by above ground propane tanks located on the north side of the f acility with supplementary heat provided through infrared heaters. Air conditioning is provided through a window unit in the office area and a central exhaust system is installed throughout the entire facility. The building’s waste and water ar e served by septic and well. The site is bounded by moderate to thick ve getation on all sides, however, it appears that much of this wooded area is part of the town owned parcel. While expansion may be possible on this site, more inform ation on the site boundaries, ownership and overall ability to develop the wooded area would need to be examined. Perhaps more crucial to the viability of expanding this site would be the issues surrounding the septic system, which from early indi cations would need to be significantly upgraded to meet the CTDEEP regulations . These requirements, which go beyond the typical health code re gulations, would be necessary due to the pound being located on a shared, town campus parcel, wh ere all buildings are factored together in the determination of septic system size and the associated regulating body. The State Health code dictates that discharge of over 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) per parcel of land, including contiguous land under the same ownership, is regulated by DEEP. The current Southbury parcel is near the 5,000 gpd threshold now, so expansion of the facility would push them over the threshold and into the CTDEEP’s more stringent and costly requirements incl uding quarterly analysis of groundwater samples. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 6 COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 7 D) Naugatuck Pound The Naugatuck Pound is located on the Cher ry Street Extension, directly adjacent to the Naugatuck water treatment plant. The pound, originally constructed in the early 90’s, has undergone recent renovations consisting of a new asphalt shingle roof and restructured roof over the exterior dog r uns. The remainder of the core structure consists of concrete masonry unit (cmu) wa lls, with a wood framed, shingled roof. The windows are in fair to good condition. The pound has a series of administrative a nd support spaces consisting of a main office/reception area, small storage area with sink, furnace room and toilet room. The facility also contains (20) dog runs, cons isting of (10) interior and (10) exterior, each with an indoor pen. At the time of the visit, eight of the exterior runs were occupied and none of th e interior runs were being use d. The use of exterior runs over interior is typical is typical at this facility in order to allow dogs access to the fresh air that they would not otherwis e receive. Although cats are not normally accepted at this facility, th ere is a dedicated room for them containing roughly (6) cages. At the time of visit, there was one cat at the facility. The building’s heating system is fueled by oil, with the tank located within a dedicated furnace room. Air conditioning is provided through a wall unit located within the main office area. Public sewe r and water are available at the site. While the facility is the largest and most m odern of the participating towns, the site has minimal space for expansion due to Ch erry Street bordering on the south, the water plant to the east, and an aggressive , rocky terrain to the north and west. Additional site amenities include an outdoor storage shed and freezer. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 July 22, 2013 8 Any corrections, additions, or comments should be made to Silver / Petrucelli + Associates within 14 days of the date of the meeting. Distribution: Animal Shelter Committ ee, Rachel Solveira, Donald Smith, Silver/Petrucelli Donald W. Smith, Jr., P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 56 Greenwood Circle Seymour, Connecticut 06483 (203) 888-4904 Fax: (203) 881-3434 Email: dwsjrpe@sbcglobal.net CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SEPTIC DESIGN SITE DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Nardi, Silver Petrucelli & Associates FROM: Donald W. Smith, Jr., P.E. Consulting Engineer DATE: August 15, 2013 RE: Report of Meeting COG Regional Animal Control Facility On this date I met with the Middlebury Zoning Enforcement Officer, Mr. Kurt Bosco, to review the zoning of the site adjacent to the current animal control facility. The following was determined: The area is comprised of Assessor’s Map 4-06, parcel 358 (41 ac) and parcel 358B (0.9 ac). The DPW facility is on parcel 425 . Parcel 358 is zoned AR-1 (Assisted Senior Residential), parcel 358B and 425 are zoned R-40. A commercial kennel and a Town of Middlebury Municipal Building are allowed by Special Exception in the R-40 Zone. There are no permitted or prohibited uses listed in the Zoning Regulations for the AR-1 zone. The Front yard setback in the R-40 zone is 35’ There are no parking standards in the Zoning Regulations for a Commercial kennel. We need to research other Towns for recommended standard. Kurt suggested I speak to the Town Planner, Brian Miller to review the proposal and the Zoning issues. It would appear that a Zone Change from AR-1 to R-40 would be appropriate. I reviewed the deed for parcel 358 (v129/p1079), for which the Town paid $1.5 million dollars for, and there are no use restrictions listed on the deed. I reviewed the drawing file in the land use office and found the attached topographic plan, which also shows the limits of Inlands Wetlands on the site. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. End of Memorandum (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 10 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section IV – Preferred Conc eptual Plans & Renderings The following plans and renderings are a culmina tion of multiple planning options developed by the architects and presented to and reviewed with COGCNV and the Committee. The preferred conceptual site and floor plans described and illu strated in the following sections outline general building layouts and adjacencies, recommend viable options for major building systems and depict site planning solutions to meet the needs of the Central Naugatuck Valley and their future regional animal control facility. While many details have b een depicted in these plans, they are conceptual in nature and do not illustrate the fine level of detail found in typical construction drawings. It will be necessary that these plans be further deve loped and refined as this project moves into the schematic design phase.   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 11 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section V – Site, Buildin g & Systems Narratives Site GENERAL Since the majority of the site is essentially vacant, extensive site improvements will be required in order to construct the proposed 6,000 – 6,600 + s.f. facility. There is an existing concrete sidewalk along the Woodside Avenue frontage of the property. The sidewalk expands into a kidney shaped sitting area with so me feature landscaping and a rock garden at the westerly end of the project area. There is an apparent rock outcropping on the parcel, approximately 35’ wide X 85’ long by 10’ high, centrally located within the project area. There are no current surveys of the project area, with the most recent survey plan we could find being dated 1984 and pre-dating the current animal control building. The Project Area is constrained by Regulated Inla nd Wetlands to the west and to the east. The westerly wetland area is a higher quality wetland that will need to be protected from the proposed development. The wetland area to the east is associated with a former watercourse that has been significantly impacted in the past when the watercourse was pip ed. In addition to a topographic survey of the projec t area, the limits of both wetland areas will need to be determined by a soil scientist during the design process. The following describes the site improvements that are proposed. DEMOLITION The current proposal includes the reuse of the existing building so other than some minor demolition of fencing etc. no other demolition will be required. The majority of the site is wooded however and approximately 0.75 acres of tree clearing will be required. The apparent rock outcropping will need to be blasted and rem oved (1,500 cubic yards) and as part of the Site preparation. Depending on the Site Alternativ e selected, the sitting area and feature landscape/rock garden may need to be relocated. ON-SITE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & PARKING A new driveway entrance from Woodside Aven ue is proposed for the public access to the facility. A parking lot with eleven (11) regul ar and (1) handicap spaces is proposed to be provided. The existing driveway and parking area near the existing building will remain and will be used for staff parking and for shipping/receiving operations. The new driveway and parking area will be su rfaced with bituminous concrete pavement consisting of three (3) inches bituminous concre te on fifteen (15) inches of grave base. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 12 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © SIDEWALKS, ACCESSIBILTY & CURBING Concrete sidewalks will be provi ded on-site in order to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing sidewalk, the parking areas and the buildi ng. All of the exit doors from the building will have a flush condition with the adjacent side walk and a code-conforming handicap accessible routes will be provided from the park ing area into the proposed building. Cement Concrete curbs will be provided along all driveways and traffic islands. Although concrete curbing is more expensive initially, it holds up much better over time and it is not easily damaged by snow plows or heavy vehicles. LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING Site lighting and landscaping will be provided as part of the project. Generally, the new landscaping will include foundation plantings alo ng the building, landscaped traffic islands and seeded lawn areas. The new site lighting packag e will be designed to provide a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of illumination in the parking ar eas and higher levels closer to the building. Depending on the site alternative se lected, the existing feature landscape/ rock garden sitting area will either be maintained or relocated and incorporated into the final site design. STORM DRAINAGE DISCHARGE A new storm drainage system will be installed as part of the overall site development. The storm drainage system will include a series of catchbasins and new storm drainage piping. The storm drainage system will outlet into the existing on-sit e wetlands or storm drainage system. In order to mitigate the increase in peak stormwater runoff due to the proposed development a Stormwater Management Area (detention facility) will be constructed. A storm water quality structure will also be provided to improve the qu ality of the stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the Wetland area. Due to the limited site area, it is envisioned that the Stormwater Management Facility will be below-ground. The design criteria for the below grade systems will be confirmed during the design de velopment phase of the project. WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL The existing facility is served by a one (1) inch m unicipal water service. It is proposed to install a new two (2) inch domestic service to service the proposed building. The proposed facility will be served by the municipal sanitary sewer. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 13 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS Other notable Site Improvements that are proposed for the project include: A modular block retaining wall is proposed along the west edge of the project. This wall is required in order accommodate the required grade change without impacting the adjacent regulated Inland Wetland area. Modular block re taining walls will also be required along the south edge of the proposed building in order to accommodate the grade change between the building floors. A vehicle loading space will be provided adjacent to the existing building. This space will be used by vehicles delivering animal s and supplies to the facility. Since the facility is located at the Town’s transfer station, a scr eened dumpster enclosure will not be provided. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 14 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Architectural GENERAL The preferred Space Allocation Floor Plan – Opti on #5, was developed to meet the programmatic needs of a regional animal control facility while providing spatial layouts and amenities that will better serve the staff, animals and public of the Central Naugat uck Valley. This 8,400+ square foot building delivers all of the spaces outlined in the space program (see Section II), while creating comfortable and adequately equipped spaces that will not only provide staff the means to better care for the animals, but also pr ovide the public with a more inviting and engaging location to view and adopt animals. SITE LAYOUT, ACCESS & ORIENTATION The existing Middlebury pound is located at 2 Serv ice Road, on the fringe of the Town’s Public Works complex. The pound parcel is bordered by Service Road on the east and south, Woodside Avenue to the north and heavily wooded area to th e west. Woodside Avenue is the public side of the parcel, containing residences and a local restaurant with exterior dining areas. The existing dog pound, roughly 1,750 square feet in size, is located on the south end of the site and shielded from Woodside Avenue by heavy vegetation. All access and parking to the existing building is through the public works co mplex via Service Road. One of the main goals in establishing this region al shelter was to provide a facility that was more accessible and inviting to the public. This was accomplished in the proposed plans by placing the addition, of roughly 6,650 square feet, on the north side of the property, adjacent to Woodside Avenue. Additionally, all public parking and access to the building will come from Woodside Avenue eliminating the need for visitors to travel through the public works complex in order to gain access to the building. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 15 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © The existing access point through Service Road is planned to remain, providing back of house access and parking for staff, animal control officers and deliveries. This separation of public and private is ideal to allow visitors to freely enter the building without having to encounter animals, sometimes unruly, being transported to or from the facility. The new addition, though fronting Woodside Avenue, is located 90 feet from the road in order to provide additional visual and audi al buffering from the adjacent residences and restaurant. This 90’ setback from the road also allows the incorpor ation of lawn and landscaped elements to soften the appearance of the building from the road. All of the exterior dog runs and play areas in the proposed facility are shown located on the south end of the site, shielded from Woodside Avenue by the new addition. This was designed intentionally to shield all dog activity at the regional shelter from public view. Additionally, by placing the exterior dog areas on the south, the animals will bene fit from the afternoon sunlight, especially in winter months as the temperatures drop. INTERIOR LAYOUT AND ADJACENCIES – ADDITION As described in the site layout na rrative, the public portion of the proposed facility is isolated to the northern, Woodside Avenue side of the shelter. The entry vestibule to the building has been located off axis on the northwest side of the building to provide minimal walking distance to the parking lot while maintaining maximum green space in front of the building. The remaining public portion of this facility includes a lobby/receptio n area with seating, men’s and women’s toilets, and a viewing room where poten tial adopters can meet the animals in a private, comfortable setting. Directly adjacent to the public area is the staff of fice; an open office setting for five (5) staff members including receptionist with a small confer ence table and printer/copier area. The open office is also connected to the kitchenette/staff break room which will contain tables and chairs, a small counter, refrigerator, microwave and sink. All of these public and staff spaces are located on the north side of the addition, and with excepti on of the toilet rooms, each is provided with exterior windows for day lighting. The remainder of the new addition consists of dog runs, a cattery, various support spaces and circulation. There are (28) dog runs in the new add ition, all of which are interior runs with interior pens pursuant to the Dog Pound Regulations outlined in the Connecticut General Statutes (Refer to Appendix C for full text). The choice of designi ng interior runs as opposed to exterior runs was to maintain maximum visual and audial privacy for the residences and restaurant on Woodside Avenue while maintaining an energy efficient desi gn. One of the biggest liabilities with exterior dog runs is the loss of energy, specifically heating and cooling, through the dog doors. The disadvantage of interior r uns is that the responsibility of taking dogs outside now falls on the staff members caring for the animals. However, throu gh the design of exterior dog areas located on the south side of the addition, the an imals can not only get outside for the fresh air and sunlight needed, but they will be provided with additional space to run and exerci se that would not otherwise be possible in an exterior dog run. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 16 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Despite the layout of all interior runs, daylight will still be provided to the dogs through the use of clerestory windows located above the dog runs. The other support spaces, including a staff toilet/lock er/shower area, are all located in the core of the building. This core space that runs east to west, dividing the dog runs on the north and south accomplishes a few goals. First, by placing support in the core, areas such as the food preparation room are more readily accessible from all parts of the facility. Since staff are accessing this room multiple times a day to fill dog bowls, it is ideal that this area be located centra lly to all dog runs. Second, by using the support spaces as a buffer betw een dog runs on either side, the dogs will not be permitted eye to eye contact, which is often a cause for disruption in shelters and pounds. Third, by fracturing the dog runs into different areas of th e building, it allows for staff to segregate dogs by personality, breed and/or size to further mitigate disruption between animals. The biggest challenge in designing this addition will likely be dealing with the existing topography of the site. The current dog pound sits on the low side of the site with a finish floor elevation of 407’. The terrain north of the current facility is rocky and slopes upwards towards Woodside Avenue. Due to this sloping terrai n, it is anticipated that the finish floor of the new addition will be around 410’. Although it is possible to drop the new addition to the same elevation as the existing building, it is not economical due to th e increase in rock blasting, soil excavation and retaining walls. Instead, it is pr oposed that the change in finish floor elevation be accomplished through an interior stair/ramp system, located between the existing and new sections of the facility. EXISTING DOG POUND – RENOVATIONS The existing Middlebury pound consists of a (16) exterior dogs run with adjacent indoor pens. The remainder of the facility consis ts of a small area for staff, support and public functions. The existing staff office is being utilized as a multi-purpose room that functions as an office, the cattery (cats are being held in cages within the office), and a public lobby, waiting and viewing area. Since all of these public, office and cattery functions will be improved and relocated to the proposed addition, the existing area within the current pound can be renovate d and reused as storage or mechanical areas. It is anticipated that the existing dog runs and pens will be maintained as is, with minimal renovations only as required. The reuse of these spaces and the reuse of the existing building in (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 17 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © general will have a significant impact in loweri ng construction costs. Additionally, the existing structure will serve a functional purpose. It is an ticipated that all deliveries and more importantly, transportation of animals, will be serviced th rough this existing structure. This will allow separation of these service functions from the public functions of the facility, but will also allow access of animal control officers into this existing portion of the structure at all hours of the day. Since the officers are often responding to calls outs ide of regular business hours, it is important that they have a place to drop animals at all time s. Furthermore, the existing and new portions of the building can be separated by lockable doors so that animal control officers only have access to the existing portion of the buildi ng, and when the regional shelte r opens the following morning, staff can collect the animals and move them to the new portion of the building, if desired. This setup may be critical to op erations, depending on the future management structure of the regional facility. BUILDING MATERIALS The intent of the design for the regional shelter is to use durable, low or no maintenance materials for both interior and exterior fini shes. The exterior building skin will be a combination of metal flatlok panels, phenolic resin panels and split face concrete masonry units (CMU), all of which require no maintenance and are extremely durable . The roof will likely be architectural asphalt shingles, with metal fascias and soffits. Metal fe ncing will be provided to enclose the exterior dog areas, and translucent panels will be used above the exterior dog areas to provide diffused light while protecting the animals from the pr ecipitation and the harsh summer sun. The images below are representa tions of the materials proposed and described above. These images are for material reference only and do not demonstrate the imagery or final appearance of the proposed regional shelter. Refer to Section IV of this report for conceptual renderings of the proposed CNV regional animal shelter. PHENOLIC PANELS SPLIT FACE CMU (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 18 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © METAL FLATLOK PANELS TRANSLUCENT ROOFING Interior materials will consist primarily of pain ted cmu walls at the dog run and support areas, with metal stud walls and painted gypsum board at the o ffice and public areas. Ceilings will be 2’ x 2’ acoustical ceiling tile in the public and office areas, with exposed structure or painted gypsum ceilings above the dog runs and support spaces. The roof will likely be framed from wood trusses, however metal trusses are also an option. Flooring will consist of carpeting in the public and office areas, porcelain tile at the lobby and toilet rooms, walk off mats at the entry/vestibule area, vinyl composition tile (VCT) in the st aff break room, and epoxy coatin gs at the dog runs and support spaces. The following images are from the Stratford Animal Shelter, designed by S/P+A and constructed in 2011. They represent the materials planned for the CNV regional shelter as outlined above. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 19 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Prot ection & Electrical Systems GENERAL Systems will be designed to comply with the Stat e of Connecticut Building Code (including the International Mechanical Code), Connecticut Fire Safety Code (including the National Electrical Code), and the Internationa l Energy Conservation Code. Utility incentive programs and similar avenues w ill be considered during the design process with the intent of maximizing program benefits. MECHANICAL The building will be furnished with a central heating plant will consisting of two (2) high efficiency condensing hot water boilers with fully modulating burners. Each boiler will be sized for 75% of the total peak heating load. The boilers will be provided with combustion air and vent piping terminating through the roof. The hot water distribution system will consist of primary in-line pumps to maintain a constant flow through each boiler (when enabled), and secondary in line pumps with variable speed drives to circulate water to the heating equipment. Supply water temperature will be reset based on ambient temperature. The office adjacent area will be provided with a single zone, split system heating, ventilating and air conditioning system. The system will consist of an air handling unit located in the mechanical room and an air cooled condensing unit mounted on a concrete pad outside. The air handling unit will have double-wall construction a nd will consist of a supply fan, hot water coil, refrigerant coil and air filter. Multiple heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems will deliv er 100 % outside air to each kennel group. Each system will consist an air handling unit interconnected to an air cooled condensing unit and a separate relief fan. The ai r handling unit will be provided with be double wall with supply fan, hot water heating coil, refrig erant coil and air filter. In addition, radiant hydronic slab heating can be cons idered for the kennel areas. A separate heating, ventilating and air conditioning system will deliver 100 % outside air into the Cattery and Quarantine Cat areas. Each system will consist an air handling unit interconnected to an air cooled condensing unit and a separate relief fan. The air handling unit will be provided with be double wall with supply fan, hot water h eating coil, refrigerant coil and air filter. All distribution ductwork from th e air handling units will be low pressure rectangular or round and insulated and will be located in the attic. Supply air registers will be located in the ceiling and return air grille s will be located low near the floor. The building control system will be a complete direct digital control (DDC) system including (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 20 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © microcomputer workstation, application softwa re, control units, sensors, thermostats, temperature and pressure transmitters, gauges, valves, dampers, operators, relays, and other equipment and appurtenances, in cluding electrical wiring. The building will be provided with emergency alarm and warning in the event of power failure or ventilation equipment failure. The emergenc y alarm will be automatic telephone dialing system. PLUMBING The existing one inch cold water main will n eed to be replaced with a two inch main to accommodate the additional plumbing fixtures and wash-down system. Domestic water heating will be accomplished by two high efficiency, natural gas fired units. One will store water at a temperature of 140°F for sanitizing applications and the other will store 120°F water for general use. Each system will be provided with a recirculation loop utilizing a pump controlled by a time clock and temperature controller. Plumbing fixtures will include conventional vitr eous china water closets and lavatories along with specialty fixtures such as prep sinks, a grooming tub, a mop basin and a shower. An emergency eye wash/shower will also be provi ded along with a dishwasher and stackable washer/dryer. A chemical wash-down system will be installed to allow for sanitizing the kennels and trench drains will be utilized. FIRE PROTECTION This facility will not be provided with a sprinkle r system since that protection is not required by the Building Code or Fire Safety Code. ELECTRICAL The existing animal facility at the Middlebury site appears to have an electrical feed from another building on the site. We assume there ma y be a need to provide separate electrical metering for the new animal facility but the electrical needs of the expanded facility may dictate the need for a new electrical se rvice regardless. Preliminary calc ulations indicate that a 400 amp service will be required to meet the electrical need s of the facility. The need for and availability of 3-phase power will be investigated further during design. Electrical distribution eq uipment including a main disconnect switch and one or two panels, will all be installed in the proposed mechanical/elect rical room. The desire for generator back-up for this facility will be discusse d during design. Options would include a permanently installed generator or provisions for conne ction of a portable generator. The attached estimate includes a separate line item for a generator. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 21 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © All lighting systems will be new and designed to maximize energy efficiency and to qualify for utility rebates. New fluorescent fixtures will utilize electronic ballasts and T-8 or T-5 fluorescent lamps. The lab and office spaces will utilize lens ed recessed fluorescent fixtures. Al interior and exterior runs are proposed to ut ilize wet location rated fixtures to allow for washdown of these spaces. For the lab and office areas, control of lighting will be provided by manual switches with occupancy sensors for auto-off control. Lighting controls for the runs will be discussed with the Owner to determine if manual or time cl ock control is desired for all or part of the lighting. We do not anticipate that automatic daylighting dimming controls would be effectively applied in this facility. We do not currently plan to provide dimm ing controls for lighting in any areas. All exterior lighting will be new, and will cons ist of a combination of cut-off style building mounted fixtures along with canopy mounted fixtures. The need for any site pole lights to serve walks or parking areas will be further evaluated during design. The light source for all exterior lights will be LED, and control will include both photocell and time clock inputs. All fixtures, will be classified as “full cut-off” as required to satisfy requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code, as modified by the State of Connecticut. Code does not mandate that a fire alarm system be installed in this facility. The desire for a fire alarm system will be discussed with the Owner during design but the cost for this system is not currently reflected in the attached estimate. We anticipate the need for small telephone and data network systems. Public address function, if needed, could be handled via the phone system. The need for video surveillance or building perimeter security systems will be discussed with the Owner during design but the cost for this equipment is not currently reflected in the attached estimate.   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 22 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section VI – Opinion of Probable Costs Opinion of Probable Construction Cost The following opinion of probable construction cost outlines the anticipated costs associated with the preferred and recommended A5 floor plan and Alternate 12 site plan. Like the plans, these costs are conceptual in nature and best reflect the design teams understanding of the needs at the future Central Naugat uck Valley regional animal shelter. Customary design and construction contingencies have been added to the estimate to cover future unforeseen costs that cannot be anticipated at this time. These costs are based on comparative projects of similar scale and construction type, and they represent anticipated 2014 construction costs. These costs will need to be revisited, refined and updated throughout the course of the following design phases, with corrections made as necessary for inflation and changes in the construction market. SUMMARY OF COSTS TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,525,088 SOFT COSTS $319,261 __________________________________________________ ____ TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,844,349 Operating Costs Building energy consumption and the associated operating costs for specific buildings can be estimated with reasonable accuracy through the use of energy simulations. However, energy simulations are extremely time consuming and co stly, and therefore were not included in the scope of this report. An alternative, and often comparable method of estimate operating costs is the use of historical data for buildings of similar use, size and age. S/P+A has reviewed utility costs for similar animal shelters and is confident that the follo wing estimates represent reasonable, anticipated utility costs based upon current 2014 utility rates. Rates for years 2014 and beyond would need to be adjusted to account for the rise in u tility costs, which is unknown at this time. Annual Projected Electrical Costs – 2013 : $27,500 Annual Projected Fuel (Gas) Costs – 2013 : $12,500 TOTAL $40,000 COGCNV – REGIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY 14-Nov-13 2 Service Road Revised 2-12-14 Mi ddl ebury, Connecti cut S/P+A Job No. 13.014 OPI NI ON OF PROBABLE CONS T RUCTION COST 8,413 APPROXIMATE TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 6,665 (NEW CONSTRUCTION) 1,748 (RENOVATION) SECTION MATERIAL & LABOR COST NUMBER W ORK CATEGORIES QTY. UNIT UNIT $ ALLOW ANCE TOTAL $ OTHER COSTS BONDS (1.5% of construction cost) 1 LS $31,564 INSURANCE (.5% of construction cost) 1 LS $10,521 OTHER COSTS SUB-TOTAL $42,085 DIVISION TWO SELECTIVE DEMOLITION AND TIE-INS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 DUMPSTERS 6 EA $850.00 $5,100 DIVISION TWO SUB-TOTAL $25,100 DIVISION THREE FORMWORK (CONTINUOUS WALLS) 3,400 SF $5.00 $17,000 CONCRETE FOOTINGS 50 CY $475.00 $23,750 CONCRETE FOUNDATION W ALLS 64 CY $425.00 $27,200 CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE (INCLUDING REINF./FINISHIN G 6,665 SF $5.00$33,325 REBAR 5 TON$1,850.00 $9,250 DIVISION THREE SUB-TOTAL $110,525 DIVISION FOUR CMU WALL BACKUP – EXTERIOR 4,500 SF$15.00$67,500 CMU WALL – INTERIOR 3,200 SF$15.00$48,000 DIVISION FOUR SUB-TOTAL $115,500 DIVISION FIVE STRUCTURAL STEEL 8 TON$3,500.00 $28,000 COLD FORMED METAL FRAMING – INTERIOR WALLS 2,000 SF$3.00$6,000 DIVISION FIVE SUB-TOTAL $34,000 DIVISION SIX BASE CABINETS 60 LF$250.00 $15,000 UPPER CABINETS 50 LF$200.00 $10,000 SOLID SURFACE COUNTERTOPS 60 LF$150.00 $9,000 DIVISION SIX SUB-TOTAL $34,000 DIVISION SEVEN DAMPPROOFING 1,700 SF$1.00$1,700 RIGID INSULATION – EXTERIOR W ALLS & FOUNDATION 1,400 SF $2.50$3,500 ACOUSTICAL INSULATION – INTERIOR WALLS 2,000 SF$1.25$2,500 BATT INSULATION 8,500 SF$1.50$12,750 WEATHER/VAPOR BARRI ER 4,500 SF $1.50$6,750 METAL SOFFITS & FASCIA 400 LF$30.00$12,000 ASPHALT SHINGLES 75 SQ$350.00 $26,250 ICE AND WATER SHIELD 75 SQ$75.00$5,625 RIDGE VENTS 140 LF$20.00$2,800 EPDM ROOFING 150 SF$12.00$1,800 METAL GUTTER 280 LF$12.00$3,360 METAL LEADER 80 LF$10.00 $800 COMPOSITE METAL PANELING – EXTERIOR 2,300 SF$25.00$57,500 FIRE & SMOKE PROTECTION 1 LS $2,000 SEALANTS 1 LS $1,500 DIVISION SEVEN SUB-TOTAL $140,835 DIVISION EIGHT 1″ INSULATED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT/CLERESTORY 680 SF $60.00$40,800 ALUMINUM ENTRANCE DOOR 2 EA$2,000.00 $4,000 HOLLOW METAL DOOR FRAME 24 EA$250.00 $6,000 HOLLOW METAL DOOR 22 EA$450.00 $9,900 STEEL DOOR – INSULATED 7 EA$250.00 $1,750 DOOR HARDWARE 31 EA$500.00 $15,500 INTERIOR VISION PANELS 25 SF$45.00$1,125 DIVISION EIGHT SUB-TOTAL $79,075 DIVISION NINE GYPSUM WALL BOARD/CEILING 10,000 SF$3.00$30,000 ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE 1,750 SF$4.00$7,000 CARPETING 80 SY$38.00$3,040 PORCELAIN TILE FLOORING 300 SF$14.00$4,200 VCT FLOORING 600 SF$4.00$2,400 RESILIENT WALL BASE 150 LF$2.50$375 EPOXY FLOORING (INCLUDING BASE) 6,600 SF$12.00$79,200 PAINT GYPSUM WALLS/CEILINGS 10,000 SF$1.00$10,000 FILL/PAINT CMU WALLS 11,000 SF$1.25$13,750 PAINT DOOR FRAMES 24 EA$75.00$1,800 KENNELS/FENCING/RUNS 1 LS$175,000.00 $175,000 DIVISION NINE SUB-TOTAL $326,765 DIVISION TEN INTERIOR SIGNAGE 1 LS $6,000 FEASIBILITY STUDY DIVISION TEN SUB-TOTAL$6,000 DIVISION TWENTY-ONE DIVISION TWENTY-ONE SUB-TOTAL $0 DIVISION TWENTY-TWO MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS $425,000.00$425,000 DIVISION TWENTY-TWO SUB-TOTAL $425,000 DIVISION TWENTY-THREE PLUMBING SYSTEMS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS$170,000.00 $170,000 DIVISION TWENTY-THREE SUB-TOTAL $170,000 DIVISION TWENTY-SIX ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS$105,000.00 $118,940 DIVISION TWENTY-SIX SUB-TOTAL $118,940 DIVISION THIRTY-TWO SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS $518,500 (See Attachment for Site Cost Breakdown) DIVISION THIRTY-TWO SUB-TOTAL$518,500 SUBTOTAL = (INCLUDE O&P) $2,104,240 CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT = $300.14 GEN. CONDITIONS 10.00%$210,424.00 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 10.00%$210,424.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL = $2,525,088 SILVER/ PETRUCELLI + ASSOCIATES Architects / En gineers / Interior Desi gners SOFT COSTS/FF&E 3190 Whitney Avenue A/E DESIGN FEES (7%) $176,756 Hamden, CT 06518 PRINTING & LEGAL NOTICES $3,750 Phone: 203 230 9007 DESIGN CONTINGENCY (5%)$126,254 MISCELLANEOUS & REIMBURSABLES $7,500 BORINGS $5,000 SOFT COST/FF&E TOTAL = $319,261 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,844,349 FF&E (Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment) FINANCING COSTS HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT OFF SITE DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIONS COG REGIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE – ALTERNATE 12 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST SECTION NUMBE R WORK CATEGORIESUNIT UNIT COST QTY. TOTAL $ DIVISION TWO SITE PREPARATION CLEARING AND GRUBBING Ac. $5,000.000.8 $4,000 REMOVE CONC. SIDEWALK S.Y.$5.00 550 $2,750 EROSION CONTROL (Silt Fence) 12 MONTHS L.F.$5.00 150 $750 HAYBALES L.F.$5.00 50 $250 ANTITRACK DEVICE 12 MONTHS Each $1,500.00 1 $1,500 RELOCATE BENCHES, ETC L.S. $1,500.00 1 $1,500 GENERAL EXCAVATION STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL C.Y. $10.00 350 $3,500 CUT C.Y.$12.00 1000 $12,000 FILL (ON-SITE MATERIALS) C.Y.$5.00 $0 BORROW C.Y.25.00$ $0 ROCK EXCAVATION (ALLO WANCE)C.Y. $100.00 1500 $150,000 ROCK EXCAVATION – TRENCH (ALLOWANCE) C.Y. $175.00 250 $43,750 STORM & SANITARY SEWER CATCH BASIN Each $1,500.00 1 $1,500 TRENCH EXCAVATION L.F.$20.00 200 $4,000 STORM MANHOLE Each$2,000.00 2 $4,000 SAN MANHOLE Each$2,500.00 1 $2,500 6″ PVC SAN SEWER L.F.$50.00 50 $2,500 CLEANOUT -SAN SEWE R Each $100.00 1 $100 4″ PERF PVC STORM CURTAIN DRAIN L.F.$40.00 $0 6″ PVC STORM (R.L. CONNECT) L.F.$30.00 200 $6,000 8″ PVC STORM L.F.$35.00 $0 CLEANOUT -STO RM Each $100.00 $0 12″ HDPP STORM L.F.$45.00 $0 12″ RCP STORM L.F.$45.00 $0 15″ HDPP STORM L.F.$50.00 100 $5,000 15″ RCP STORM L.F.$50.00 $0 18″ HDPP STORM L.F.$60.00 $0 STORMWATER MGMT SYS. L.S. $15,000.00 1 $15,000 OUTLET STRUCTURE Each $5,000.00 1 $5,000 SUB-BASE GRAVEL BASE (15″) C.Y.$35.00 275 $9,625 FORMATION OF SUBGRADE S.Y.$2.25 625 $1,406 BIT. CONC. PAVEMENT -NEW 1.5″+1.5″ Ton $125.00 120 $15,000 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK S.F.$12.00 1650 $19,800 SIDEWALK RAMPS S.F.$15.00 60 $900 DETECTABLE WARNING S.F. $25.00 30 $750 CEMENT CONC. CURB L.F. $30.00 300 $9,000 CEMENT CONC. CURB _ INTEGRAL WITH SW L.F. $25.00 161 $4,025 ELEC/TEL/CATV SERVICE UTILITY CO CHARGES (ALLOWANCE) Lump sum $10,000.00 1 $10,000 UNDERGOUND SERVICE L.F. $20.00 150 $3,000 TRENCH EXCAVATION L.F.$10.00 150 $1,500 LANDSCAPING TOPSOIL S.Y.$10.00 1100 $11,000 RAKE, LIME FERTILIZE, SEED & MULCH S.Y.$2.25 1100 $2,475 LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIALS (ALLOWANCE) LS $8,000.001 $8,000 TREES Each $700.00 10 $7,000 MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC CONTROL Man Day $500.00 4 $2,000 2″ DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LF$75.00 125 $9,375 RETAINING WALL SF$40.00 825 $33,000 SITE AMENITIES (Benches, etc.) L.S. $7,500.00 1 $7,500 CONSTRUCTION STAKING Lump Sum $2,500.00 1 $2,500 SIGNS Each $250.00 4 $1,000 PVMT MARKINGS Lump Sum $2,000.00 1 $2,000 AS-BUILT Lump Sum $3,000.00 1 $3,000 MINOR ITEMS (5%) Lump Sum1 $21,473 ESTIMATE CONTINGENCY (15%) $67,639 subtotal $518,568.42 (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 23 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Conceptual Cost Analysis The following cost analysis is an examination of the anticipated cost reductions and/or increases associated with the formation of a regional animal control plan. This spreadsheet analyzes the cost implications on a town by town basis fo r all towns participating in this study. The information contained in this document is based on current data obtained from each town on their current animal control facility, as well as projected data for the regional animal control facility based on estimates and historical data of comparable animal control facilities in Connecticut. The following summarizes the rationale and data behind this analysis;  Cost projections were analyzed over a tim e frame of 50 years, which is a typical, anticipated life span for major building elements in this type of facility. There will be other maintenance needs with associated costs during this 50 year time frame, but these would be comparable (or less) to the mainte nance needs of the current animal control facilities.  Town populations were used to determine each town’s contribution percentage to the overall construction and operating costs.  In the Upgrade Facility section, a cost of $100 per square foot was used for each of the current pounds in an attempt to estimate costs to bring the current facilities to a comparable level as the proposed regional f acility. However, it should be noted that even with significant renovations, the existing animal control facilities of the region will never fully compare, as the proposed facility will be more energy efficient, will contain additional program such as staff areas, pub lic areas, and cattery, and will have full AC/Heat/Ventilation to provide more suita ble and healthier environments for the employees and animals.  Operating and wage reductions displayed in this spreadsheet were generated with oversight by each of the participating towns. These numbers are estimates and the final cost reductions in these ar eas will depend on multiple fact ors, most importantly, each town’s decision on reductions to st aff or staff hours. In order for towns to see a true cost savings, they will need to not only reduce current operating costs, but also reduce current wages to help offset some of the new wages that will be incurred under the regional plan.  This analysis does not factor in any potential state or federal grant funding, which will be pursued by the Council of Governments. Any grant funding that is secured could have a significant impact on the findings in this cost analysis. TOWNAGE OF FACILITY (YEARS)BUILDING AREA (SQUARE FEET)# DOG RUNSUPGRADE FACILITY ($100/SF AVERAGE)DEMOLISH ($10/SF)DECOMMISSION OPERATING COSTSWAGESTOTAL ANNUAL  BUDGET OPERATING COSTSWAGESTOTAL  PROJECTED SAVINGS  BEACON FALLSN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$2,300 $7,716 $10,016 $1,200 $0 $1,200 BETHLEHEMN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$0 $2,147 $2,147 $0 $0 $0 MIDDLEBURY22 1748 16 $174,800 $17,480 $3,500 $4,200 $24,500 $28,700 $3,500 $10,000 $13,500 NAUGATUCK22 2460 20 $246,000 $24,600 $3,500 $45,000 $45,000 $90,000 $19,000 $12,500 $31,500 PROSPECTN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$6,900 $13,265 $20,165 $5,500 $5,000 $10,500 SOUTHBURY35 2500 10 $250,000 $25,000 $3,500 $12,400 $77,148 $89,548 $6,000 $32,148 $38,148 WOODBURY27 550 5 $55,000 $5,500 $3,500 $6,100 $18,149 $24,249 $5,000 $4,149 $9,149  OPERATING COSTSWAGES TOTAL REGIONAL FACILITYNEW 8413 44$2,844,349N/A N/A$40,000 $70,000 $110,000 COGCNV ‐ REGIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY C.1 ‐ CURRENT & PROJECTED ANIMAL CONTROL BUDGETS  JANUARY 03, 1014 ‐ REVISED FEBRUARY 03, 2014 ‐ REVISED FEBRUARY 12, 2014          CURRENT ANNUAL BUDGET (2013) BUDGET REDUCTIONS *WOLCOTT WILL MAINTAIN THEIR CURRENT DOG POUND AND  THEREFORE HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM ALL STATISTICS  PROJECTED ANNUAL BUDGET (2015) PROJECTED COST OPTIONS FOR PARITY w/ NEW FACILITY TOWN POPULATION % SHAREREGIONAL FACILITY  CONSTRUCTIONOPERATING  COSTS/WAGES OVER 50 YEARSDECOMMISSION (SEE MATRIX C.1)TOTALUPGRADES (SEE MATRIX C.1) BUDGET REDUCTIONS OVER 50 YEARS (SEE MATRIX C.1) TOTALCOSTS SAVINGS OVER 50 YEARSCOST SAVINGS PER YEAR BEACON FALLS6000 6.79% $193,055.36 $373,303 $0 $566,359 $0 $60,000 $60,000($506,359) ($10,127.17) BETHLEHEM3500 3.96% $112,615.63 $217,760 $0 $330,376 $0 $0 $0($330,376) ($6,607.52) MIDDLEBURY7500 8.48% $241,319.20 $466,629 $3,500 $711,448 $174,800 $675,000 $849,800 $138,352 $2,767.04 NAUGATUCK32000 36.20% $1,029,628.60 $1,990,950 $3,500 $3,024,079 $246,000 $1,575,000 $1,821,000($1,203,079) ($24,061.58) PROSPECT9600 10.86% $308,888.58 $597,285 $0 $906,174 $0 $525,000 $525,000($381,174) ($7,623.47) SOUTHBURY20000 22.62% $643,517.87 $1,244,344 $3,500 $1,891,362 $250,000 $1,907,400 $2,157,400 $266,038 $5,320.76 WOODBURY9800 11.09% $315,323.76 $609,729 $3,500 $928,552 $55,000 $457,450 $512,450($416,102) ($8,322.05) TOTALS 88400 100.00% $2,844,349 $5,500,000 $14,000 $8,358,349 $725,800 $5,199,850 $5,925,650($2,432,699) ($48,654)  OPERATING COSTSWAGESTOTAL  ANNUAL BUDGET REGIONAL FACILITYNEW 8413 44$2,844,349$40,000 $70,000 $110,000 COGCNV ‐ REGIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL FACILIT Y C.2 ‐ COST ANALYSIS ‐ PROJECTED OVER 50 YEARS                    JANUARY 03, 2014 ‐ REVISED FEBRUARY 3, 2014 ‐ REVISED FEBRUARY 12, 2014 PROJECTED ANNUAL BUDGET (2015) PROJECTED NEW EXPENSES (RELATED TO REGIONAL FACILITY ONLY) PROJECTED SAVINGS (SEE MATRIX C.1) SUMMARY OF COSTS (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 24 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section VII – Management Structure Options The following management and staffing narrative s were developed through close collaboration with Karen Lombardi, an animal control consultant that has held numerous positions within this field. The following is an outline of options th at will be available to the participating towns under a regional plan for both management and staffing structure and expenses. These documents were discussed in detail with the animal study Committee, with recommendations made by the design and animal control professional s of utilizing a host/participating municipality management structure. Management Structure Options Multiple Town Regional Animal Control Facility Animal Control is a governmental responsibility with local governments deciding how services will be provided. Local priorities and resources available will help determine if it will be more effective to provide management in-house through an existing municipal department, regional board or out sourced to the private sector. In multi town facilities, regardless of management options utilized a clearly defined structure that outlines accountability, responsibility, and authority for management within the organization is essential. Expert input on all policies and protocols related to maintenance of physical and behavioral animal health should ideally be developed by collaboration of seasoned animal control officers, animal professionals such as the Humane Society and a veterinarian with training or experience in shelter medicine as well as the particular population being serviced. In multiple town facilities, to ensure consistency in day to day operations a shelter manager well versed in Animal Control , management and significant people skills should be on site during all hours of operation. Regardless of management option employed, the managing authority should possess a fundamental knowledge of the unique needs of Animal Control, including, but not limited to, safety of the public, animals and Officers, proper equipment needs, the importance of enforcement of animal related laws and compassion stress that is inherent in Animal Control workers. Management Options •Host/Participating Municipality Animal Control is often administrated by the host municipality in the town where the facility is located. In multi town facilities there may also be an official or department from a participating town that is more knowledgeable or experienced in successful Animal Control Management that may be engaged by the Regional Facility to provide management services . •Pros Generally, the host municipality has the best ability to monitor the needs of shelter building maintenance, associated work ordered and budgeting. Host municipality management also generally provides easier access between shelter personnel and management due to proximity. Successful Animal Control facilities in Milford/Orange, CT, Branford, North Branford,CT and Woodbridge/Bethany/Derby, CT all report to the Town Hall. Milford and Branford to the First Selectman’s office in the host towns and Woodbridge/Bethany/Derby to the Town of Woodbridge Finance Department. It should be noted that Milford and Branford also have a Board that addresses certain needs that will be discussed later. Host/Participating Municipality management also provides a more cost effective approach to animal control management.•Cons Host or Participating Municipality may not have the resources, knowledge or desire to take on the added responsibility of managing a multi town facility. Animal Control duties include law enforcement of animal related State Statutes and certain Public Safety situations such as communicable diseases and infections that may also require working in concert with a Town Health Department or Town Police Department. Due to the unique nature of Animal Control the assignment of management to a separate Town Department such as a Town Health Department or Police Department, generally will put too much emphasis on the Animal Control duties most closely related to the managing Department with an absence of consideration to the total duties and responsibilities in Animal Control. •Regional Animal Control Board Many municipalities have attempted to utilized an Animal Control Board to provide management to local regional Animal Control facilities. In the case of multi town collaborations usually one or two board members are appointed from each participating Town and are charged with providing management and budgeting oversight to the Regional facility and personnel as well as monthly reporting the the Town that they represent. Most members serving on such boards have an interest in animals and their well being. Many board members include animal professionals, such as Veterinarians and members of Animal Rescue organizations, among others. •Pros Cost is the largest advantage to management being provided by a volunteer board. •Cons Although animals and good intentions are generally the common bond to Animal Control Board members, historically it has not been enough to provide a sustained cohesive managing body. Whether it is priority differences between the participating Towns, differences of opinion in management styles or differences in individual agendas and visions of Animal Control, an Animal Control Board does not appear to be able to provide successful management in multi Town facilities. It should be noted that several multi town shelters such as Milford/Orange and Branford/North Branford do utilize Animal Control Commissions (Boards) for different purposes. These commissions help with some oversight, investigating citizens complaints and or concerns, help with fundraising, and shelter support. Neither Commission has any control over personnel, management, policies, protocols or volunteers. •Private Contractors A private contractor would usually handle both management of the facility and Animal Control personnel and services as well. A Private Contractor may or may not be affiliated with a large Humane organization. Private Contractors are a more common practice in areas of large populations and extensive Animal Control needs, such as in New York City. There are currently no private contractors providing this service in the State of Connecticut. Outside or Private Contractors could include organizations such as The CT Humane Society located in Newington, Westport and Waterford and The Simon Foundation located in Bloomfield. These are large humane organizations that along with smaller rescue groups such as the now disbanded Animals For Life have had some involvement in shelter management, in the case of Animals For Life, as well as aiding in shelter adoptions as in the case of the CT Humane Society and The Simon Foundation. Based on recent research I do not believe that the current humane private organizations and 501c3 rescues are interested in nor have the resources to manage a Regional Animal Control facility. My research has revealed that these CT organizations are not viable options and that are somewhat overwhelmed with their own missions. It should be noted that even if a willing organization or rescue were interested in managing a facility the cost and/or agenda is usually prohibitive. While certain boarding facilities and Veterinary hospitals might contract to provide run space for a Town’s animal control needs, it is not a real “management” option for a multi town facility. In the case of the current proposed Region and customary practices in CT where each Town prefers to keep or hire their own Animal Control Officers, the use of a private contractor would not be indicated and prove extremely costly if pursued. •Volunteers Volunteers are a welcome and useful shelter resource. Volunteers provide added free personnel hours that help the shelter’s budget by providing services, such as cleaning, filing, and other non professional functions the Towns would other wise be paying for. Volunteers also provide added comfort and attention to impounded animals through companionship, grooming, exercise and in some instances training. Volunteers also do fund raising and foster good will toward the shelter in the community. While an active volunteer base is necessary to a successful shelter, volunteers should only be viewed as a valuable addition and not be depended upon to consistently provide necessary services. The main focus should be on options that would ensure success for the Towns, the animals and the facility. Further conversation and ideas from participating Towns will help to define available management resources and needs so that preferred options can be explored in greater depth to determine the most effective and cost efficient management style that will best serve this Region.   REGIONAL FACILITY STAFFING OPTIONS Staffing recommendations are based on the assumption that local Animal Control Officers will not be responsible for the day to day running of the shelter, such as, the cleaning and feeding of the animals, or dering supplies, overseeing kennel staff, providing access to the animals for potential adopters to view, managing the office, answering the phones, communicating with participating ACO’s with regard to the animals impounded at the Regional facility from their towns, etc. The primary goal of proper staffing is to provide adequate coverage for the facility to insure the safety of the animals housed there and to provide a professional atmosphere enhancing adoptions and public relati ons as economically as possible. Staffing recommendations also do not rely upon volunteers as this will be a new facility without an established and/or reliable volunteer base. 1. As was briefly mentioned at the November 14 th meeting in Middlebury, it is strongly suggested non-ACO Facility Manager be employed at the Regional Shelter to provide continuity of serv ice and oversight of the day to day functioning of a multi-town Regional facility. It would be necessary for the facility manager to be knowledgeabl e about shelter animals and possess strong people skills. Based on my research with existing multi town facilities that employ a full time office manage r, both Municipal and Private Sector, the average starting pay range would be between $19. and $21. per hour or $39520 and $43680 gross annually. With a single office manager the issues as to who fulfill the of fice manager’s responsibilities at the facility during hours of operation should the Facility Manager be out sick or take vacation time would have to be addressed. Would participating ACO’s fill in at no additional cost? 2. A second option would be to employ two part time Facility Managers to provide the coverage of one full time Manager. Responsibilities and necessary skills would be the same, however, you would now have two people that know the job and can provide coverage should one be out sick or take vacation time. Average starting pay range would be slightly higher, however, this would be balanced by the absence of the requirement to provide insurance. Average starting pay range would be between $21. and $22. per hour or $20540. and $22594. for each employee. Equalling $41080. to 45188. annually for two employees working 19 ¾ hours each per week. 3. The third option would require The host Town’s ACO’s providing management in addition to their ACO responsibilities, if . This is done at other multi town facilities with non host participating towns providing compensation through contracts with the host Town. Compensation is usually negotiated between host Town and other participating Towns. 4. Kennel Staff. A minimum of two part time employees would be necessary to adequately clean and sanitize, feed animals, etc. in a 44 run Facility. It is unknown how many total animals will actually be impounded at the same time and although unlikely, with a full kennel this estimate of two part time kennel workers may need to be amende d to three. Pay for all part time personnel is estimated at 19 ¾ hours. My research revealed a large range in kennel help pay rates. Towns with strong, reliable volunteer participation tended to pay lower wages for their ke nnel help. However, they also appeared to have a higher turnover with less reliability and productivity from their paid employees. Of those shelters po lled the low average starting pay for kennel help is $13. to $14. per hour or $13351 to $14378. annually per Kennel Helper. It should be noted that the adoption of animals from any town, regardless of where they are housed, is the responsibility of the Animal Control Officer from that Town. Neither the Facility Manager, Kennel He lp or any other non ACO personnel is authorized to adopt, place or give away an animal, per State of CT Statute. As more information and thoughts become available from the participating Towns regarding the needs and involvement or not of each towns ACO’s in the non ACO functions of the Regional Facility there may be a need to revisit these staffing options. (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 25 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section VIII – Appendix A Meeting Minutes and Notes Previously Presented Plans and Program   COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 June 26, 2013 – Revised 1 SILVER / PETRUCELLI + ASSOCIATES Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT 06518-2340 Tel: 203 230 9007 Fax: 203 230 8247 silverpetrucelli.com MEETING MINUTES #1 PROJECT KICK OFF PROJECT: Regional Animal Shelter Study CLIENT: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) MEETING PLACE: Conference Room Mi ddlebury Town Hall and Middlebury Animal Shelter DATE AND TIME: June 26, 2013 @ 9:15 am ATTENDEES: Edward B. St. John First Selectman Middlebury Edward L. Stephens Wolcott Police Chief Pat Gallagher Regional Planner, COGCNV Peter Dorpalen Executive Director, COGCNV Richard Wildman Middlebur y Police Acting Chief Edward Edelson (at site) Southbury First Selectman & Study Committee Vice Chair Don Smith Civil Engineer Chris Nardi SPA Bill Silver SPA Purpose: Kick off of the project and program information gathering. A) First Selectman St. John described the Middleb ury animal shelter is used primarily as a canine facility and a small ca ttery has been developed in the last 2 years in the staff office. This pre-engineered building wa s constructed around 1990 and has significant utility services including gas, sanitary sewe r, canine pumps for discharge as well as adjacencies to the transfer st ation and public works faciliti es. The facility is managed by a tenant “Animals For Lif e” (AFL) and their part time staff as well as volunteers manage the AFL stock plus the animal s Middlebury is responsible for. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 June 26, 2013 – Revised 2  The Animals for Life staff will be ente ring into a new lease to maintain the building as part of their responsibili ties, but the police chief maintains the town’s administrative responsibilitie s under state statutes. Currently Middlebury has two part time animal control officers who make the field calls. It is likely that if regional animal shelters are developed under this plan, the animal wardens or control officers will remain under the management of each of their respective towns.  Wolcott has one full time dog warden and they currently have a mutual support service partnership with Plymouth. No fees are charged either way and Plymouth handles the weekend and night animal control officer duties while the Wolcott town facility with its 10 runs is the housing for both towns.  Southbury’s animal control shelter is vi rtually a shed with exterior runs. They have one full time animal control officer and their facility may house anywhere from 1 to 12 dogs at any one time. Southbury’s goal is to get more dogs adopted as soon as possible before they become “kennel crazy” with long duration stays in small quarters , coupled with a lack of exercise. First Selectman Edelson believes it is ideal that the animal control officer for each town remain in their resp ective fields while humane society organizations operate the pounds, colle ct donations for their shelter and manage the adoption process. Almost all towns create relationships with the local veterinarians for the medical care of these animals. B) Other town sites  Don Smith reviewed the site information he has collected for the other towns, which includes Woodbury (shared with Bethlehem), Wolcott, Naugatuck and Southbury. The attende es were not aware of any other facilities in any of th e other council towns.  D. Smith explained that an expanded facility in either Woodbury or Southbury would require a new septic system conforming to CTDEEP regulations rather than the health c ode due to the current septic system capacity. Accordingly, expansion of the existing Woodbury and Southbury sites are the least desirable sites for a re gional facility due to septic system issues. C) Tour of Middlebury facility  The team assembled at the canine facility on Service Road in Middlebury and toured the site. On this day, 5 pit-bull mixes were housed on the side that is leased to AFL, and approximate ly 6 cats were in the cattery. There were no animals under the town’s control in the facility. The adjacency of the site to the public works facility includes the benefit of connection to emergency generation. The expansi on potential of the property toward Woodside Avenue on town land, prefe rred public access to the building and other site planning issu es were discussed. Besides the restaurant and one rented house, there are no detrimental neighbor adjacencies, and the public works portion of the site is under camera surveillance, so the Middlebury police do investigate and make arrests for illegal animal COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 June 26, 2013 – Revised 3 abandonments, which the chief describes as active as once a per week but settling down in various seasons. D) Next action – P Gallagher will forward the animal control statistical information to SP+A as soon as convenient. Per the study scop e, the architect’s will begin to develop a program baseline on the regional animal needs and the relative changes over time. The architect and engineers will also arrange with each of the animal shelter towns, to visit those shelters and document the existing conditions. The intent is to schedule the next meeting in the future where this baseline information can be shared with the COGCNV subcommittee. Any corrections, additions, or comments should be made to Silver / Petrucelli + Associates within 14 days of the date of the meeting. Distribution: All attendees, Rachel Solviera, Ken Sgorbati, Bob Banning COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 September 17, 2013 1 SILVER / PETRUCELLI + ASSOCIATES Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT 06518-2340 Tel: 203 230 9007 Fax: 203 230 8247 silverpetrucelli.com MEETING MINUTES #2 PROJECT PROGRESS REVIEW PROJECT: Regional Animal Shelter Study CLIENT: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) MEETING PLACE: Conference Room Middlebury Town Hall and Middlebury Animal Shelter DATE AND TIME: September 17, 2013 @ 10:00 am ATTENDEES: Pat Gallagher Regional Planner, COGCNV Edward B. St. John First Selectman – Middlebury Carol Hubert Asst. to First Selectman – Southbury Todd Brouillette Police Captain – Naugatuck Gerald Smith (Call-in) First Selectman – Beacon Falls Robert Chatfield (Call-in) Mayor – Prospect Chris Nardi Project Architect – SP+A Bill Silver Project Manager – SP+A Purpose: Review data collection, prog ramming, planning and study development to date. A) Chris Nardi presented the study progress to date through use of Power Point images and graphic handouts. The pres entation material focused on previously completed data collection, programming and si te investigations as well as new material depicting building and site planning concepts for the new, regional shelter. Each topic is briefly outlined below, accompanied by all decisions made by the Committee for the further development of this report. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 September 17, 2013 2 Impound Statistics; Historical data (2007-2012) on impounds for the participating towns were analyzed and organized into a spread sheet to depict peak impound volumes over the past six (6) years. These stat istics were compared to corresponding town populations over the same time pe riod (2007-2012), as well as future population projections for the years 2015, 2020 and 2025.  Note: Following the meeting, it was confirmed by the COGCNV and the Committee that Wolcott will be maintaining their existing animal control facility.  Excluding Wolcott, the averag e monthly impoundments for the participating towns over the past si x (6) years have been 38.4 with an average maximum of 52.6. Based upon this data and an anticipated average animal length of less than one month, it was recommended by S/P+A that the future facility be designed to accommodate 40-50 dog runs.  It was noted that depending upon the future management structure of the regional facility, and more speci fically the decision to operate as a kill versus no kill facility, the overall number of dog runs may need to be adjusted.  It was agreed by the Committee to proceed with S/P+A’s recommendation of 40-50 dog runs, w ith the understanding that the design process will be flexible enough to allow for the addition of runs if needed. Preliminary Space Program; The preliminary space program was pr esented, depicting the necessary programmatic spaces for a regional animal control facility (as determined by S/P+A based upon previously designed an imal control facilities). In addition, supplementary programmatic spaces were outlined which are often, but not always, desi gned into modern animal control facilities.  The space program was approved by the Committee with the following adjustments; o A cattery and cat quarantine will be included o A viewing room will be included o A staff break room/kitchenette will be included o A training room, conference room and/or community room will not be included. COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 September 17, 2013 3 Existing Pound Visits; C. Nardi briefly described the obser vations and finding documented during the site and facility visits of the five (5) existing animal control facilities located in Middlebury, Wolcott, Woodbury, Southbury and Naugatuck. Among other items, the findings focu sed around current quantity of dog runs, heating and cooling accommodations, potential for site expansion and overall condition of the ex isting facility/structure.  It was determined by S/P+A that Middlebury is the only existing animal control site with enough developable land to accommodate a future, regional animal control facility.  C. Nardi commented that even wi thout this information, Middlebury was determined as the most ideal location of the existing facilities, due to its centrality to the partic ipating towns, easy highway access and location on a town owned, public works complex.  C. Nardi asked the town representatives if there were alternative town owned sites that may be avai lable for development of a regional facility. No suggestions were made and all present Committee members agreed that Middlebury was the only and preferred site and to proceed with the study accordingly. Building Layouts; C. Nardi presented three (3) alternativ e planning options depicting different spatial arrangements for the proposed, regional animal control facility. Planning options 1 and 2 depicted new facilities with the existing animal control facility being demolished. Pla nning option 3 depicted a partial new facility built off of the existing Midd lebury animal control facility, which would be renovated and re-used as part of the new, regional facility.  Planning option 3 was the consensus among the present Committee members. It was determined that this option of re-using the existing building be further developed, incorporating the programmatic changes previously outlined.  Maintaining the existing facility was preferred due to construction cost savings, and the ability to use the existing building as a secure and discrete area for dog drop offs as well as location for overflow dog runs.  It was requested that S/P+A de velop two (2) alternative plans depicting the dog runs in two orientations; o Back to back dog runs allowing dogs eye to eye visual contact (Similar to Planning Option 1) o Dog runs separated by a storage/support buffer, not allowing any eye to eye visual contact between dogs. (Similar to Planning Option 2) COGCNV Regional Animal Shelter Study 13.014 September 17, 2013 4 Site Layouts; Site layout options (developed by D onald Smith, Jr., consulting civil engineer) were briefly presented and discussed.  The Committee preferred the site op tion that reduced paved parking area and maintained maximum green space along Woodside Avenue.  It was determined that 10-12 public parking spaces were ample for this site, with additional staff and animal control parking located on the public works side of the building (location of existing facility parking) B) Next action – C. Nardi will forward a .pdf of the power point presentation to Pat Gallagher for distribution to the Committ ee members. S/P+A will revise the conceptual building plans per the comme nts of today’s meeting. Building elevations, renderings and cost estima tes will be produced and bound into a Draft Report, to be presented at th e next Committee meeting. Management structures for a regional animal control facility will be analyzed and presented at the next Committee meeting. Any corrections, additions, or comments should be made to Silver / Petrucelli + Associates within 14 days of the date of the meeting. Distribution: All attendees 13.014 COGCNV Regional Shelter – Preliminary Space Program.xls Silver/Petrucelli + Associates, Inc. 19-Jul-13 Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue Hamden, Ct 06518 (P) 203-230-9007 silverpetrucelli.com Council of Governments – Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) Regional Animal Shelter Study – Preliminary Program Summary Regional Animal Shelter Program Space SQFT Comments 1Vestibule (Air-Lock) 80 Front entrance 2Public Lobby/Waiting 120 Reception counter& waiting area 3Shared Office 300 Desks for (5), including reception 4Men’s Toilet Room 64 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 5Women’s Toilet Room 64 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 6Janitor’s Closet 25 7 Unisex Shower/Locker Area 64 W ater closet, lavatory, and shower 8Indoor Dog Runs (45) 4050 90 s.f. per run – Includes pen & solid separation per Regulations 22-336-13 9Isolation Runs (5) 500 100 s.f. per run – (1) Isolation run / (10) i ndoor runs per Regulations 22-336-13 10Grooming/Laundry 120 11 Exam Room 120 12 Food Preparation/Storage 200 W asher / dryer, sink, and storage 13General Storage 400 Divided into multiple areas 14Mechanical/Electrical 300 Exterior Access Net Total Usable Area6327 Circulation + Structure (25%) 1582 Varies dependent on kennel layout Total Facility 7909 Additional Program to Consider SQFT Comments 1Cattery 300 (25) cats 2Cat Quarantine 100 3 Viewing Room(s) 85 85 s.f. per viewing room 4 Training Room/Conference/Multi-Use 3000 Training room recommended by Naugatuck ACO; proximity to major airport may likely impair facility’s ability to host credited training events 5 Conference/Community Room 500 Square footage variable dependent on room use and occupancy 6Kitchenette/Pantry 100 Staff Use 7Sally Port 500 Interior or exterior Space Needs Page 1 of 1 7/24/20132:41 PM (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 26 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section IX – Appendix B Connecticut General Statutes Sec tion 22-336 – Dog Pound Regulations   DOG POUND REGULATIONS Section 22-336-13 Definitions As used in sections 22-336- 13 to 22-336-30, inclus ive: (a) “Dog Pound” means a building provided and maintained by a city or town which is us ed for the detention and care of impounded dogs or other facilities including licensed veterinary hospital or licensed commercial kennel which, through written agreement with a town, is used for the detention and care of impounded dogs. (b) “Impounded Dog” means a dog seized by the chief canine control officer, assistant chief animal canine cont rol officer, canine control officer, regional canine control officer or municipal anima l control officer for the purpose of detaining the dog, quarantining the dog, or holding a dog under a restraint or disposal order. (c) “Indoor Pen” means a completely enclosed area inside a dog pound building to be used for shelter by an impounded dog. (d) “Indoor Run” means an area inside a completely enclosed dog pound to be used for shelter and exercise by an impounded dog. (e) “Outdoor Run” means an incompletely enclosed area adjacent to a dog pound building to be used for ex ercise by an impounded dog. (f) “Renovate” means to change the size , construction or composition of pens, runs, fences, floors, heating system, water supply system, waste disposal system, o r any other physical component of dog pound building which are governed by these regulations. (g) “Sanitary” means that which pertains to health, with especial reference to cleanliness and freedom from infect ive and deleterious influences. Section 22-336-14 Impoundment Requirements No dog may be impounded at a dog pound wh ich does not meet the requirements of sections 22-336-13 to 22-336-29, inclusive, of these regulations, subject to the provisions of Se ction 22-336-30 of these regulations. Section 22-336-15 Compliance All dog pounds in which impounded dogs are kept must comply with sections 22- 336-13 to 22-336-29, inclusiv e, of these regulations, subject to the provisions of Section 22-336-30 of these regulations. Section 22-336-16 Physical Requirements (a) Any building to be used as a dog pound shall be constructed in complianc e with sections 22-336-13 to 22-336-30, inclusive, of these regulations and maintained in good repair. (b) The lower portion of interior and exte rior walls of a building to be used as a dog pound shall be c onstructed of concrete or cement block material up to a minimum height of four (4) feet. (c) All fencing shall be a maximum 1 ½ inch wire mesh by 11 minimum wire gauge to contain impounded dogs and of a design to prevent injury. (d) A copy of blueprints detailing the construction of the dog pound facility or renovation of an existing facility sha ll be sub mitted to the commissioner at least ninety (90) days prior to start of construction. Sections 22-336-7 Pens and Runs (a) Dog pounds shall provide either an indoor run, or an outdoor run and an adjacent indoor pen for each adult dog. (b) Indoor runs shall measure not le ss than forty (40) square feet with a minimum width of four (4) feet and a mi nimum height of six (6) feet. Solid partition div iders shall be provided between each run extending from the floor to a height of at least (4) f eet and shall extend the full length of the run. (c) Outdoor runs shall measure not less than four (4) feet wide, eight (8) feet long and six (6) feet hi gh with a gate at the end of each run. Solid partition dividers shall be provided between each run extending from the floor to a height of at least four (4 ) feet and shall extend the full length of the run. (d) Outdoor runs shall be covered by a permanent roof of suitable material to protect the runs from snow, rain and excess ive sunlight and a barrier shall be provided between the top of the runs and the roof structure to prevent the escape of impounded dogs. (e) Indoor pens shall be adjacent to each outdoor run and shall meas ure not less than for four (4) feet square and at least four (4) feet high. Any indoor run of less than six (6) feet in height must be covered with a maximum of 1 ½ inch wire mesh by 11 minimum wire gauge chain link fence and sha ll be kept clear of obstruction to provide air circulation. (f) Indoor pens shall be supplied with a so lid pa rtition divider extending from the floor to a height of at least four (4) feet. (g) Doorways between indoor pens and the outdoor runs shall be offset from center to provide adequate space fo r resting beds to be placed in the indoor pens. Section 22-336-18 Floors and base of runs (a) All dog pounds shall ha ve smooth concrete floors, runs and troughs with a minimum of one-quarter (1/4) inch pitch per foot. (b) Floors of outdoor runs shall be pi t ched away from the building in the direction of a trough installed at the end of the run, exterior to the run fencing. (c) Floors of indoor pens shall be pitched toward a trough installed at the end of the pen, exterior to the pen fencing. (d) Floors of indoors runs shall be pitched toward a trough which has been made inacc essible to dogs by either co vering or placement exterior to the run fencing. (e) All troughs shall be pitched toward covered drains at least six (6) in ches in diameter connected by pipe not less t han (6) inches in diameter to a disposal system appro ved by the official responsible for local sewage disposal. Section 22-336-19 Heat and Ventilation (a) Thermostatically controlled clean and sanitar y heat shall be provided to maintain a minimum temperature of fi fty five (55) degrees Fahrenheit at floor level. At no time shall the indoor temperature of the dog pound where dogs are housed exceed ni nety (90) degrees Fahrenheit. (b) The indoor portion of the dog pou nd where dogs are housed shall be mechanically ventilated in such a m anner as will provide fresh air to maintain health and comfort of i mpounded dogs. Section 22-336-20 Water Supply All dog pounds shall be supplied with a su fficient amount of hot running water for the purpose of maintaining proper sanitary conditions. The pound shall also provide a sufficient supply of potable water for impounded dogs. Section 22-336-21 Lighting Electrical lighting shall be provided in all dog pounds, capable of providing a minimum of 30 foot candles. Lighting s hall be provided for a minimum of eight (8) hours during each twenty- four (24) hour period. Section 22-336-22 Sanitation (a) The dog pound shall be kept sanitary and cleaned a minimum of once daily. (b) A disinfectant capable of eliminating canine viruses and bacteria shall be used in washing down runs, pens and in terior areas of the dog pound. (c) Such disinfectants shall be used in a manner not harmful to dogs. (d) Runs and pens shall be cleaned and disinfected before use by another dog. (e) Feces and other excreta shall be removed from pens, runs and troughs daily. (f) Equipment shall be available for t he proper storage or disposal of waste material to control vermin, insects and obnoxious odors . Section 22-336-23 Food and water containers Galvanized or stainless steel food and water containers shall be pr ovided and kept clean and sanitary at all times. Food and water containers shall be washed and disinfected daily and before use by another dog. Section 22-336-24 Storage of dog food Dog food in original packagi ng shall be stored at least twelve (12) inches abov e the floor on clean racks, dollies or other cl ean surfaces, in such a manner as to protect from splash and other contamination. Unsealed bags of dog food shall be stored in covered metal or covered heavy duty plastic containers at least twelve (12) inches above the floor on clean racks, dollies or other clean surfaces, in such a manner as to protect fr om splash and other contamination. Section 22-336-25 Removal of dead dogs Any dead dog shall be immediately remo ved from the dog pound area. A dead dog shall be preserved in a pr operly operating refrigerator at a temperature of not more than forty (40) degrees fahrenheit or freezer at a temperature of not more than thirty-two (32) degrees fahrenheit until such time as the dog is transferred for purposes of diagnostic testing or di sposed of by cremation or burial. Section 22-336-26 Isolation area At least one (1) isolation area shall be provided for each ten indoor runs or outdoor runs with adjacent indoor pens. An isolation area must consist of an indoor run or an outdoor run with an indoor pen. Such isolation areas shall be only used by dogs quarantined pursuant to Sections 22-358 or 22-359 C.G.S. Section 22-336-27 Quarantined Dogs Impounded dogs quarantined pursuant to Sections 22-358 or 22-359 C.G.S., must be kept in an isolation area. Only one (1) dog shall be kept in each isolation area. Section 22-336-28 Animal Care (a) Water shall be provided for dogs at all times. Adult dogs shall be fed at least once per day. D ogs under the age of six (6) months shall be fed at least two (2) times per day. (b) Dogs shall be fed the type and qu antity of food as directed by the manufacturers’ label. (c) Any dog which appears sick or injured shall be examined by a licensed veterinarian. (d) A water impervious removable resting bed shall be provided for each impounded dog. Not more than one adult dog shall be kept in each indoor run or outdoor run wit h adjacent indoor pen. Section 22-336-29 Transportation All dogs transported by municipal animal control officers shall be transported in an enclosed vehicle. Vehic les used to transport dogs shall be structurally sound and maintained in good repair to prev ent injury to dogs carried therein. Section 22-336-30 Grandfather Clause (a) The requirements of Sections 22-336-17(b), 22-336-17(c), 22-336-17(d) and 22-336-17(e) of these regulat ions concerning minimum measurements for the size of ru ns and pens, and the requirements of Section 22-336-18 of these regulati ons do not apply to dog pounds which are completely constructed prior to t he effective date of these regulations. All other requirements of Sections 22-336-13 to 22-336-29, inclusive, of these regulations including the prov isions of Sections 22-336-17(a), 22- 336-17(f) and 22-336-17(g) sha ll apply to such dog pounds. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22-336-30(a) of these regulations , any renovations to the si ze, construction or composition of pens, runs, fences, floors, heating system, water supply system, waste disposal system, or any other physi cal component of dog pound buildings completely constructed prior to the e ffective date of these regulations must conform with the appropriate requirements of Sections 22-336-13 to 22- 336-29, inclusive, of these regulations. Section 2 Section 22-336-1 through 22-336-12, inclus iv e, of these Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies are repealed.   (COG) of the Central Naugatuck Valley 27 Regional Animal Control Facility Study Silver/Petrucelli & Associates, Inc. © Section X – Appendix C Alternative Program, Floor Plans, Site Plan and Estimate The following documents were created in an effort to determine the maximum building footprint, and associated dog run quantity, that could be accommodated by the preferred regional site located at 2 Service Road in Middlebury, CT. The program and floor plan for Option 6 are demonstrative of this maximum build and iden tify an animal control facility able to accommodate up to (105) dog runs. Due to the unlikelihood of this region requiring an animal control facility with (105) dog runs, an additional solution was investigated. This solution, Option 7, investigates the design of an (80) run facility including the floor plan, site plan and cost estimate to follow; 13.014 COGCNV Regional Shelter – FINAL Space Program – Option #6.xls Silver/Petrucelli + Associates, Inc. 3-Feb-13 Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue Hamden, Ct 06518 (P) 203-230-9007 silverpetrucelli.com Council of Governments – Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) Regional Animal Shelter Study – FINAL Program Summary – Option #6 Regional Animal Shelter Program SpacePROPOSED SF ACTUAL SF Comments 1Vestibule (Air-Lock) 80 95 Front entrance 2Public Lobby/Waiting 120 129 Reception counter& waiting area 3Viewing Room 85 120 4Shared Office 425 430 Desks for (5), including reception; room for conference table 5Staff Break / Kitchenette 120 123 Tables, sink, microwave, refrigerator 6Men’s Toilet Room 64 62 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 7Women’s Toilet Room 64 62 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 8Staff Toilet / Shower Room 90 92 Includes shower and locker area 9Indoor Dog Runs (95) 7600 7600 80 s.f. per run – Includes pen & solid separation per Regulations 22-336-13 10Isolation Runs (10) 800 800 80 s.f. per run – (1) Isolation run / (10) indoor runs per Regulations 22-336-13 11Cattery 350 347 (35-40) cats 12Cat Quarantine 150 157 13Grooming/Laundry 150 184 14Exam Room 150 184 15Food Preparation/Storage 350 408 W asher / dryer, sink, and storage 16General Storage 500 480 Divided into multiple areas 17Mechanical/Electrical 600 738 Exterior Access Net Total Usable Area11698 12011 Circulation + Structure (25%) 2925 2619 Total Facility 14623 14630 Space Needs Page 1 of 1 2/6/20148:25 AM 13.014 COGCNV Regional Shelter – FINAL Space Program – Option #7.xls Silver/Petrucelli + Associates, Inc. 3-Feb-13 Architects / Engineers / Interior Designers 3190 Whitney Avenue Hamden, Ct 06518 (P) 203-230-9007 silverpetrucelli.com Council of Governments – Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) Regional Animal Shelter Study – FINAL Program Summary – Option #7 Regional Animal Shelter Program SpacePROPOSED SF ACTUAL SF Comments 1Vestibule (Air-Lock) 80 95 Front entrance 2Public Lobby/Waiting 120 129 Reception counter& waiting area 3Viewing Room 85 120 4Shared Office 425 430 Desks for (5), including reception; room for conference table 5Staff Break / Kitchenette 120 123 Tables, sink, microwave, refrigerator 6Men’s Toilet Room 64 62 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 7Women’s Toilet Room 64 62 Shared w/ public. Handicapped accessible 8Staff Toilet / Shower Room 90 86 Includes shower and locker area 9Indoor Dog Runs (69) 5520 5520 80 s.f. per run – Includes pen & solid separation per Regulations 22-336-13 10Isolation Runs (11) 880 880 80 s.f. per run – (1) Isolation run / (10) indoor runs per Regulations 22-336-13 11Cattery 300 315 (30-35) cats 12Cat Quarantine 125 133 13Grooming/Laundry 150 158 14Exam Room 150 184 15Food Preparation/Storage 350 375 W asher / dryer, sink, and storage 16General Storage 500 480 Divided into multiple areas 17Mechanical/Electrical 1000 944 Exterior Access Net Total Usable Area10023 10096 Circulation + Structure (30%) 3007 2955 Total Facility 13030 13051 Space Needs Page 1 of 1 2/12/20148:08 AM COGCNV – REGIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY 12-Feb-14 2 Service Road Mi ddl ebury, Connecti cut S/P+A Job No. 13.014 OPI NI ON OF PROBABLE CONS TRUCTION COST – PLAN OPTION #7 13,051 APPROXIMATE TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 11,303 (NEW CONSTRUCTION) 1,748 (RENOVATION) SECTION MATERIAL & LABOR COST NUMBER W ORK CATEGORIES QTY. UNIT UNIT $ ALLOW ANCE TOTAL $ OTHER COSTS BONDS (1.5% of construction cost) 1 LS$44,644 INSURANCE (.5% of construction cost) 1 LS $14,881 OTHER COSTS SUB-TOTAL $59,525 DIVISION TWO SELECTIVE DEMOLITION AND TIE-INS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 DUMPSTERS 8 EA $850.00 $6,800 DIVISION TWO SUB-TOTAL $26,800 DIVISION THREE FORMWORK (CONTINUOUS WALLS) 5,856 SF $5.00 $29,280 CONCRETE FOOTINGS 81 CY$475.00 $38,475 CONCRETE FOUNDATION W ALLS 108 CY$425.00 $45,900 CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE (INCLUDING REINF./FINISHIN G 11,303 SF $5.00 $56,515 REBAR 10 TON $1,850.00 $18,500 DIVISION THREE SUB-TOTAL $188,670 DIVISION FOUR CMU WALL BACKUP – EXTERIOR 8,750 SF $15.00 $131,250 CMU WALL – INTERIOR 9,400 SF $15.00 $141,000 DIVISION FOUR SUB-TOTAL $272,250 DIVISION FIVE STRUCTURAL STEEL 2 TON $3,500.00 $7,000 COLD FORMED METAL FRAMING – INTERIOR WALLS 1,500 SF $3.00 $4,500 DIVISION FIVE SUB-TOTAL $11,500 DIVISION SIX BASE CABINETS 100 LF $250.00 $25,000 UPPER CABINETS 80 LF $200.00 $16,000 SOLID SURFACE COUNTERTOPS 100 LF $150.00 $15,000 DIVISION SIX SUB-TOTAL $56,000 DIVISION SEVEN DAMPPROOFING 2,950 SF $1.00 $2,950 RIGID INSULATION – EXTERIOR W ALLS & FOUNDATION 8,750 SF $2.50$21,875 ACOUSTICAL INSULATION – INTERIOR WALLS 2,000 SF $1.25 $2,500 BATT INSULATION 11,303 SF $1.50 $16,955 WEATHER/VAPOR BARRIER 8,750 SF $1.50 $13,125 METAL SOFFITS & FASCIA 732 LF $30.00 $21,960 ASPHALT SHINGLES 125 SQ $350.00 $43,750 ICE AND WATER SHIELD 125 SQ $75.00 $9,375 RIDGE VENTS 300 LF $20.00 $6,000 EPDM ROOFING 150 SF $12.00 $1,800 METAL GUTTER 500 LF $12.00 $6,000 METAL LEADER 120 LF $10.00 $1,200 COMPOSITE METAL PANELING – EXTERIOR 4,500 SF $25.00 $112,500 FIRE & SMOKE PROTECTION 1 LS$3,000 SEALANTS 1 LS$2,000 DIVISION SEVEN SUB-TOTAL $264,990 DIVISION EIGHT 1″ INSULATED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT/CLERESTORY 680 SF $60.00 $40,800 ALUMINUM ENTRANCE DOOR 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 HOLLOW METAL DOOR FRAME 27 EA $250.00 $6,750 HOLLOW METAL DOOR 27 EA $450.00 $12,150 STEEL DOOR – INSULATED 4 EA $250.00 $1,000 DOOR HARDWARE 31 EA $500.00 $15,500 INTERIOR VISION PANELS 25 SF $45.00 $1,125 DIVISION EIGHT SUB-TOTAL $81,325 DIVISION NINE GYPSUM WALL BOARD/CEILING 15,000 SF $3.00 $45,000 ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE 2,000 SF $4.00 $8,000 CARPETING 80 SY $38.00 $3,040 PORCELAIN TILE FLOORING 300 SF $14.00 $4,200 VCT FLOORING 600 SF $4.00 $2,400 RESILIENT WALL BASE 200 LF $2.50 $500 EPOXY FLOORING (INCLUDING BASE) 11,000 SF $12.00 $132,000 PAINT GYPSUM WALLS/CEILINGS 15,000 SF $1.00 $15,000 FILL/PAINT CMU WALLS 18,000 SF $1.25 $22,500 PAINT DOOR FRAMES 27 EA $75.00 $2,025 KENNELS/FENCING/RUNS 1 LS$300,000.00 $300,000 DIVISION NINE SUB-TOTAL $534,665 DIVISION TEN INTERIOR SIGNAGE 1 LS$10,000 FEASIBILITY STUDY DIVISION TEN SUB-TOTAL $10,000 DIVISION TWENTY-TWO MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS $652,550.00 $652,550 DIVISION TWENTY-TWO SUB-TOTAL $652,550 DIVISION TWENTY-THREE PLUMBING SYSTEMS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000 DIVISION TWENTY-THREE SUB-TOTAL $200,000 DIVISION TWENTY-SIX ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000 DIVISION TWENTY-SIX SUB-TOTAL $150,000 DIVISION THIRTY-TWO SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN NARRATIVE 1 LS$527,500 (See Attachment for Site Cost Breakdown) DIVISION THIRTY-TWO SUB-TOTAL $527,500 SUBTOTAL = (INCLUDE O&P) $2,976,250 CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT = $273.66 GEN. CONDITIONS 10.00% $297,624.95 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 10.00%$297,624.95 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL = $3,571,499 SILVER/ PETRUCELLI + ASSOCIATES Architects / En gineers / Interior Desi gnersSOFT COSTS/FF&E 3190 Whitney Avenue A/E DESIGN FEES (7%) $250,005 Hamden, CT 06518 PRINTING & LEGAL NOTICES $3,750 Phone: 203 230 9007 DESIGN CONTINGENCY (5%) $178,575 MISCELLANEOUS & REIMBURSABLES $7,500 BORINGS $10,000 SOFT COST/FF&E TOTAL = $449,830 TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,021,329 FF&E (Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment) FINANCING COSTS HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT OFF SITE DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIONS