Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses architect contract as staff studies sites; engineering memo cites 6,000 sq ft minimum
Summary
Public works engineering told the Animal Control Building Committee that Bristol needs roughly 6,000 sq ft for a standalone facility; the committee voted to pause executing a contract with DesignLearn while it re-evaluates regionalization and site options including 30 Cross Street.
At its Jan. 15 meeting the Animal Control Building Committee heard an engineering assessment that put Bristol’s baseline space needs for an animal control facility at about 6,000 square feet and voted to pause execution of a contract with the selected architectural firm, DesignLearn, until the committee decides whether to regionalize the project or select an alternate site.
Lucas Podokotski, a civil engineer with public works, briefed the committee on minimum regulatory and operational requirements. He said primary enclosures are governed by minimum dimensions — "a primary enclosure must be a minimum of 16 square feet" — and that, accounting for a 30-primary-enclosure program and operational buffer, "a space need would be a minimum of 6,000 square feet." Podokotski also listed other practical needs not explicitly defined in the regulations, such as an exotic-animal room, additional storage and a garage.
Committee members noted that the town-owned building at 30 Cross Street measures roughly 10,600 square feet, which would exceed the engineering baseline for Bristol acting alone. The committee discussed several other candidate locations: Peasdale Street (near the dog park and the Roberts property), two areas along Vincent P. Kelly Road (the current location), Stafford Avenue parcels and other city-owned parcels including a site on James B. Casey Road and an adjacent leaf-dump parcel. The works director said engineering will analyze pros and cons for each site and report back.
The committee also discussed regionalization outreach. Members said Plymouth is already a partner in planning discussions; Wolcott, Burlington and Farmington were described as potential participants, and outreach had been made to Thomaston and others. Several members said scheduling conflicts related to municipal budget season have slowed some responses but that a regional meeting and site tour are being arranged.
On procurement, a committee member moved "that we not execute any contract with DesignLearn, or [the] selected architectural firm" until the committee determines project configuration. The motion was seconded and carried; the committee directed staff to inform the architect that work is on pause to avoid incurring unwanted costs.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: engineering will compile a written site-evaluation report for the committee; staff will arrange tours of 30 Cross Street for new members; and committee leadership will continue outreach to neighboring towns about regionalization.
The committee did not set a date for resuming architectural work during the meeting.
