New Shoreham committee to continue public-safety complex planning after site-review questions

A committee of the New Shoreham Town Council agreed on next steps for a proposed public-safety complex, saying it will continue work on a design for the current police–fire site while checking whether alternative locations were adequately explored.

Committee members said the council should not issue an RFP for architectural services until the group has reviewed site alternatives and consolidated design concepts. Speaker 4, a committee member, said the group should "do our due diligence" on other possible locations so critics cannot say the town failed to look at options.

The matter began with questions about whether the town had sufficiently explored other sites, including the municipal airport. Speaker 1 said the airport had been discussed previously but that he did not know whether anyone had formally contacted airport officials. Speaker 3 noted that Westerly police operate on state airport property and suggested that if Westerly had an arrangement there, the airport might merit renewed inquiry.

Speakers cited practical constraints that had previously ruled some sites out. Speaker 2 said the town highway garage site had flooding concerns and needed reconstruction. Speaker 1 said the transfer station site was "too far away and too small." An identified parcel referred to as the Mott property would require purchase and includes filled land that could raise stability and excavation concerns, Speaker 3 warned.

Committee members discussed technical requirements that affect siting decisions. Speaker 4 and Speaker 5 discussed water supply and sprinkler requirements for buildings on a well versus municipal water. Speaker 4 summarized examples from other towns, saying a well-fed system typically requires an underground storage tank and pump: "The well feeds the tank. The tank pumps it," he said. The group discussed approximate costs; one speaker cited a delivered 30,000-gallon tank cost on the order of $100,000 and described that amount as approximate.

Despite the questions, several members urged the committee to keep momentum. Speaker 3 recommended advancing design work for the current police–fire property so the town can present a clear concept to council for review. Speaker 5 (who identified as an architect) said that issuing an RFP without an identified site leads to ambiguous proposals: "If you're gonna go with an RFP, you really should have a site because, otherwise, they're drawing in the wind," he said.

As next steps, the committee agreed to convene a smaller team — Speaker 3, the chief (referred to in the meeting as Chief Hobi), and Speaker 4 — to review the drawings already produced by Doug and to refine a layout for the committee to consider. Speaker 3 said he would work on the back end of the RFP document while the design subgroup refines the concept. The group also agreed to place the RFP discussion on the next meeting agenda and to postpone formal issuance until the committee can present a site-specific design to the council.

The meeting record also notes that the council previously authorized engaging consultant Scott for related work; the transcript does not specify the date or vote for that authorization. The committee adjourned at the close of the discussion after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded; the meeting minutes record the motion passed, with the exact tally not specified in the transcript.

The committee left open the possibility of further outreach to the airport to ask about temporary siting options and whether the airport authority would permit staging of equipment while construction proceeds. Committee members said the further work is intended to guard against criticism that the town did not explore alternatives and to provide the council a clearer budgetary picture before committing to an RFP.