Mansfield hears three master‑plan options for municipal campus, with costs ranging from about $44M to $81M and parking a major obstacle

EDM Studio presented a feasibility study on June 22 outlining three principal options to address Mansfield’s municipal campus needs — the senior center, community center and town hall — after months of public engagement and department interviews.

The firm’s lead, Chris Wante, told the council the team had met more than 140 residents and department staff and repeatedly heard concerns about parking, traffic and fiscal responsibility. ‘‘Parking at both sites was brought up a ton,’’ he said, and the study aimed to show the trade‑offs for scale, cost and phasing.

Option 1 would build a roughly 25,500‑square‑foot senior center on the existing senior‑center parcel and renovate the current town hall. Consultants estimated construction of the new senior center at about $20 million and, including typical soft costs, a project total of roughly $23.5 million (escalated to late 2027). Renovating the town hall was estimated at about $17 million construction and roughly $20 million project cost; taken together the consultants placed simultaneous work for both projects near $44 million. EDM warned the option would likely require a 12–18‑month relocation period for the senior center during construction.

Option 2 would relocate and attach the senior center to the municipal campus (the existing community center and town hall footprint) and would require substantially more parking. The consultants proposed aggressive re‑grading and an elevated tennis‑court/parking‑deck scheme to approach a target of roughly 400 parking spaces (consultants’ on‑deck cost order of magnitude: about $2.2 million for the deck shown). Construction costs for the option were estimated near $50 million, with total project costs near $60 million; the team emphasized this option can be phased so the senior‑center component could be executed as a discrete project.

Option 3 calls for a new multi‑story town hall sited at Storrs Road and South Eagleville Road, a reconfigured civic green and a fully integrated campus with expanded community‑center amenities. That option carried the largest estimate — roughly $81 million all‑in — but would allow the town hall to remain operational while a new building is constructed and would include the Eastern Highlands Health District in the new footprint.

Consultants presented illustrative debt scenarios to show homeowner impact: under their example assumptions (a 20‑year general obligation bond issued in fiscal 2028 at 3.7%), the median‑value homeowner’s share of debt service and project costs would be about $489 per year for Option 1, about $600 per year for Option 2, and about $869 per year for Option 3. The consultants cautioned those figures are illustrative and depend on market interest rates, length of debt, grant awards (the team said staff plans to seek a SIF grant in late 2026), and final scope and site work allocations.

Council members and staff pressed the presenters on programmatic details and costs. Questions focused on: whether modern senior centers will remain well used decades from now; how to balance intergenerational programming with spaces reserved for older adults; the practical and visual effects of a large surface parking area versus a parking deck; the treatment of hazardous‑materials abatement during renovation; and where displaced services (for example, the Eastern Highlands Health District) would be housed during construction. EDM acknowledged some line‑item allocations — especially how site costs were distributed between the senior center and town hall in the cost model — deserved closer review and said they would return with more precise estimates and scenarios.

Several residents had urged the council to prioritize a new senior center at the existing site on affordability and proximity to senior housing; others recommended using the municipal campus to create integrated services. Councilors requested additional financial projections — including 20‑ and 30‑year comparisons, scenarios that assume a $10 million SIF grant, and updated revenue projections tied to recent market‑rate development in town — before trimming options for the fall.

Next steps per the consultants: additional community engagement over the summer, a September update to the council to identify a preferred option, staff pursuit of grant funding in the late calendar year, and a potential referendum in November 2027 if the council moves forward with a funded option.

Ending: The council did not vote on any option. The presentation closed with staff and consultants agreeing to return with refined cost allocations, potential sustainability add‑ons (PV or geothermal estimates on request), and clearer phasing options for council review.