New London hears preferred plan to consolidate public works into expanded facility; architect estimates $8–9 million range

Steven Roy, principal at Wyman Land Architects, told the New London Board of Selectmen on June 30 that the consultant team had developed five options to replace the town’s Department of Public Works (DPW) office and expand vehicle-bay capacity and that a consolidated "preferred alternative" built from option three best met long-term operational needs. The presentation and discussion took place during the board’s public meeting and included engineers and cost consultants in attendance.

The consultants said the site has key constraints that shaped designs: a substation parcel on the site that is off-limits, a transmission-line easement crossing the center of the property that prohibits building in a broad swath, adjacent wetlands and associated buffer zones. "There’s a lot of things in the way here," Roy said, noting limits on where additions can be sited. Kevin Aken, senior project manager with Wyman Land Architects, described the existing garage as having "solid built bones" but aging systems, failing siding and water intrusion; he called the existing salt shed a particular concern because its current tensile-block foundation lets water infiltrate and can carry salt into nearby waterways.

The five options ranged from modest infill additions (option one, about 6,910 sq ft of additions) to a larger consolidate-and-relocate approach (option three, roughly 9,870 sq ft in its largest iteration). The preferred alternative—developed from option three—would consolidate most DPW uses into one attached facility, add four additional storage/vehicle bays, provide dedicated wash and maintenance bays, and include updated offices, locker and break spaces while improving the existing garage siding and interior systems to extend its useful life. Aken said the preferred alternative "maximizes the site potential" while preserving an upper lot for possible future municipal uses.

On cost, the consultants cautioned that only an architect-level estimate exists at this schematic stage. "The current slides show an 8 to 9 million range which is our estimate not an actual line-by-line item estimate yet," Roy said; he added a detailed cost estimator is preparing a breakdown and expected to deliver more detailed numbers in one to two weeks. The team said smaller alternatives could fall in a lower range (the presenters suggested back-of-the-envelope possibilities in the $5–6 million range once site work was separated), but reiterated those were preliminary figures.

Board members asked technical and operational questions. On roof type and snow, the consultants said modern single-ply membrane flat roofs can perform reliably with welded seams and 30-year warranties and that portions of flat roofs could accommodate solar panels; standing-seam roofs were offered as an alternate for some areas. When asked about adding a second story, the team said adding vertical expansion above vehicle bays is generally impractical and that communities more commonly expand laterally.

Staff and consultants flagged environmental and operational priorities. The team recommended addressing the salt shed as a near-term priority because stormwater carrying salt currently reaches Lion Brook and Keys Lake; the recycling building was described as an unheated prefab structure needing roof and siding repairs and underutilized. Sam (DPW staff) said recycling logistics could be addressed separately using a revolving fund and that staging construction in the upper lot and timing work to avoid winter operations would limit disruption to DPW services.

The presentation included brief, informational studies showing how a police station program might fit on the northeast portion of the site; the group characterized those as quick fit tests, not full police-department programming. An 11,685 sq ft single-story schematic was below program requirements, while a two-story 14,600 sq ft scheme could fit with compromises and additional costs.

Next steps identified by the consultants included a preliminary, line‑item cost estimate due in one to two weeks, further refinement of the preferred alternative, and a discussion with the board about procurement approach. The consultants recommended a construction-manager delivery approach to help manage phased work while parts of the facility remain in operation; they outlined two schedule options that would either keep schematic design before a March bond vote or advance some design at risk to shave schedule and reduce escalation, with potential occupancy as early as spring 2028 under an accelerated path.

The board asked the consultants to produce the detailed cost estimate and said members wanted to avoid overbuilding the upper lot; before adjourning, the board asked for the financial breakdown and further refinement of alternatives. A motion to adjourn was moved and seconded and a voice vote began; the transcript ends as the vote is called.