Police Facility Project

Q: We have been trying to post questions to your website for over a week and can't. Why? It would be nice to have all questions that have been sent to your site made available for all to see. We understand not having the resources to answer them, but making the questions that concerned residents how sent you is important for all to see. Thank you for your consideration as time is running out for all to get all the information they need to make their informed vote - use included.

A: We removed the project email link that was established to communicate with the project consultants (Colliers Project Managers) during the phase of the project when potential police station sites and potential size/layout of a police facility were being investigated. That phase has been completed. The Police Facilities Advisory Committee is now holding public forums, in person, to discuss the project and to answer questions; one is being held tomorrow (Saturday, March 8th) morning at 10:00 AM at the Kearsarge Professional Development Center. You are correct that having staff attempt to answer emails would be difficult, and we appreciate your understanding. If you are not able to attend tomorrow morning, I am happy to bring your question to the Committee for an answer, just send it to me.

Additionally, the first forum was recorded and is available on the town website along with a video that was done by YNC that explains the Committee’s recommendation on the police station project. The links are on the front page of the town website, under the meeting notice for the next forum: NewLondon.NH.gov

Q: What is the assumptions for water and sewer at the Garvey Site? Will water be extended and/or sewer tied by Forcemain?

A: The proposed estimate includes funds for utilities to be constructed from Seamans Rd to the within 10’ of the building. Inside 10’ and into the building fall under the applicable trade contractor such as plumbing, electrical, etc.

Q: For the Newport Site the board seems to have a large concern as to what NHDOT will require. Has any preliminary discussions occured with NHDOT? The additional costs if all of the theoretical requirements are required seem unlikely to reach anywhere near the $2.6M difference even with a reduction in wetlands on the Garvey site.

A: The town has had many conversations with NHDOT regarding their requirements in the area of the roundabout, shopping plaza, post office and the residential neighborhoods to ensure the safety of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic in that area. Seamans Road, a town-controlled road, does not have the high number of pedestrians and vehicular traffic that Newport Road has.

Q: Has any due diligence been done on the proposed price for the Garvey Site? What is typical raw land prices 2 acres+/- without water and sewer?

A: There are no recent sales of raw land for commercial use to consider the current market value of 4 acres to be used for the Police Station. However, there may be some guidance in the assessed land value of other town property: the current site of the police department is .73 acres (developed) and is assessed at $368,400; the site of the town offices on Main Street is 1.29 acres (developed) with an assessed value of $526,500 and the site of the highway department on S. Pleasant Street is 4.010 acres (developed) assessed for $309,500. The Selectmen feel that the purchase price of $350,000 for four acres of land is a fair price for the town to pay based on what they are seeing for residential property sales in New London and based on the relatively small inventory of land that would be viable for the location of the police station ; Budget Committee is also in favor of the purchase. The lot does have access to water and sewer.

Q: Options for site evaluations is pretty standard. Survey, soil survey etc will have minimal site impact. The geotechnical evaluation will require a track vehicle getting access which may require some brush clearing but little else. This really should evaluated to determine if the owners would be amenable as opposed to purchasing at this time.

A: The purchase and sale agreement includes conditions to closing, one of which allows the town to make inspections to determine if the property is suitable for its uses prior to the purchase of the property.  

Q: At the first Police Adv Committee meeting, a volunteer member asked the question: what is the appetite of the voters for the cost of a new Police Station. The Chair said at the time, said no, we cannot talk about costs now. Then, in December 2024, the Chair of the BOS said the project should not exceed $10 M based on a policy about seven years old. Then, the Police Chief said: "Oh, I am glad to know what the budget is" or something to that effect. How did this happen? Normally in a project management process, the anticipated costs are identified up front. At the December 16, 2024 Selectmen's "Gathering", why did the Chair of the Adv Committee avoid discussing the total project cost and said this is a "high level" discussion? Why didn't a discussion of the total project cost start at the very beginning of the process? Normally in a project management process, the sponsor identifies the anticipated costs up front.

A: Reasonable people can disagree with the manner that the selectmen and volunteer committee took in evaluating the police station issue, an issue that has been before the town for decades. Hopefully everyone appreciates that they conducted themselves in an open and transparent manner – even if at times others might have taken a different route to get where we are today. For example, as this question suggests, starting with the project cost and then looking at the program needs, location, and other issues. Municipal projects, especially ones like this that elicit such strong opinions for and against, must be guided with flexibility, openness and sensitivity to the people involved. This might mean taking an unconventional route. Q: For much of its consideration of a potential site, the Police Committee was focused on land across from the Post Office. Then, suddenly, the Committee switched sites from that land, to a site on Seamans Road. Why the switch at the last minute? A: The Selectmen were in favor of the change of focus from the Bewley land (across from the post office) to the current location on Seamans Road because (1) there was pushback from several residents in the area of the Bewley location and from those who felt that it was too far from the Main Street corridor, (2) the selectmen became aware of the willingness on the part of the Garvey family to sell a piece of their Seamans Road property for use as a police station and (3) the Seamans Road location keeps the police station close to where it is now while still be able to provide the parking and building security that has been identified as important, and not available at its current location. Q: The Seamans Road site has challenging site development issues? The Board of Selectmen considered that site five years ago and then discarded it. What changed that caused the Seamans Road site to become the preferred site? A: The Selectmen did not consider the site 5 years ago however the former Police Site Review Committee in 2021/2022 briefly discussed the site and discarded it because it was off Main Street (at the time, a site on Main Street or Newport Road were deemed a priority) and the committee did not think the owners would sell it. Preliminary site investigation, including a wetland delineation and staff review of the land, shows no more challenging site conditions than many other sites in New London (including the Bewely site).

 

Q: Why didn't the Police Committee conduct a due diligence analysis of the Seamans Road site to determine its suitability for the police station location before recommending it? Do we know the nature and extent of the wetlands on the site and how they affect the site development costs?

A: The Police Facilities Advisory Committee was not tasked with conducting a due diligence analysis on any property. The Selectmen did preliminary due diligence including having town staff walk the property and having a wetlands delineation completed and decided based on that information that it is likely that the site will work for the police station. Town Meeting voters will decide if it will appropriate the funds needed for more thorough investigation.

Q: Why does the Town of New London need to construct a public way (i.e. approved Town road) to the site for the benefit of the owners to allow for future residential development?

A: The parcel that the town has identified as being best for the police station is also the best site for future development by the property owner. Since the town will need access to the police department, it makes sense to allow that access point to also be used for the back land, if it is ever developed, allowing fewer access points (curb cuts) onto Seamans Road, which is a benefit to the citizens of the town as well.

Q: If there is an overwhelming no vote (2 to 1 in opposition) to the $950,000 bond issue, what message will that send to local officials and the Committee?

A: Town meeting, which will be held on Wednesday, March 12th starting at 6pm, will give voters of the town the opportunity to state their opinions on this matter, and send a message to local officials, committee members, the New London Police Department and all staff of the town.

Q: Ashley Seybold recently stated in an email communication that

 "In 2024 alone, our Communications Department (Dispatch) fielded 30,000 calls, with over 14,000 requiring police assistance. "

How many of those 30,000 calls made or those 14,000 requiring assistance were for New London itself?  Please break down that number for New London voters.

A:   Of the approximately 30,000 calls for service that the New London Dispatching Center handled in 2024, 64% were generated from New London, the remaining 36% were generated from Sunapee, Newbury, Sutton and Wilmot for their public safety personnel to respond to.

Q:    During the January 17th  PFAC meeting, Colliers reviewed their project schedule (see time stamp 46:50ish) and referenced a May, 2026 Town meeting for identifying the $1.1M work that would have been completed (assuming the article on the warrant is passed at the 2025 March town meeting) and, assuming the Town passes an article on the warrant for construction at the 2026 town meeting, that the building construction period would begin next May, 2026 (FY 2027) for 12 months.

Unless there is a plan to change the month New London holds its Town Meeting, does the Collier project plan still apply with a March town meeting date.  Can all the activity highlighted for the FY 2026 requested $1.1M and construction activities the following fiscal year occur given a March Town meeting and the availability of funds in July of each year (when the fiscal year begins)? 

Does Colliers' project timeline and cost escalation factors account for the activities necessary to secure the funds (e.g., Bond Bank loan application / processing) that would need to occur before the $1.1M work starts and the subsequent year construction can begin? 

A:   The Selectmen will use the 2 1/2 months from Town Meeting to July 1 to work with the PFAC to select vendors for the site and design work, and will close on the land purchase in July .Financing will be determined by the Selectmen as the year evolves - there is adequate cash flow to pay vendors until a financing decision is made. Timeline for steps beyond that appropriated next month will be determined as results of site and design evolve.

Q: The question for the November 7th posted answer quoted a reference on the cost impact associated with a category 4 vs 3 EOC (AKA dispatch center): " that "we can say that there will be significant cost increases."

Following up on the answer posted November 7th, please reconcile that answer to the reference made at the June 14th meeting, around time stamp 29 minutes 40 seconds ("From a technical, tower, radio, communications, I'm going to swag its probably 50% of your cost.").

For clarity, please separately identify the total costs for the proposed Dispatch Center (e.g., technical, tower, radio, communications and any other costs represented in the design that are specific to the dispatch center or are impacted by the existence of the dispatch center)?

A: Questions like the one above, that seek to substantiate conceptual numbers, are not answerable at this phase of the project. However, when a site is selected and a building program is established, i.e.: single floor or two-floor, etc., the consultants will be in a better position to evaluate the actual cost as opposed to the conceptual costs used during this phase of the planning. As examples, site elevation at ground may impact the height of the Tower; while a larger site may seem like it promotes a single-story, if there is significant ledge encountered during the site investigation phase it my lead us to a smaller footprint with a two-story, etc.

It is important to consider that this project is at such an early concept stage that the consultants cannot provide more specific, detailed costs, without more specific design and engineering information.

Q: Regarding the answer posted August 12th concerning the cost structure of an EOC (AKA Dispatch Center) designated Category 4, the plan currently identifies that space as Category 4, which was not known at the time of the question posted on August 12th. The answer on August 12th pointed out that a "Category 4 construction brings with it additional costs due to more stringent structural and mechanical/electrical systems requirements" and that "we can say that there will be significant cost increases." Please provide what the costs of that space are relative to the total costs.

A: Based on the current proposed single floor option presented for the Newport Road site, we would anticipate approximately $500,000.00 additional costs between a Cat. 3 Building and a Cat 4.

Q: Reviewing the response to the question on annual operating costs , there appears to be a dependency on construction documents and systems being finalized.  Will those documents be complete in time for an estimate to be included in the financial profile that will be shared with the community at the December community forum?

A: You are correct in the dependency between documents and systems being finalized. It is not possible to calculate the electrical loads or utility usage without knowing specifically what systems are being used. Those systems are selected during what is referred to as the Design Development Phase. This would require the Town contracting with the design team for full design and engineering documents. The range of those fees has been shared in the Opinion of Probable Cost. The design process for a project of this magnitude is 8 to 10 months. Based on that schedule the systems would be selected and an energy model created about 5-6 months into the design process. Keep in mind that as part of the Energy Model wall details, insulation, roofs, windows etc., all need to be designed as part of the building envelope used to calculate heating and cooling loads.

 

Q: If they will not be available for an estimate, can we expect that a guesstimate (based on all the previous work and experience of Colliers and LBA) can be made?

A: We are not in the business of guesstimates and I would hope that Colliers has instilled a confidence in the community that we are not guessing on your behalf. During the design process you will often hear the term EUI. Energy Usage Intensity is a goal that the community will need to set for the project based on the initial cost. We can spend more upfront dollars for higher efficiency systems and robust controls to lower our EUI. This is a balancing process that will require deep review and consideration. The most complex systems have a higher initial cost but may only reduce your total energy by a couple of percent. We do understand, as with many of our clients, managing operating costs and being good stewards of the environment are vitally important to gaining votes for the project. Specifically to New London, it makes sense that energy usage will be more efficient in a new facility however, bringing on an new facility with its larger square footage, site and other building maintenance requirements will require a significant annual operating budget.

(10/31/24 update) Note:  The Selectmen and Police Facilities Advisory Committee expect to include the Energy Committee to hear their recommendations on the best ways to realize optimum energy efficiencies in the police facility. 

Q:   Will there be an estimate developed for the annual operating costs associated with the new building?

A: Yes, the development of operating costs are part of many projects. Annual operating costs for this type of project require almost a complete set of construction drawings. Producing an energy model and utilization cost consideration is given to wall assemblies, insulation ratings, heating and cooling systems, lighting systems and alike. The more specificity we have the more accurate the operating cost will be. Using energy bills from Whipple/Buker would really not be a prudent exercise with any validity considering the age of the equipment, construction assemblies of the existing building, wind/sun exposure etc…

Q: What is your professional experience as to the "swing" that a community can experience in a preliminary estimate and a more detailed estimate?

A: As the design process gets deeper and deeper into the details of a particular project it is not uncommon for a project moving from Concept Phase to Bid Ready Documents to swing as much as 20%. Given that we have no information on subsurface conditions such as ground water table, or depth of ledge to details and finishes of the building. During the design phase this becomes a balance act of cost, quality, and scope. As the unknowns are defined, we continually tighten that percentage. Ideally projects go to bid with 5% contingency.

Q: Will the estimate presented to the town be at a more detailed level or will there be a range for the cost that represents your view of what the low and high end of those potential details?

A: The initial High-low-probable budget had many unknowns as described above. At this time and moving forward we move away from the H-L-P budgeting as we determine square footage, one- or two-story building, site criteria and years of escalation. As a project moves from concept to Schematic Design and then Design Development and on to Construction Documents the estimate will become more and more detailed. Building Materials will be estimated based on linear feet or square feet depending on the material choices. During the more detail stages the evaluation will look at initial cost versus durability of alternate products. If you recall we recently discussed the choices of siding options and the difference between cementations siding to masonry veneers to painted “hardi-plank”. All have very different material costs, installation costs and maintenance costs. As indicated, this occurs throughout the design process.

Q: How much more time is necessary to deliver a "detailed'" cost level?

A: To provide more detailed cost estimates the project must be advanced through the design process. For a project of this size the full design from concept to bid ready documents would take about 9-11 months. Estimates are typically provided with each phase, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents. With each phase the estimates get more and more detailed as described above.

Q:   At the last PFAC meeting, LBA referenced some data relative to the wetlands on the proposed site, commenting that the proposed location of the building, access, parking lots, etc. were "just under 10,000 disturbance" on the wetlands which was considered minor.  Major was considered to be 10,000 or more.

Can you please provide further clarity on minor and major?  Specifically:

• What is the definition of minor and major?
• What are the contributing factors that determine minor vs. major?
• What are the implications to site approval and site development between minor and major?

A comment was also made about developing compensatory wetlands.  Can you describe:

• What that is? 
• When is it pursued? 
• Is it a solution employed to bring a major category into a minor category?
• What are the implications to site approval and site development of that?

A: From a higher level, as shown on the plan, minor impact is any wetland impact >3k sf to <10k impact. Anything larger is major. Env-Wt 407 goes into further detail on this.

In general, more impacts = more fees/more stringent permitting.  

NH Administrative Rules, Env-Wt Chapter 400 "Delineation and classification of Jurisdictional areas; classification of projects"

For compensatory wetland, these are providing new wetlands in place of the disturbed wetlands. The rates of replication are below. They range from 1.5 times to 15 times the size of the disturbance. I have not gone through a compensatory project in NH but our wetlands scientists have.

NH Administrative Rules, Env-Wt Chapter 800 "Compensatory wetlands"

 

Q: On the block plan, Dispatch is outside the security zone, highly exposed.  When asked, the architect said that it needed to be located there and would be of hardened construction.

A: The floor plan reviewed, presented, and posted shows that the access door is within the secure corridor of the facility. The red dashed-line in the vestibule and lobby indicates the intended ballistic panel location in the wall for added security. While it is “exposed” many facilities prefer this type of location over that of a hardened bunker. These spaces are occupied 7/24. We could specify ballistic rated exterior walls and windows however that is a cost consideration based on the threat/risk level.

Q: I spoke with the architect regarding the Lincoln police station which he said was 14,000 square feet and cost $6,000,000 which I suggested was a little over $400/sq.ft. $428 actually.  His reply was no, it was closer to $650/sq.ft. which to me with two years of 9.6% escalators probably comes in close to 22%.  14,801 X 650 X 1.22= $11,737,193 not allowing for the cost of the site, site preparation and moving costs.

A: The Project team is assessing the current square footage of building in conjunction with the acreage of site development. These costs scenarios are expected to be shared with the Police Facility Advisory Committee and public at-large in the next few weeks. As there is not a specific question here, what we can confirm is that the logic of the numbers above are likely consistent with what will be provided.

Q:  Do high voltage transmission lines cause any problems with Dispatch’s radio communications? 

A:  Should the Town wish to consider this site further we would suggest a meeting with the Town’s radio vendor or commission a radio propagation study. There are a number of ways to minimize RF interference. The project team has experience with this type of location and it would not be an insurmountable, break the bank effort.

Q:  My conversations with the Water Precinct say that water would not be a problem for a new station.  Of course this should be officially confirmed.  I had mentioned this to the Selectmen a few weeks ago.

A:  The Design team has reviewed this concern. Chief Cobb confirmed with the Water district that while a multi-unit/mixed use development could not be supported, there is capacity to support the proposed facility.

Q:   Why are we putting any more money into the Main Street property when we have decided not to use it and are not sure if it is for sale and if it were, would we pay the price?

A:  The property commonly referred to as the Bonanno property was on the site selection matrix and was rated highly given the location to downtown and the vehicular and pedestrian access. There is “no more” money being spent outside of what had been contracted. Colliers and Lavallee had been contracted to study multiple sites as directed by the committee and the Selectboard. The down side in analysis of this property is that the severe slope creates the need for vertical access via stairs and an elevator. That same separation helps from the point of creating separation between patrol, administrative and public functions. The Advisory Committee, Colliers and Lavallee have since been directed by the Selectboard to further the investigation on the Newport Road site and not so much on the Main St property as there is some indication that the potential cost would not be feasible for the project.

Q: Regarding a comment made by John of LBA, can you explain what a Category 3 EOC is (reference time stamp 48 minutes 25 seconds on the PFAC video recording for the August 2nd meeting)? 

A: To clarify any misunderstanding regarding this issue, what we meant was that a Community/Training/Multipurpose Room can be designed as an IBC Category 3. If the space is labeled and being used as a local or regional Emergency Operation Center (EOC) we suggest that being an IBC Category 4 rated space.  The Community/Training/Multipurpose Room would have similar amenities and IT/AV and Telecom to an EOC function, providing flexibility. IBC Category 4 construction brings with it additional costs due to more stringent structural and mechanical/electrical systems requirements. 

Q: I assume EOC, based on the reference is Emergency Operation Center;  what are the characteristics of a Category 3?  What other categories exist (1, 2, 4, 5?) and how does a category 3 measure up to those categories (design and operations and, therefore, initial as well as forward looking cost)?

A: At this early stage it is difficult to assess the cost of fortifying the existing building or building new.

Q: What are the design and operating assumptions for a category 3 and are those represented in the space numbers of the draft reviewed at that meeting?  What are the cost premiums associated with those operating assumptions (space requirement, facility needs (e.g., power, communications, physical space, etc.)) that otherwise wouldn't be necessary if we did not assume category 3?  

A: If the community decides to go with the most hardened facility that could continue to operate fully stand alone with fire-rated protection on all critical systems, we can say that there will be significant cost increases. At this early stage we cannot put a cost on those items. We first have to come to the conclusion as to what and where.

Q: How is the decision to construct a category 3 (vs. an alternative) reviewed and made?

A: We understand that this is a very circular process of weighing costs and operational integrity of the facility. At this stage we focus on the spaces and sizes, this determines square footage and program requirements. Then we begin to run models of new build v reno., separation of critical and non-critical spaces. This process could result in a facility that has some portion built to Risk Cat III, while others are built to Risk Cat IV.

Q:  In order for the PFAC and residents to have a comparison to measure New London’s police department space needs, for the following three local communities (which all have full dispatch in their police departments), what is the number of full-time officers (not part-time, dispatch or administrative), the gross square feet of the building in which the police department is housed, and the total gsf allotted to the dispatch function.

A: This would be an extensive effort based on the information above. You would need to look at each space and understand how it functions and why it is the size it is. One Chief may like a small conference table for 2 in their office and another may have 2 guest chairs in front of their desk. Different approaches yield different square footage. Performing a simple office to square footage will be a disservice to the Town.

Q:  What is the average gross square footage of space per full-time officer for all towns in New Hampshire, and, separately, for towns with a population of 5,000 or less?

A:  This is not something we should focus on. It is misleading and not specific to New London. Does every family with two parents and 3 children have the same square foot house? What if someone in the family is physically challenged and needs wider halls, corridors or doors? What if I work from home and need a large office space? The committee is best served by looking at the individual spaces and their size based on the use.

Q:  Are there standards for space needs as to each function, office, or use for police stations set forth in the International Association of Chiefs of Police standards (IACP)?

A: To be more accurate we should not use the term “standards”. IACP offers Design Guidelines on its website at www.theiacp.org/police-facility-planning-guidelines . These guidelines are updated from completed projects based on information from the design teams as to how they addressed new and evolving policing practices.  

Q: If so, please provide the citation as to where each and all of those standards are set forth so that the PFAC and residents can review those standards. 

A:  Agencies, design professionals and project teams are responsible for assessing the specific departments operations, technology, calls-for-service, special services such regional tactical team, or in the case of New London regional dispatch. When a facility includes a regional dispatch area that space and the significant support and technology space will increase the total square foot of the building, thus skewing any consideration for SF/sworn office.

Q:  Are there national standards for space needs as to each function, office, or use for police stations?  If so, please provide the citation where those standards are set forth so that the Police Facilities Advisory Committee (PFAC) and residents can review those standards.

A:  Colliers Project Leaders (CPL)  is not aware of any specific “national standards. There are best practices for general areas and more specific requirements for areas such as holding, booking, detention, and evidence.

Q: Regarding the question asked at the last PFAC meeting on what communities are being referenced in developing the New London police building space program, can you please list the communities in answer to this question? Also, can you list the towns referenced in developing the dispatch center space needs?

A:  To reference similarities between New London and any other community would be to provide incomplete and misleading information. Without understanding why are particular department required a certain amount of square footage is not helpful in understanding the needs of New London. Just like no two families live in the same size house, no two police departments operate in the same program space. To simply state what was good enough for Lincoln or Bedford would be a disservice to the New London community.

While many communities have dispatch centers and/or regional dispatch centers, how New London’s operates is different. The public is best served by understanding how and why the department is requesting the spaces they are.

These types of facilities are not cookie cutter. There are certain standards and codes that are applied across the project and some areas where “best practices” and recent “lessons-learned” are applied.

We cannot and should not get hung up on what worked for some other community.

Q: There was discussion about how to accommodate the Police Department operations under the scenario where it is decided to renovate the current facility.  One option not raised at the meeting was renovations while the Police Department remains there (i.e., not temporarily relocating them).  This is a viable alternative that should be considered and whose financial impact should be weighed against the other options.  Experts have reinforced the viability of this approach and the Mires study included estimates that accommodated that scenario. 

Multiple folks with experience in renovations have indicated it is possible to segment the work and, during some phases, work at night to successfully complete the work while operations are underway.  Examples of that type of effort are numerous, whether it is at the local grocery store, at hospitals, or in other large organizations whose facilities are renovated.   My personal experience with renovations of office space, critical operations centers and critical telecommunication facility conversions all support the viability of renovations taking place while operations continue.

A: The option of performing a major renovation and or addition to the existing police facility while remaining operational will be considered.

The programming process that is ongoing will serve to provide the basis for the future needs of the Police and Regional Dispatch.

Understanding that a lot has changed since the previous studies were conducted, we will also provide a comparison to advise on differences.

Secondarily, the team will provide a review of the Buker Buildings ability to withstand such a major renovation as would be dictated by the building code requirements.