The Nelson Field Town Council heard a recommendation to hire Parasol Builders as the construction manager at risk (CMAR) for the renovation of the North Smithfield Police Station, and spent much of the meeting clarifying cost estimates and funding options. No formal vote was taken at the special meeting because the session was posted late; the council set a schedule to return with budget detail and a vote in early November.

The evaluation subcommittee — a six-member panel that included town staff, a project OPM representative and the design firm — ran a three-step review of four firms that submitted qualifications and proposals: Gilbane Building Company, Parasol Builders, Downs (firm name in record: Downs), and Devon (firm name in record: Devon). A staff presenter told the council the committee scored technical proposals, interviewed each shortlisted firm and then compared price proposals and “leveled” cost estimates so the firms could be compared on the same schedule and assumptions. “Based on taking all of that into consideration … the team's recommendation was for Parasol,” the staff member reported.

Why it matters: councilors said the station suffers programmatic, accessibility and safety deficiencies and the town has been working toward a lower-cost renovation option rather than new construction. The council discussed how shifting cost estimates and choices about add‑alternates would change the final price and whether to fund the project by bonds, cash, or a hybrid approach.

What the review found: committee representatives told the council the leveled estimates (base scope without add alternates) looked roughly like this based on the construction-document set the subcommittee used: Parasol about $6.2 million, Gilbane about $8.0 million, Downs about $7.2 million and Devon about $5.4 million (staff cautioned Devon’s figure appeared to be back‑calculated rather than derived from a full line‑item estimate). The package the council received also showed a “base scope” figure of about $4.4 million without add alternates and a set of add alternates that together were roughly $1.7 million — yielding a combined example near $6 million. The architect Signal Works previously presented several options; staff noted Signal Works’s earlier public estimate from October 2024 ranged from about $2.7 million to $4.5 million for smaller scopes and that a full set of alternates in one Signal Works package totaled about $9.4 million.

Staff emphasized these numbers are estimates, not bids, and that a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) would be set only after preconstruction and the subcontractor buyout process. The staff presenter recommended authorizing preconstruction services first so the selected CMAR can develop firm trade bids and a GMP during a two‑month preconstruction period. The presenter also cautioned that the committee’s cost comparisons included a notional 15% soft‑cost allowance for illustration and that final totals would change as the design is refined and the project is bought out.

Funding and schedule questions: Town Administrator (role as recorded in the meeting) presented a memorandum framing options for capitalization and said the town’s available unrestricted fund balance was approximately $10.8 million (staff said that figure would be updated). On fiscal capacity, the Town Administrator said, “clearly we have the capacity easily to borrow on this project and still be more than half below where we currently are in our debt carry cost.” Councilors and staff discussed three funding approaches: 100% bonding, a hybrid mix of bond and cash, or using general‑fund cash. The town’s fiscal adviser (to be invited to the next meeting) told staff the town could likely use roughly $3.5 million from fund balance without eroding the municipal bond rating, though councilors noted public messaging and optics would matter.

Councilors asked staff to research other possible revenue or offsets, including a pending Crown Castle lease renewal on the station property (staff said the lease could be renegotiated or bought out and might yield a material one‑time payment). Staff also referenced potential grant and legislative support the town has sought for other projects, including a previously mentioned federal appropriation of about $1.5 million for a multigenerational facility.

Process and next steps: Because the meeting packet was posted after the legal posting deadline, the council’s legal review concluded no formal votes should be taken at this session. As a result, councilors did not vote on the staff recommendation. The Town Administrator explained, “this meeting was posted an hour and 15 minutes after the deadline… as long as we're not taking any votes, then we're fine.”

The council agreed on a sequence of follow-ups: staff will send an updated evaluation spreadsheet that includes a missing contractor line, clarify Signal Works’s prior estimates and the list and cost of add alternates, provide a more detailed budget breakdown (soft costs, contingencies, FFE), and invite the fiscal adviser and bond counsel to the next meeting to discuss debt impacts and a bond timeline. Councilors discussed holding a vote to affirm the CMAR selection at the council’s next available meeting (dates discussed in the meeting: a proposed vote on November 3, a budget overview on November 10, and a bond‑ordinance public hearing on November 17, with advertising deadlines noted as part of the timeline).

Quotes that reflect council direction and staff assessments: the staff presenter summarized the recommendation: “the team's recommendation was for Parasol.” The Town Administrator framed the financing options and capacity: “clearly we have the capacity easily to borrow on this project and still be more than half below where we currently are in our debt carry cost.”

What remains unresolved: staff and the council still need (1) a reconciled history of prior Signal Works estimates and which alternates were included, (2) a completed itemized budget including recommended owner and construction contingencies (staff discussed 5% construction contingency and recommended an owner contingency in the range of 3–15%, noting 10% as a comfortable target), (3) a concrete preconstruction fee and contract for the recommended CMAR, and (4) a public communication plan tied to whichever funding path the council selects.

The council scheduled follow‑up briefings and asked staff to return with clarified numbers ahead of the formal vote so the public and councilors can evaluate a final recommended capitalization plan.