Middletown committee approves 60% submission as architects report $139.9 million estimate; permitting, utilities remain outstanding

The Middletown School Building Committee on Feb. 12 voted to authorize the consulting team to submit the middle–high school 60% construction documents to the Rhode Island Department of Education after receiving an architect and owner's‑representative update on cost estimating, permitting and site utilities.

Architects told the committee they are nearing completion of the design phase and will finalize the 60% CD package for Gilbane and RIDE. “here we are coming up on the completion of the design phase just in a a few more weeks,” the lead architect said during the presentation, noting the team had been “all hands on deck” to deliver a high‑quality set of documents.

The architect reported that, following reconciliation, “Gilbane's final number came out to be $139,900,000.0. And that left Alana and Gilbane within 2%, difference.” Committee members said Gilbane's figure is being used as the estimate of record. The team also confirmed allowance lines and a construction contingency are included in that number; an additional “below the line” contingency is also being held, the architect said.

The owner’s representative reviewed related budget items. He said the project budget remains within the $190 million authorization and provided a breakdown that shows about $175,700,000 for the middle–high school and about $14,300,000 for the elementary school complex following scope adjustments. The owner’s rep warned that a later amendment to the memorandum of agreement (MOA) with RIDE will be necessary to reassign funds between buildings; if RIDE declines an MOA amendment, roughly $5,200,000 could be nonreimbursable, the owner’s rep said.

The committee also heard specific tally items for finishing the building: “We have just over 5,000,000 for FFNE... 2,200 per student for FF and E and 3,000 for technology,” the architect said when discussing furniture, fixtures, equipment and technology allowances.

On technical specifications, the architect said the security system will be left as an open specification rather than locked to a proprietary manufacturer so future device replacement can proceed without changing the system backbone: “Our specifications will keep this as an open spec spec item.” A committee member asked whether any formal vote was needed; the architect replied, “there's no action that the committee has to take for us to leave it as a open spec.”

Permitting remains in progress. The stormwater construction permit was described as “still under review,” with comments expected later in the week and a follow‑up meeting planned. The project team said they had requested use of the 2018 energy code and received verbal approval from the building official; a committee member corrected the record to say it is the “International Energy Conservation Code.” The technical review committee (TRC) provided a favorable recommendation toward the planning board with two conditions: a final stormwater review by the town engineer and a final review of on‑site sewer connections.

Site utilities and easements drew extended discussion. A committee member raised concern about an easement request associated with transformers, saying that to “generate yet another easement for a service connection, seems to be a little excessive.” The same discussion noted uncertainty about documentation for existing cell‑tower easements discovered in a field survey. Committee members said the AT&T tower adjacent to the football field will remain while negotiations are underway to remove a separate Sprint tower near the school; as one member summarized: “The AT And T Tower located adjacent to the football field stays. The Sprint Tower next to the school, we're negotiating for that to come down.”

Existing sewer lines were inspected by CCTV and the owner’s representative reported that the work found “no visible damage, no visible blockages, no sagging of any of the pipes,” describing the sewer as an 8‑inch mostly concrete line that transitions to PVC at the end.

Fundraising and naming opportunities were also discussed. The consultant team provided a list of possible donor opportunities including naming fields, the auditorium, media centers and a donor wall. Committee members agreed that naming and donor programs must follow the established process — reviewed by the school committee and, where required, the town council — and that specific policies and approvals would be brought forward through the proper channels.

After discussion the committee voted to authorize the consulting team to submit the middle–high school 60% CD package to RIDE. The vote was taken by voice and the chair announced the motion carried.

Votes at a glance: the committee also approved the Jan. 29 meeting minutes earlier in the evening and later amended the start time of its Feb. 26 meeting to 4:30 p.m.; those motions passed by voice vote.

The committee's next near‑term milestones are the RIDE submission (the consultant said it will submit on Friday following the meeting), a requested meeting with RIDE within one to two weeks of submission, and a planning board preliminary review scheduled for Feb. 26. The project team said they will return with renderings and final 60% CDs for committee review prior to planning board presentation.

— End —