The Chariho Regional School District School Committee voted at a special meeting to expand its legal engagement with Troutman Pepper (referred to in meeting materials as Troutman Pepperlock LLP) to include legal services for the district’s planned unified elementary school site.

Chair opened the item by saying the memorandum from Charles Rogers — a land‑use attorney at Troutman Pepper — proposed to provide legal services “in connection with acquisition,” including negotiating term sheets and purchase agreements, advising on title and survey matters (including subdivision if necessary) and attending to closing. The memo described those services as a fixed fee “not to exceed $35,000,” but it said fees could be adjusted after consultation if multiple sites or unusual seller requirements (for example, charitable contributions or long‑term ground leases) were involved.

Why it matters: the district is seeking a single unified elementary site of roughly 27 to 33 acres. Committee members and staff said specialized land‑use counsel is necessary because some landowners and their attorneys will not engage directly with non‑attorney negotiators, and closing purchases typically requires legal representation.

During discussion, Greg (mister Zenyon) told the committee he had been contacting property owners and could not complete negotiations or closings without counsel, and bond counsel Karen DeGrande recommended Charles “Chip” Rogers based on decades of land‑use experience in Rhode Island. DeGrande said Rogers is highly experienced in land use and development transactions and that the firm would amend the district’s existing engagement letter to include the additional real‑estate work.

Some members pressed staff on cost exposure. One member noted the $35,000 cap in the proposal but highlighted the memo’s caveat allowing fee adjustments for added complexity; members asked what would happen to fees if the bond failed. Staff and counsel replied that soft costs, including legal fees, are built into the bond and reimbursable if the bond proceeds, but if a bond campaign or application stage ended without fruition those pre‑issuance expenses could be lost.

The chair read the memorandum into the record and the committee moved and seconded the expansion of the engagement. The motion was approved; the record includes at least one abstention (Diane Tefft). The firm will amend the district’s engagement letter to reflect the additional work and the committee will be notified if scope or fees change beyond the memorandum.