Salem officials outline $456 million plan for new Salem High; labor agreement vote draws public comment

Salem City Council Committee of the Whole members received an update Sept. 15 on plans to replace Salem High School with a new building estimated at $456,000,000 and reviewed the project timeline, financing assumptions and construction procurement approach. Mayor Pangielo and Dr. Zweig, superintendent of Salem Public Schools, joined building committee co-chairs Nate Bryant and Rick Jones for the presentation.

The presentation said the existing Salem High School — built largely in 1976 and described by officials as “almost 50 years old” — has mechanical systems at the end of their useful life, asbestos, failing gym and auditorium spaces, undersized classrooms and chronic energy costs. “Salem High School is an energy hog. It is a building that is responsible for 25% of the city's usage of energy,” Dr. Zweig said during the presentation.

The building committee provided a schematic-site plan showing a new four-story building to be constructed adjacent to the existing school so the current facility can remain open during construction; the existing structure would be demolished and replaced by athletic fields when the new building opens. The committee said the project is being developed as new construction after evaluating renovation-only and addition/renovation options required by MSBA rules.

Rick Jones, co-chair of the building committee, described procurement and regulatory constraints in Massachusetts, including MGL Chapter 149 and 149A requirements, DCAM contractor certification, filed sub-bid prequalification and prevailing-wage rules. Jones said the estimated total project cost is $456,000,000 and that the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) historically reimburses roughly 45–60% of eligible costs; the team is assuming about 50% for planning purposes, which would leave the city covering roughly $225–$230 million by bond and a temporary tax increase if voters approve.

Timeline and next steps given to the council included interviews of construction managers-at-risk (CMAR) the following week, completion of schematic design and a cost estimate by November with schematic submission to the MSBA in late November/December, a bond-order and special-election timeline in January, an MSBA vote in February and potential construction start in late 2027 with occupancy targeted for fall 2030.

Councilors focused much of their remarks and the public comment period on a recent building-committee vote to not pursue a project labor agreement (PLA). Councilor Cohen and several councilors and members of the public urged reconsideration or further discussion. “Project labor agreements have been proven to result in successful construction projects,” one councilor said, citing apprenticeship and local-hire goals. Building committee members described the decision as a 9–4 vote and said the committee relied on an independent cost estimator and the OPM's analysis when deciding to proceed without a PLA.

Multiple public commenters representing unions and labor councils urged the committee to reopen the PLA decision, citing safety records, apprenticeship pathways and local-hire guarantees under PLAs. Dan McNulty of the Massachusetts Building Trades Unions told the council the committee’s short consultant statement “was not due diligence” and asked that analysis include safety, apprenticeship and local-hire outcomes as well as cost. Rodrigo Gudaro of the North Shore Building Trades Council and other union speakers described apprenticeship outcomes and local-hire results on comparable projects.

Project design goals presented include expanded career and technical education (CTE) capacity (increasing from eight to 11 CTE program offerings), modernized academic and arts spaces, a MIAA-compliant suite of athletic fields (baseball, softball, soccer and multiuse fields plus five tennis courts) and a target of net-zero energy using geothermal wells and rooftop solar PV. The presentation estimated current annual utility costs for the existing building at $800,000–$1,000,000 and said anticipated energy measures would create an avoided cost in that range once implemented, though final payback and scope remain under study.

Officials described procurement constraints: Massachusetts requires prevailing wage on public construction; many trades must be prequalified to submit filed sub-bids; and the committee set participation goals for minority-, women- and veteran-owned firms plus a Salem-local workforce good-faith effort (Salem Code 21-862) aiming for 20% of total project hours from city residents or those living within 10 miles. The presenters said CMAR finalists include Gilbane, Shumway, W.T. Rich, Skanska, and Suffolk (teams listed during the presentation) and that CMAR interviews would occur the week after the presentation.

At the close of the meeting the City Council took two formal, informational actions related to the session: a motion to receive and file the presentation (mover Councilor Marcello, seconded by Councilor Stott) and a motion to keep the item in committee for further presentations (mover Councilor Sullivan, seconded by Councilor Merkel); both motions were accepted by the council with no roll-call tallies recorded on the transcript. The meeting was informational only and included a 15-minute public comment period; no binding decisions or bond authorizations were made at the Sept. 15 session.

The building committee and school officials said further cost estimates, geothermal vs. air-source HVAC evaluations and final MSBA reimbursement percentages will be available in the coming months as schematic design and the MSBA review proceed. The committee expects to submit schematic design to the MSBA before the end of the year and seek voter approval next spring if the MSBA and city steps proceed on schedule.

Public schedules posted by the building committee and the city differ in detail and several commenters asked for clearer, consolidated public posting of meeting agendas and minutes; one speaker urged alignment of the school-building committee web postings with the city’s central agenda site so residents can track decisions more easily.