Salem building committee narrows options for new high school; MSBA preliminary design program due

The Salem High School Building Committee met remotely Feb. 13 and reviewed the draft preliminary design program (PDP) and three primary site-and-building options for a replacement or renovation of Salem High School, with an emphasis on the financial and operational trade-offs ahead of a PDP submission to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

Committee leaders said the next formal step is a vote at the committee's Feb. 27 meeting to authorize the PDP submission; in the meantime designers will finalize program details and public outreach for a “sustainability summit.”

The PDP matters because it frames what the MSBA will evaluate for potential reimbursement and it sets the design team’s work for the next phase. Brooke, a member of the project design team, told the committee, “we are not required to pick an option at this point,” and characterized the current work as documenting options and assembling due diligence for the MSBA review.

Why this matters: The committee must weigh construction cost, building area and phasing alongside educational needs, CTE (career and technical education) spaces, and community access. Presenters and members repeatedly said building area is the largest single driver of cost; preliminary figures discussed in the meeting put construction costs for new work in the approximate range the design team is using for early budgeting.

What the committee heard and discussed

Space program and cost context — Beth Ann Cornell, a member of the Salem School Committee, summarized the district’s choice to pursue a 9–12 configuration rather than a 7–12 configuration, saying the school committee weighed academic and community feedback and concluded “we really couldn't ask, our community to, take on that kind of financial burden.” Design staff explained MSBA rules require the project team to show that a 7–12 option was considered, even if the district prefers 9–12.

Sizing and program numbers — The design team reported the draft program is tracking roughly 415,000 gross square feet; staff noted the existing high school was listed at about 411,000 square feet (not including a separate auto building). The consultants presented an early example calculation for the middle-school component used in MSBA comparisons: a reimbursable middle-school wing on MSBA rules would be roughly a 90,000-square-foot element, and at an assumed escalated construction cost of about $1,000 per square foot that wing would be on the order of $90 million before soft costs. The design team advised adding a rule-of-thumb 25% for soft costs (fees, contingencies, furniture/fixtures/equipment) when comparing options, which substantially increases the program-level budget estimate.

Three site-and-building concepts reviewed

- Addition/renovation wrapping existing gym/fieldhouse (multi-phase): The team described a scheme that keeps and renovates the existing field house and gym areas and constructs new wings around those spaces. That approach would likely be phased in multiple steps (the team discussed a three-phase sequence), which can extend duration and affect cost.

- New construction to northwest of current campus (single major phase): The team showed a new-building option on the northwest corner of the site that would allow the new school to be built adjacent to the existing building, followed by demolition of the old structure and completion of site work. The scheme would be the shortest overall construction duration and would place visitor/parent parking and some outward-facing CTE programs on the parking side of the campus.

- “Loop”/northern-site new build (compact, single-phase): This option places a compact, efficient building on the northern portion of the site in a loop configuration. It was described as the most constrained by steep grades and ledge; the team warned it may require more earthwork/blasting. The compact footprint could yield short construction duration, but presenters cautioned about access and construction complexity.

Patrick, a design lead with the consultant team, said the team is recommending the primary high school entry be located off Wilson Street to improve traffic flow away from the Highland/Wilson intersection and to reduce queuing at that corner.

Sustainability, energy, and future analysis

Design staff said they will run life-cycle energy and operational-cost analyses at the next meeting to compare options for energy performance and carbon implications; those analyses will be layered on the program and phasing information to inform the committee’s preferred-scheme decision.

CTE, ground-floor demands and circulation

Presenters warned that many CTE and service functions require ground-floor access (auto, carpentry, culinary/kitchen, daycare, loading). “There is this heavy need for ground level access for a lot of those CTE programs, and it's gonna kind of drive the character of that First Floor,” a consultant explained. Committee members and the design team discussed how those requirements interact with the site options and how they affect where special-education and other support spaces could be located in future floors.

Parking, buses and circulation

Parking was a major topic. The design team counted roughly 247 spaces attributable to the high school after excluding adjacent Horace Mann spaces and bus parking identified in the site survey. Several members urged the team to consider strategies to reduce auto trips by promoting walking, biking and transit; other members stressed the need for flexible parking capacity for large after-hours events (tournaments, performances). Jenna, a committee member, said she “just don't want to see the focus on parking take away from the focus on getting people there other ways.” Presenters noted there’s ongoing examination of moving bus storage off-site; removing 11 to 12 buses from the campus would free up spots and change access options.

Community engagement and surveys

The team reported three active surveys (students, faculty, caregivers/community). Early results show staff and student priorities that include all-day food access, outdoor social spaces and wellness/mindful rooms; survey participation was still low relative to total enrollment and the team asked the committee to help encourage wider participation. Design staff suggested using “crew” advisory blocks in the high school or dedicated in-school time for students to complete the student survey.

Phasing, disruption and code issues

Committee members repeatedly asked about the impact of phasing on teaching and learning, temporary swing spaces and the realistic cost difference between renovation and new construction. Rick, a committee member with renovation experience, noted that “if we do a pure renovation scheme, the building has to completely be brought up to code, and that means everything, not just the building systems, but the envelope,” and cautioned that code compliance and structural needs can narrow the expected savings from renovation.

Next steps and schedule

Design staff told the committee they will post a shared folder with the PDP materials and an existing-conditions video for consultants (traffic, civil, MEP, structural, landscape). The committee will be asked to authorize the preliminary design program at the Feb. 27 meeting and then the team will proceed to the preferred-schematic phase and further community engagement, including a planned sustainability summit in early March.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Approve minutes of the Jan. 16 meeting. Outcome: Approved (motion carried; recorded as a roll-call on the remote meeting). (Provenance: transcript segment start)

- Motion: Finance Working Group approved payment of two consultant invoices — Answers January invoice $33,232.50 and Perkins and Will January invoice $96,007.20. Outcome: Unanimously approved by the finance working group. (Provenance: transcript segment start)

Speakers (selected, as named in the meeting)

- Brooke — Design team member (presenter) - Patrick — Design lead (consultant) - Margaret — Project staff (presenter) - Beth Ann Cornell — Salem School Committee member - Nate — Building Committee member (meeting chair/coordinator) - Rick — Building Committee member - Jenna — Building Committee member - Paul — Building Committee member - Anna — Committee participant (role not specified in transcript)

Clarifying details

- Draft program gross square footage: ~415,000 sq ft (design team tracking figure). Source: design team update in meeting. - Existing building listed at: 411,000 sq ft (not including a separate auto building). Source: design team remark. - MSBA reimbursable middle-school wing example: ~90,000 sq ft and an illustrative escalated construction cost of ~$1,000 per sq ft used in early budgeting; adding ~25% soft costs was used as a comparative rule of thumb (presenters used this to illustrate the scale of a 7–12 option). - Parking: design team counted ~247 parking spaces attributed to Salem High School after subtracting Horace Mann and bus spaces from the site survey. - Bus fleet: presenters said removing ~11 buses from the site could free parking spaces (project staff comment).

Proper names

- Salem Public Schools (agency) - Salem High School (facility) - Salem High School Building Committee (committee) - Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) (agency) - Perkins and Will (design consultant) - Collins (existing school building referenced) - Horace Mann (adjacent facility/parking) - Wilson Street, Highland Avenue (site streets) - Lexington, Belmont, Billerica (comparative projects cited)

Community relevance

- Geographies: Salem, Highland Avenue, Wilson Street and the Salem High School campus. - Impact groups: current students (including special-education students), staff and faculty, caregivers, community event attendees, CTE students. - Funding note: project will follow MSBA reimbursement rules; the PDP will inform potential MSBA funding consideration.

Discussion vs. decision

The meeting was largely informational and preparatory. Staff and consultants presented program updates, three principal schematic strategies and survey results. No final schematic decision was made; committee members directed staff and consultants to continue work, finalize the PDP materials for the Feb. 27 meeting and expand community outreach. The two formal approvals recorded in the meeting minutes were a routine approval of the prior meeting minutes and the finance working group’s invoice approvals.

Provenance (transcript excerpts)

- topicintro: transcript block starting at 28.36 — "Alrighty. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Salem High School Building Committee meeting on, Wednesday, February 13. Thursday, February thirteenth. I'm sorry." (first related discussion)

- topfinish: transcript block starting at 7100.375 — "Motion to, motion to adjourn." (closing of meeting)

Ending

Designers said they will post the PDP materials and an existing-conditions video for committee review in advance of the Feb. 27 meeting. The committee will be asked at that meeting to authorize the PDP submission to the MSBA, after which the design team will proceed into the preferred-schematic development and additional community outreach, including the planned sustainability summit.