Several updates were provided at this meeting of the SBC Meeting agenda posted at this link.

Many of the updates can be seen in these two presentations from the meeting (OPM Presentation & Architect Presentation)

OPM Update: Designer Introduction:

Ms. Michele Barbaro-Rogers provided a brief introduction to D&W, noting that they are located nearby in Newburyport, MA, with D&W having completed 20 MSBA projects since 2004. D&W local projects include Pine Grove, Pentucket Regional HS, and some schools in Gloucester. Additionally, D&W has worked on 17 occupied site projects, 10 middle & high school projects, and 12 projects as Construction Manager at Risk.

D&W’s core team for the project consists of Michele, Brad, Amanda Lenin (interior director), Josh Perrine, David Muenzter, Cassie Plunket, and Yun-Duk Kim, along with a larger number of consultants in specialty categories such as HVAC.

Ms. Rogers reviewed the MSBA modules (along with the various acronyms) required get to the project funding portion of the process. Ms. Rogers reiterated the various MSBA approvals along the way, and noted that how we get to the preferred solution is extremely important. The project is currently in PDP, with D&W focusing on existing conditions and educational planning with a minimum of 5 potential construction options having to be studied, including base repair, renovation, addition/renovation, and new. Once the PDP phase is complete, Ms. Rogers noted the project goes through the PSR phase where the one preferred solution is submitted to MSBA for approval.

Ms. Rogers then reviewed various preliminary, conceptual options for a project that were included in their proposal. The options reviewed included a multi-phased addition/renovation option salvaging the existing gymnasium/auditorium, and a multi-phased new building option with portions of the new building being constructed, and portions of the existing building to be demolished to enable additional phases of the new building to be constructed. Both options were noted to be on the existing site, and multi-phased/highly complex as well as very preliminary and conceptual.

Project Schedule Discussion:

Ms. Rogers reviewed the steps that will be undertaken in each phase to develop these options/complete these reports. She shared a schedule graphic, noting it is a draft, but that D&W is reviewing ways to improve the schedule timeline for efficiency purposes and to save the District money, as time is money in the overall scheme of things. Mr. Brian Forget noted that in the last year or so, the team has been relaying to the towns the May 2028 timeline for a vote, and that was based on MSBA guidance. With the work done with MLP on educational planning, and in discussions with PMA/D&W, there is an opportunity to tighten the schedule by a handful of months, with the significant benefit being cost savings via less cost escalation (this was reiterated by PMA and D&W). Mr. Forget noted that for now, advancing the schedule is still being reviewed, but the shift to Fall of 2027 or shortly thereafter may be possible. Mr. Forget noted that he spoke with the three town officials on our committee who could not make the meeting tonight, as well as with the town administrators, to get this on their radar now as the team continues to review the schedule.

OPM: Project Delivery Method:

Mr. Kevin Nigro from PMA noted the team wanted to introduce the project delivery methods early on, as PMA is seeing more cities and towns decide which procurement route to go early in their projects, and if choosing a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR), it is beneficial to bring the CM on early. Mr. Nigro reviewed the traditional procurement method, MGL CH. 149 Design-Bid-Build, and MGL CH. 149a Construction Manager at Risk. Mr. Nigro noted that CH. 149 is where the designer completes their drawings and specifications to 100% and awards the lowest responsive and lowest cost contractor, where 149a involves choosing a contractor based on quality and the team that is determined to be the most beneficial to the project, not just price. Mr. Nigro noted that CH. 149 tends to be best for projects with limited phasing/logistical challenges, while CH. 149a is best for projects with complex phasing/logistics. CH. 149 may be a lower up-front cost as cost exposure to high-risk items like winter conditions does not exist, but there is no input from the contractor during design, whereas CH. 149a enables early CM involvement for cost control, constructability, logistics/phasing, and public outreach. Mr. Nigro did note that CH. 149a is known to typically cost more, 5-8%, but the premium is associated with the early involvement, exposure to higher risk items associated with open book accounting like missed buyouts, and general premium when using a qualified CMR firm. Mr. Nigro reviewed a longer list of Pros and Cons to each project delivery method, and noted PMA has experience in both methods. Once the project is closer to deciding which method to pursue, PMA noted they are happy to review the Pros/Cons in depth for this project.

Mr. Forget asked Mr. Nigro about the timing of the procurement, and whether CH. 149 or 149a is better for an advanced projected. Mr. Nigro noted that to take advantage of the preconstruction input from the CM that is allowed by CH. 149a, choosing to do CH. 149a earlier on is beneficial to the project and especially before the SD estimate is finalized/submitted to the MSBA. Ms. Nerissa Wallen inquired if firms do both CH. 149 and CH 149a, and if PMA sees more responses to an RFS with either of the project delivery methods. Mr. Nigro responded that traditionally there were firms that only did CH. 149 and those that only did CH. 149a, but in recent years you are seeing firms pursue a project regardless of delivery method, but largely dependent on the complexity of the project. Mr. Dore added that the size/project also is a factor that determines which project delivery method may be best for the project, but Triton falls into a sweet spot from a size/dollar cost standpoint where CH. 149 or CH. 149a can make sense.

Community Engagement:

Mr. LoPresti noted that community engagement is one of the most important aspects of these projects, and that you want your community to be informed and a part of the project. Mr. LoPresti asked the committee members to begin thinking about strategies and best ways to get their towns informed about the project. Mr. LoPresti noted that previously successful outreach and engagement ideas include project website, social media, video updates, posters and flyers, community events attended by the project team, meetings with town officials/local community groups, and information distributed in multiple languages as needed. Mr. LoPresti then shared some examples from other projects, including a flyer, posterboard material, and presentation slides from a community forum reviewing project options. Mr. LoPresti noted it would make sense for the first community forum to be later in the Fall when the project team has more information to share about the project. Mr. DeSantis added that the Fall will be when construction options will be able to be spoken about, whereas if we started now, it would just be for coming to meetings and asking for feedback on specific parts of the educational planning efforts. Mr. Forget inquired if social media should be a separate project page, and PMA confirmed that they would be happy to run it on behalf of the project. Mr. Nigro added that a “did you know” flyer or project website posting may make sense to get people aware of the project, as well as attending events this summer across the three cities/towns just to get the word out that there is a project and provide facts about the project.

Ms. Wallen noted that she felt it was important to have public engagement on the remaining educational visioning sessions to ensure the public feels they have input in that effort, as well as public input regarding public spaces being used by the community like the gymnasiums, and how this relates to the project decision making. Mr. Forget noted that there is definitely some input required on the visioning and grade configurations still to come from key stakeholders to ensure that the team has theinformation needed to elicit feedback from parents/answer questions from the community. May 28th will involve a wrap up on the visioning effort from the key stakeholders, and from there, the next step will be communicating the visioning effort to the community and seeing if the results make sense to the community. Mr. Dore noted that the team definitely wants to have user group meetings with staff, students, and community members to ensure that all stakeholders have involvement. Mr. DeSantis noted that the community not having a ton of involvement this early in the process is very typical, and that part of the community outreach will be to inform the community about the educational visioning goals/what is important to those stakeholders and about how community feedback can help refine those goals/decisions. The project team noted that they fully understand that this building is a key community hub and needs to be able to support all three communities. Mr. Peter Secondiani added that operations and maintenance need to always be considered during the design phase/communicated to the community to ensure the building is easily maintained/not too expensive down the road to maintain.

PMA March 2026 Invoices:

Mr. LoPresti noted the budget update from last meeting has not changed but will be refined once D&W submits their fee proposal. He hopes to have an update to share by the next meeting. Mr. LoPresti then noted that the SBC only has one invoice to review and vote on tonight, that being PMA’s March 2026 invoice.

Several updates were provided at this meeting of the SBC. Meeting agenda posted at this link

Many of the updates can be seen in this presentation.

OPM Update: Designer Procurement Process:

PMA noted that 2 proposals were received on March 11th, and a meeting was held on March 20th with the designer selection subcommittee to review these proposals, in which Habeeb & Associates was deemed non-responsive and disqualified from being considered due to errors/omissions as it relates to statutory requirements. The other proposal received was from Dore & Whitter. Questions were raised as to why there weren't more firms submitting proposals. PMA confirmed that they reached out to all firms that completed the walk-through but didn't submit a proposal, and they noted that it was primarily related to the timing of other project pursuits, particularly through the MSBA. Several of them have recently been awarded other projects. Brian noted Dore & Whittier worked previously in the District for the Pine Grove project, and he has knowledge of them as it relates to the Pentucket HS project, and Richard Poor noted his experience with Dore & Whittier in Haverhill for the Consentino Middle School project. The designer selection subcommittee felt comfortable moving forward with Dore & Whittier and keeping the April 7 th MSBA DSP date. Brian noted the District could have re-advertised, but it would have resulted in losing 1-2 months and likely would have ended in the same result. PMA confirmed that with Dore & Whittier’s track record, it is anticipated that the MSBA would likely allow the District to move forward with Dore & Whittier and stay on track which is a positive.

Educational Visioning Update:

Superintendent Forget noted that we are at a logical stopping point. District did programming outside of the project to kickstart the process and to enable the District in communicating with the community what they ultimately envision for the project. Brian noted the plan is to hand an educational programming plan to the MSBA that meets the District’s needs vs what a designer may propose/options that may not be necessary. But, Brian noted the District is ready to hand off this process to the designer who will finish with the District in accordance with the MSBA process.

OPM: MSBA Funding/Reimbursement Overview:

PMA provided an overview of the District reimbursement rate, how it is calculated, what costs it gets applied to, and the MSBA project budget templates. MSBA provides percentage reimbursement of eligible project costs, and each District’s reimbursement rate is unique, with all Districts starting at 31% plus three socioeconomic factors and incentive points (0-18%), resulting in the final rate. The three socioeconomic factors are the community income factor, the community property wealth factor, and the community poverty factor. The first two are provided by the Department of Revenue, and the third is by the Department of Education. This is a sliding scale, and for a regional district, it is weighted based on the enrollment from each sending community. There are plenty of opportunities for incentive points, and currently Triton’s reimbursement rate to eligible costs based on the formula is 47.84% (not including any incentive points).

Brian Forget asked about what incentive points PMA sees as being attainable for the District, with PMA noting 5% or so seems achievable for Triton.

Communications Subcommittee:

Patrick Heffernan noted he would like to get a meeting scheduled sometime by the end of the month or early May, and is looking to expand the membership of this subcommittee.

PMA February 2026 Invoices:

Anthony LoPresti noted budget-wise, no changes since last meeting and amounts for each line item to be finalized once the designer fee is negotiated, and highlighted the added column to the invoice register with a quick description for each invoice as requested by the committee at February’s meeting.

It was confirmed that all invoices will be included in the posted public agenda each month, with paper copies available in the District Office for anyone interested in reviewing. To date, it it has primarily been OPM costs, but that will change in the months ahead once a full Design Team is on board!

Several updates were provided at this meeting of the SBC. Meeting agenda posted at this link

Many of the updates referenced below can be viewed in this presentation.

Schedule and Budget Update:

• PMA Consultants shared an updated graphic of the MSBA process/preliminary schedule overview.
• PMA shared a preliminary Feasibility Study / Schematic Design (FS/SD) phase budget overview slide for the project.
• PMA noted that the FS/SD phase schedule and budget will be finalized once a designer is selected.

MSBA Designer Selection Process Update:

• PMA shared an updated designer procurement timeline, noting the team is making great progress and remains on track for completion in April. The following progress from the last SBC meeting was reported: the Designer RFS has been advertised/issued, and an optional walkthrough was held with interested design firms on February 18th. PMA noted the walkthrough was well-attended and thanked the District for their assistance and participation. The next key steps involve receiving designer proposals on March 11th, reviewing proposals with the Triton Designer Selection Subcommittee, PMA submitting required forms to the MSBA on March 25th, and attending the MSBA Designer Selection Panel on April 7th. From there, Triton will either enter negotiations with a selected design firm or attend a second MSBA meeting on April 21st to finalize selection.
• The SBC voted to establish the Designer Selection Subcommittee as follows: James Kolb, Nerissa Wallen, Patrick Kelley, Patrick Heffernan, Richard Poor, Brian Forget, and Jon Skoniecki.
• The SBC also voted to finalize the 3 District MSBA Designer Selection Panel representatives as follows: Brian Forget, Nerissa Wallen, and Patrick Heffernan.

Meeting Schedule:

• The 2026 SBC meeting schedule was shared and will be posted to the project website calendar. The next SBC meeting was confirmed for April 2nd, 2026.

Remaining Dates:

• April 2, 2026
• April 23, 2026
• May 28, 2026
• June 25, 2026
• July 23, 2026
• August 27, 2026
• September 24, 2026
• October 22, 2026
• November 19, 2026
• December 17, 2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Triton School District January 22, 2026

Triton Confirms Selection of Owner’s Project Manager for MSBA Feasibility Study

TRITON REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT – Triton School Building Committee has confirmed the selection of PMA Consultants as the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) for the Middle/High School Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) feasibility study.

The selection followed a local evaluation process conducted by the district’s procurement office in partnership with a subcommittee of the School Building Committee. The process included several rounds of review, ranking, and interviews with the top four (4) firms before the recommendation was presented to the MSBA and formally approved.

As Owner’s Project Manager, PMA Consultants will represent and protect Triton’s interests throughout the MSBA process. Working alongside the selected designer, PMA will form the district’s Design Team and support Triton through the feasibility study and schematic design phases.

PMA Consultants brings extensive experience supporting MSBA-funded K–12 school projects across Massachusetts. The firm has served as Owner’s Project Manager for numerous elementary, middle, high school, and regional district projects, including Rockland Phelps Elementary School, Hamilton-Wenham Cutler Elementary School, Essex North Shore Agricultural & Technical School, and North Reading Middle–High School. This experience provides PMA with in-depth knowledge of MSBA requirements, reimbursement eligibility, and project delivery expectations.

PMA’s initial responsibility will be guiding Triton through the designer selection process. This includes issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP), and supporting the evaluation and review of all candidates, and supporting the district’s participation in the MSBA Designer Review Panel who will select the most qualified and advantageous firm. Once the designer is selected, PMA will assist the district in completing the feasibility study, which examines existing conditions, educational needs, and potential construction or renovation options. The study concludes with schematic design and a proposed scope and budget that must be approved by the MSBA before the project can advance.

Triton has allocated $1.7 million from stabilization funds to support this phase of the project. The cost for PMA’s services is $450,000. By following MSBA guidelines and requirements, Triton is eligible to receive reimbursement of up to 47.5% of eligible project costs.

Superintendent Brian Forget said the selection of an experienced OPM is an important step in the process.

“Selecting PMA Consultants ensures that Triton has experienced representation throughout the MSBA process,” Mr. Forget said. “Their familiarity with school construction projects and MSBA requirements will help guide the district through a thorough and transparent feasibility study and schematic design process to bring to our voters a building that best meets the needs of our students, staff, and community as a whole.”

The district will continue to provide updates as the project progresses through the MSBA process.

For more information about the School Building Project:

Media Contact:
Triton Regional School District
(978) 465-2397 Brian.Forget@tritonschools.org
www.tritonschools.org

Several updates were provided at this meeting of the SBC. Meeting agenda posted at this link.

Many of the updates referenced below can be viewed in this presentation.

Brian Forget introduced PMA Consultants to the SBC as the selected Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) for the project. Joe DeSantis and Anthony LoPresti of PMA shared slides surrounding the following topics:

• MSBA Overview and Feasibility Study / Schematic Design Process
• Preliminary Schedule
• MSBA Designer Selection Process

MSBA Overview:

• PMA spoke to the MSBA process required once the designer is selected, beginning with the Module 3 Feasibility Study. PMA commended the District for their early work producing deliverables that will be required for submission to the MSBA as part of the Feasibility Study (Existing Conditions Assessment & Educational Visioning) as well as the project website. PMA explained that throughout the MSBA Feasibility Study process, the District will develop the Education Plan as a culmination of the Educational Visioning process. The Education Plan will drive all future design decisions and be used to justify the eligibility of space overages when compared to MSBA standard guidelines. Space planning meetings will then be conducted to determine the type, number, size of spaces and their recommended adjacencies, and the justification of eligibility of space to MSBA will be completed utilizing the MSBA Space Summary Templates. PMA confirmed that the tentative Spring 2028 local funding approval date reflected on the project website has been verified by both PMA and MSBA, but the schedule will be officially finalized once the designer is hired.
• PMA spoke about the MSBA reimbursement process and the common misconception that Triton’s 47.84% preliminary reimbursement rate implies MSBA will cover 47.84% of all project costs. MSBA reimburses eligible project costs at this rate due to their various cost caps and categorically ineligible costs. Examples were provided. PMA emphasized that their role is to work with the MSBA to maximize the District’s potential funding assistance grant from the early design phases through construction and final project closeout. Potential incentive points to increase the District’s reimbursement rate were identified as well.
• PMA spoke to some of their other OPM responsibilities throughout the life of the project including: total project cost development, budget management, monthly MSBA OPM reports, MSBA ProPay reimbursement requests, and cash flow projections.

MSBA Designer Selection Process:

• PMA provided an overview of the Designer Selection Process with the MSBA along with in-depth analysis on the key steps of the process. The steps discussed were the designer Request for Services (RFS), evaluation of design proposals received, MSBA Designer Selection Panel (DSP) participation and preparation, and selection/fee negotiation of the highest ranked design firm.
• Specific to the MSBA DSP, PMA noted that there will be 16 equally-weighted votes to determine the ranking of design applicants; 13 votes from the DSP, and 3 votes from Triton. PMA spoke to their responsibilities throughout this effort (advertising, MSBA required forms, reference checks, etc.) and noted they will work with the Designer Selection Subcommittee to review and summarize key takeaways of the design proposals received. Additionally, PMA noted they will work with the 3 district representatives that will attend the DSP in April to ensure they are well-versed in being able to speak about each firm with the DSP members and how they were or were not responsive to the RFS to ensure the District/MSBA are successful in selecting the right designer for the project.
• The timeline for designer selection was reviewed. The project team hopes to finalize contract negotiations with the highest ranked firm by the end of April 2026 and to kick off the Feasibility study immediately thereafter. PMA was pleased to note that the draft RFS was submitted to MSBA last week and thanked Triton for their assistance in facilitating.
• The SBC held a discussion regarding the agenda item to form the Designer Selection Subcommittee, and ultimately agreed that it was best to give the entire SBC an opportunity to join and to review expected workload vs. their availability/interest in participating in this effort from March 11, 2026 through April 7, 2026. The SBC decided that the designer selection subcommittee would be established at the next meeting, now confirmed for February 26, 2026.

This was a very quick meeting to provide a few key updates. Meeting agenda posted at this link.

General Updates:

• We've continued the visioning work, ahead of the main MSBA process. Most recently there was a student shadow day to experience a 'day in the life' of a student, and expanding on the work of the larger visioning sessions this fall. The Vision Working Group is coming together in January to synthesize the work to date, and the work will then pause until our full design team is in place this spring.

• The OPM Selection process was completed, and after 28 firms requested the RFP and over a dozen attended the walkthrough in October, we received 8 full proposals. The OPM Selection Committee that was appointed by the SBC in September short listed 4 candidates through an evaluation of the criteria as set out in the RFP, and the committee interviewed these 4 firms. Firms were ranked again after the interviews, reflecting both the ratings from the scoring as well as the ratings from the interviews, and our top candidate was PMA Consultants. The committee entered into negotiations with PMA, and have a tentatively agreed contract of $450,000 for the Feasibility and Schematic phases. This leaves $1.25M of the allocated $1.7M for the study for the designer and engineer.

• We have submitted this process to the MSBA for approval at the January 5, 2026 OPM Review Panel, and expect to gain their approval. Once approved, we will execute the contract with PMA, and they will take over as the Project Managers, with the next task being the search for the designer.

• We are on track and expect to have a designer ready to propose to the Design Review Panel of the MSBA in early April, 2026.

• The next meeting of the SBC will be on January 15th at 6:30 PM in the HS Library, and we will have PMA joining us for the first time.

• We also established a Communications Subcommittee, and Patrick Heffernan (Newbury BoS) was elected the chair and will begin that work in January 2026.

After conferring with Chair Landers and Vice Chair Kolb, the decision was made to cancel the meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 20th. The main agenda item was an update on the OPM selection, and we are not yet ready to provide that detail as we're still in process!

As approved at the September meeting, the OPM Selection Committee has been working on the selection process. After receiving 8 proposals, the subcommittee completed a review of all proposals, shortlisted the top firms, and conducted a full day of interviews with the top 4 firms yesterday (Nov 17th). Many thanks to Jim Kolb, Mike Colburn, Nerissa Wallen, Peter Secondiani, Rich Poor, and Jon Skoniecki for their work on this important selection.

The OPM selection is a very prescribed process, and by MSBA guidelines, we are required to negotiate with the top-ranked firm based on the combined ratings of the firms' submitted proposals and then the interview/presentations yesterday. You all, as the SBC voted to appoint the OPM selection committee, and the decision based on the overall rankings of the group is the binding result, without any further vote from the SBC. There was a clear top candidate that emerged as a result of the initial proposals, interviews, and follow-up conversations based on the overall individual rankings completed yesterday.

The next step is to complete reference checks on the top firm, and then, assuming those affirm our choice, negotiate a contract that falls within the established and approved Feasibility Study Budget. Richard Poor and I will work with Chair Landers and Vice Chair Kolb on that process, but it will take a bit of time. We anticipate having that wrapped up and submitted to the MSBA after the Thanksgiving holiday, and by December 10th, which is our deadline to be placed on the January 5th OPM Review Panel as planned.

We have an SBC scheduled for December 18th at 6:30 PM, and we will plan on holding that meeting to confirm all details and both announce and introduce the OPM to the Building Committee at that time.

Several updates were provided at this second formal meeting of the SBC. Meeting agenda posted at this link.

Update: MSBA Submissions and Timelines:

• Superintendent Forget shared that Triton was officially voted into Module 2 of the MSBA process on August 27, 2025. Module 2 is the Design Team Selection portion of the Feasibility Study. While August 27 is earlier than Triton had initially expected to be welcomed into Module 2, this does not change Triton’s overall projected timeline because the MSBA has stated that MSBA’s Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) selection process has been moving more slowly than expected. The projected timeline is for us to have selected an OPM and to have submitted that selection to the MSBA for review and approval at its January 5, 2026, meeting. A contract with the OPM will be executed the following week, and then the process of the School Building Committee (SBC) working with the OPM to select a designer is expected to take 2-3 months. Triton is currently scheduled for our designer selection to be reviewed and approved by the MSBA at its meeting in the first week of April 2026, with a contract likely to be executed the following week. By mid-April, we should have a Design Team in place, and we will then move into Module 3, the actual start of the Feasibility Study. This movement from Module 2 into Module 3 does not require additional MSBA approval.
• The SBC’s first video from Kartune.edu has been posted on the SBC’s website. It is the first thing people will see when they visit the site. This video is a five-minute introduction to the MSBA project.

Establishing the OPM Selection Committee:

• Richard Poor is a Massachusetts Certified Public Purchasing Official (MCPPO), and he will supervise the OPM selection process to ensure that this process follows Massachusetts procurement laws. Richard Poor shared updates about the process. The OPM Request for Services (RFS) advertisement was placed today and will appear in the Central Register and the Daily News of Newburyport next week. The RFS is based on a standard MSBA template. Dr. Poor and Mr. Forget both called attention to the fact that the MSBA requires that the RFS include a price range for the project. This price range is not an official estimate: it is only intended to give potential OPMs a sense of the scope of the project, that is, that this is not a project involving $20 million of repairs, but instead is an actual extensive renovation or rebuilding. Triton based its price range for the RFS of $100-250 million largely on a 2024 estimate from an Architecture and Engineering firm (Habib & Associates Architects) of $173 million to cover the costs of repairing and updating the existing MS/HS campus and a separate rough estimate of $1,000 per square foot for the cost of rebuilding the current 286,000-square-foot MS/HS campus as a 250,000 square foot building ($250 million). This price range is a placeholder required by the MSBA and does not represent a commitment to any option by Triton. All options will be studied.
• An RFS evaluation criteria document is posted on this meeting’s agenda. It includes basic minimum requirements for an OPM as well as specific requirements that OPM candidates demonstrate their past performance on previous projects, their satisfactory past relationships with designers, and their knowledge of the MSBA code, among other factors.
• OPM selection timeline is as follows. The RFS will appear on October 1 in the Central Register. On October 13, respondents can join an informational meeting and site walkthrough. October 20 is the last day for questions from respondents. Their written responses are due by October 27. The SBC’s OPM Selection Committee will evaluate these responses between October 27 and October 31 and will shortlist respondents. They will interview the shortlisted respondents on November 7. They will then select one respondent, and on November 14, they will negotiate with that respondent. The SBC is scheduled to meet on November 20, and the OPM Selection Committee will present their selection to the full SBC and the SBC will formally vote on that selection. On November 21, that OPM selection will be sent to the MSBA for review and approval. MSBA will vet the respondent, and on January 5, 2026, the MSBA will meet and approve the OPM. MSBA does typically approve selected OPMs because they have pre-vetted the candidates.
• Matt Landers shared that the SBC members who volunteered to be part of the OPM Selection Committee are listed in a document attached to the agenda. These members are: Michael Colburn, Jim Kolb, Richard Poor, Peter Secondiani, Jonathan Skoniecki, Nerissa Wallen, and Brian Forget. Mr. Landers thanked SBC members for volunteering because the selection process is very time-consuming. MSBA recommends that at least 4-5 people be on the selection committee. This subcommittee was approved.

September and October Info Sessions:

A reminder that two all-day visioning sessions for the MSBA project will be held within the next month, on September 30 and October 15. The visioning working group includes about 20 educators, 10 parents, and 9 or 10 students. SBC members will not participate in these sessions, but they are welcome to come and observe. The educators who will be present include one 6th grade teacher from each of the three elementary schools because of the MSBA’s requirement that we study potentially moving grade 6 over to the MS/HS building. The working group will be dealing with the educational aspects of the MSBA project, not the specifics of the building design. The group will dive deeper into Triton’s educational programming, and this will feed the document that will become the Education Program that we give to our OPM and designer to let them know that this is what we want, that the building has to meet these educational/community needs.

Communications Plan:

• Chair Landers shared that at the School Committee workshop and the last School Committee meeting, the Committee discussed a communications plan for the Triton school district, which will dovetail with communications for the SBC. The full School Committee decided to send the question of district communications to the Policy and Advocacy subcommittee to study and evaluate options. The Policy and Advocacy subcommittee will present their recommendations to the School Committee at their January meeting. Mr. Forget added that the SBC is authorized to use part of its Feasibility Study funding for communications, and that the School Committee is separately discussing whether the district should be investing in a coherent district communications strategy from an external firm or whether this is something that could be done internally. Mr. Forget stated that it would be optimal for the SBC to have a communications plan in place by the time we have a full design team in mid-April 2026, because the wider community is an essential part of the MSBA project and we want to reach as many people as we can to participate in community forums and share their thoughts and feedback.

After successfully completing the first module 4 months ahead of schedule, the Triton project was welcomed into Feasibility at the MSBA Board meeting on Wednesday, August 27th. The next task will be to select a design team that will guide our project for the next several years as it works its way through the MSBA pipeline throughout the rest of the building process. Once the design team is selected (exstimated by April 1, 2026), the work will begin on the Feasibility Study and Schematic Design.

See welcome letter below or at this link.

For Immediate Release - August 20, 2025

Triton MS/HS Building Project Ahead of Schedule - Opportunities for Community Input later this year

Byfield, MA - The Triton Middle/High School Building Committee is pleased to share that the District anticipates being welcomed into Module 2 – selecting a Project Team – at the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s (MSBA) August 27, 2025 meeting, a full four months ahead of schedule. The Triton School District/MSBA partnership began in December 2024, when the MSBA voted to welcome Triton Middle/High School into the Eligibility Period, Module 1 of the MSBA process, and we expect a full project completion in or close to 2031. The District, working closely with its member towns of Salisbury, Newbury, and Rowley, sought a partnership with MSBA annually since 2021 to address the many systems, infrastructure, and general operational challenges that exist with the nearly 60-year-old Middle/High School building. The MSBA will reimburse a minimum of 47.8% of Triton’s Middle/High School total eligible project costs after a thorough study of the needs of the existing campus is completed, and after a determination based on that study of whether renovation, addition, or rebuilding would best meet these documented needs. The district is currently ahead of schedule in the MSBA timeline, in part because of the extensive preparation by the district and member towns beginning in 2019.

The District has moved quickly through the required steps for completing the Eligibility Period or Module 1 of the MSBA process, which included documentation of Triton’s building maintenance practices, detailed enrollment projections, and other factors to secure the previously mentioned baseline 47.8% rate of reimbursement. The district allocated $1.7 million from the District Stabilization Account to cover the cost of the “Feasibility Study,” a process that is a requirement of the MSBA partnership – a study of all options for the building project, from a renovation of the existing spaces to a demolition and rebuild. The Triton school community and the wider community will all benefit from the study’s close examination of the options that will address the school’s aging infrastructure in the most cost-effective and educationally appropriate way. The district has the opportunity to increase the base reimbursement rate of 47.8% for the full project budget by providing documentation of sound design choices and sound budgeting and building maintenance practices.

A School Building Committee (SBC) was formed in April 2025, with a membership that includes select board members from the three towns, Triton Middle/High School educators, students, and administrators, parents/community members, district administrators, and school committee members. The SBC will initially be meeting monthly, and it will be the committee that oversees the project decisions and design choices. A smaller Vision Working Group consisting primarily of educators also formed in April to focus specifically on defining the educational values and goals of the district for a building project. This preliminary work included site visits in May and June to schools that have recently been built or upgraded in order to observe educational design features. This early visioning work will be expanded more broadly to the larger Triton community in the coming school year.

This project belongs to the entire community, and the more participation and feedback the community provides, the stronger the project as a whole will be, and the better it will serve our towns, our educators, and all our current and future students. To that end,  the School Building Committee will be inviting educators, students, alumni, parents, and town residents to participate in larger focus groups later this fall and later in the spring once the full Design Team is in place. The discussions this fall will remain focused on educational experiences, with larger and more broadly inclusive discussions around building specific design starting in the spring once the School Building Committee has involved the OPM and Architect in the process.

Module 2 will officially begin with the selection of an Owner's Project Manager (OPM) later this fall. Once an OPM is selected and approved by the MSBA’s OPM Review Panel, which is currently scheduled on January 5, 2026, the OPM will then walk the district through the designer selection process. The designer selection process is expected to be completed by early spring, and the district hopes to have its Design Team in place and be moving into Module 3 (the Feasibility Study) by April 1, 2026.

Triton’s partnership with the MSBA is an exciting journey for the school community and the wider community as a whole—and it is a journey that will take time. The MSBA process is slow and meticulous by design, to ensure that all possible construction options are considered and that there is ample time for community input and involvement. If Modules 3 and 4, the Feasibility Study and Schematic Design, begin as planned in April of 2026, they will likely take one and a half to two years to complete. The final design option selected by the School Building Committee in the Schematic Design phase would then go to Town Meetings and votes for approval of the estimated funding in the spring or fall of 2028. And after that approval, the detailed design and construction phases – the actual groundbreaking and building – would take another 2-3 years, with an early projection for full completion expected in 2030 or 2031.

The District has launched a website dedicated to the MSBA project to provide continuous updates (see Process Updates) and relevant documents to the community: https://tritonschools.org/en-US/MS-HSBuildingProject. Further, there is a link on the website to submit any questions you may have, and someone will respond to you promptly!

Dear Triton Community,

We are excited to announce that as part of the Triton Regional Middle School / High School Project, we will be holding a series of educational visioning sessions this fall. These sessions will include a smaller working group focused primarily on the academic, social, and developmental experience of our students, and are the first in a series that will expand to include a larger audience and broader focus on the actual building later this winter and into next spring. Those sessions later this winter will be held once our design team is on board, and will focus more on actual design, spaces, and the building itself to provide an opportunity for anyone interested to help shape the future of our schools, ensuring our spaces and programs reflect the needs of all students and our community.

At this time, we are looking for a committed group of participants to join two preliminary full-day sessions, with each session building upon the work of the previous one. These first sessions this fall will be very focused, so we are looking to identify a smaller, representative group of educators from all levels and community members to do this early work, which will be shared for broader community feedback and involvement with the sessions later next winter and spring. If you are interested in being part of this working group, please sign up using this Google Form, and don’t hesitate to reach out to me directly if you have any questions. We'll be selecting roughly 40 - 45 individuals and will confirm with those interested in the next couple of weeks.

Session 1: Student Development, Identity, and Experience:  September 30, 2025; 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM

In this session, we will:

• Define who our middle and high school students are developmentally, socially, and academically
• Explore the traits, habits, and competencies students should develop in grades 6-12
• Discuss how programs can foster independence, connection, and belonging
• Identify moments that build or break a sense of belonging and imagine new ways to foster inclusivity

Session 2: Teaching, Learning, and Space:   October 15, 2025; 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM

In this session, we will:

• Define our vision for high-quality instruction and student wellness
• Describe the ideal day in the life of Triton students and teachers
• Develop big-picture ideas for programs and articulate design principles that reflect our educational goals

Thank you for your interest, and again, please don't hesitate to reach out to me at Brian.Forget@tritonschools.org if you have any questions.

Thanks, Brian

Several updates were provided at this second formal meeting of the SBC. Meeting agenda posted at this link.

Update: MSBA Submissions and Timelines:

• Brian Forget stated that there are not many updates at this time, as this is still early in the MSBA process. At its last meeting on July 9, the SBC voted to recommend that the School Committee approve committing $1.7 million from the Stabilization Fund to go toward the Feasibility Study. The School Committee did vote to formally approve that commitment. The next step will be that the Feasibility Study Agreement will be voted on by the School Committee at its August 27 meeting. This agreement codifies everything that has been done to date, including the 47.86 % baseline MSBA reimbursement rate and the commitment of $1.7 million for the Feasibility Study. The MSBA has moved up the date for welcoming Triton into Module 2 from December to August 27. The August 27 meeting is open to the public, and any interested SBC members can attend.
• The subcommittee asked for a clarification regarding the OPM selection process, and Mr. Forget shared that this is a formal request for services and that Richard Poor will be involved as the procurement officer for the Triton District. Triton will need to have a draft request for services to the MSBA by early October. Once MSBA approves the draft, a subgroup of the SBC will go through the selection process, working closely with the MSBA. We state our not-to-exceed budget number, potential OPMs submit proposals, the subgroup of the SBC will go through and rate these proposals. This subgroup will then look at price proposals. Triton will bring our OPM selection back to the MSBA for approval at the January 5 MSBA meeting.

Draft Communication Review:

• Brian Forget shared the community message for the initial visioning sessions for the building project, which will be focused on educational visioning. These visioning sessions are being done much earlier in the process than would typically be the case. The two full-day sessions on September 30 and October 15 will be focused on the academic, social, and developmental aspects of the project rather than on the building itself. This communication will be sent out to current families district-wide and to town officials, and will also be posted through social media. The hope is to draw together a group of 40-45 educators and community members to discuss the educational aspects of the project. Committee members approved the draft, noting that it gives people a clear understanding of what these sessions will be about and of the role of these visioning sessions in the larger project

Draft Press Release Review:

• Superintendent Forget stated that this is a relatively long press release because the goal is to be open and clear with the public about where we have been with the MSBA project and where we are heading. This communication will be shared with the wider community of town officials, town residents, parents, and alumni, in addition to students and teachers, because the project belongs to the community as a whole. In addition to this press release, we have an SBC website and will be uploading the minutes of SBC meetings so that people can follow the committee’s decisions and discussions. Every few meetings, we will issue a press release. Committee members approved the press release after suggesting that the project’s likely completion date of 2031 be featured earlier in the document so that members of the public have a clear understanding of the project’s timeline.

Draft Video Script Review:

• The committee discussed the script for a video about the MSBA project by Kartoon Edu, scheduled to be released in early September. Committee members suggested that the script be edited slightly to make it clear that the middle school is included as well as the high school, and to make the language somewhat more personal to reflect that this is a communication from Triton to members of the wider Triton community. The committee approved the script with these edits.

Communications Plan:

• Brian Forget stated that this committee has previously discussed the importance of communication with the public about the MSBA project, and other recent area projects demonstrate just how important this is. The committee will need to decide how this communication should be managed. There should be a formal communications strategy and plan, and the committee should be in the process of making that decision by the time we are selecting an OPM. Firms that do this type of communication emphasize that the communication is not just about the building project but about the district as a whole. Committee members agreed that Triton has been doing a good job communicating about the project so far. The SBC website in particular is a good resource for town select boards to share with their communities.

Regular Meeting Schedule:

• Committee members agreed to meet monthly through the fall, on Thursdays at 6:30. The committee discussed in person versus virtual meetings, and agreed that in person would be better. A question was raised about a hybrid option for committee members who want to attend but cannot do so in person, but the district does not currently have a way to make that work, and committee members can view recordings of the meetings if needed. It was noted that these recordings are also a valuable resource for committee members to share with members of the public who have questions about the project. The committee agreed on tentative meeting dates of September 25, October 23, November 20, and December 18.

Several updates were provided at this second formal meeting of the SBC. Meeting agenda posted at this link.

Update: MSBA Submissions and Timelines:

• Superintendent Forget provided an update on the MSBA Submissions and Timelines. On May 5, a required Educational Profile Questionnaire and a required Online Enrollment Projection were submitted ahead of the MSBA timeline. The district is considering both Grade 6-12 and Grade 7-12 options for the building project, but is not proposing any major systemic changes or consolidations.
• The Online Enrollment Projection is a detailed document that includes the school’s current enrollments and projected future enrollments based on the cohort survival method. The cohort survival method is an industry-accepted method for demographers that makes assumptions based on live births and morbidity/mortality projections. The district also included documentation of Salisbury’s, Newbury’s, and Rowley’s current housing permits and projected housing permits in its submission to the MSBA. The Maintenance and Capital Planning Information document is the next required submission to the MSBA and will be submitted ahead of schedule, during the week of July 14. This document requests information about the district’s practices for planning, budgeting, and maintaining its facilities, including historical and projected spending on maintenance and capital improvements, deferred maintenance, and budget overrides. This extensive documentation will hopefully allow Triton to gain additional reimbursement points above the 47.8% reimbursement rate which has already been approved for the Feasibility and Schematic Design phases of the project.
• The Local Vote Authorization listed on the MSBA timeline will be an action taken by the school committee following a recommendation made by the school building committee.
• The Feasibility Study Agreement listed on the MSBA timeline is the superintendent’s codification of everything that has been discussed to date, including the district’s reimbursement rate for the Feasibility phase and the Design Enrollment numbers.
• The district is again ahead of schedule: the MSBA typically anticipates moving from Module 1 (Eligibility) into Module 2 roughly a year after Module 1 is initiated. Triton initiated Module 1 in December of 2024. MSBA confirmed that they are targeting their October 29, 2025, meeting for their vote on Triton’s movement into Module 2, the Project Team phase. In Module 2, the district will first select an OPM (Owners Project Manager). Once an OPM is selected, the OPM will then walk the district through the designer selection, which can take longer. By the beginning of April 2026, the district could have its Project Team in place and be moving into Module 3, which is the Feasibility Study.

Confirming Design Enrollment:

• Superintendent Forget provided a detailed update on the Online Enrollment Projection and documentation that was submitted to the MSBA and on the final enrollment numbers that were approved by the MSBA during the Enrollment Meeting on June 13. The Design Enrollment number is important because that number will determine the school’s approved square footage, number of classrooms, and number and size of gathering spaces, among other design features. MSBA’s original baseline enrollment for the Triton MS/HS Grades 7-12 was 735, which the superintendent considered to be low as the school’s current enrollment is about 845. During the Enrollment Meeting, the district and MSBA discussed the building permit and housing start information that was obtained from the town clerks of Salisbury, Newbury, and Rowley, as well as other factors that may lead to higher future enrollment. A final enrollment number of 895 for Grades 7-12 was approved by MSBA, which is a good number given the lower birthrates, aging populations, and decreasing enrollment that Triton and other districts throughout the North Shore have experienced in recent years. For Grades 6-12, a final enrollment number of 1,070 was approved by MSBA.

Visioning Work Update:

• The Vision Working Group was discussed at the April 1 meeting of the school building committee and was formed following that meeting. The group consists of Triton MS/HS educators working with guidance from Mike Pirollo and Paul White of MLP Integrated Design. The goal of the working group is to focus on the educational aspects of a new building. This work is not required by MSBA until the Feasibility and Schematic Design phases (Modules 3 and 4), but the school building committee decided to create the Vision Working Group at this early stage (before any design decisions are made) so that the educational values and goals of the district can guide the entire building process. The Vision Working Group referenced information provided by Triton’s Portrait of a Learner Working Group, a group of educators and administrators that has studied in depth what a student’s K-12 educational experience should bethroughout the Triton School District.
• The Vision Working Group held meetings on May 21 and May 28. At the suggestion of MLP Integrated Design, the group also made site visits on May 29 and June 9 to five schools that have recently been built or upgraded in order to observe the educational design features of these schools. The group observed both general features that positively impact learning such as the incorporation of natural light into classroom design and specific features that could contribute to Triton’s educational goals of supporting deeper collaboration and hands-on, project-based learning.
• The group’s next steps will be to reach out to the wider community of educators, students, parents, and town residents to inform them about the process and to draw together a larger focus group of between 40-50 people to continue the discussion of the educational vision and goals of a future MS/HS learning space. Two full days in October have been set aside for this larger focus group. The discussion at this stage will remain focused on education rather than specific building design.

Feasibility Funding Vote:

• The proposed budget of $1.7 million for the Feasibility Study was based on numbers provided by the MSBA on recent middle and high school building projects throughout the state Once this committee recommends and then the full school committee approves that budget, it will be put out for bidding as a not-to-exceed number. The $1.7 million is already in the district’s stabilization fund and therefore will not need to go through the longer process of a full community vote. The $1.7 million will be reimbursable at the 47.5 % MSBA reimbursement rate. Upon a motion made by Nerissa Wallen and seconded by Michael Colburn, the committee voted 15-0 to recommend the budget of $1.7 million for Feasibility and Schematic Design to the Triton Regional School Committee for approval and appropriation.

Communications Plan:

• The committee discussed the timing of communications with the larger community. The committee members agreed that they want communications with the community to be open and clear from the outset of this project. They would like some communication to be sent out to the public over the summer about the work that has been done so far and the about the timeline both for the next few months and longer-term. Community members should be informed about the many steps involved in an MSBA project and the fact that it is a multi-year process.
• There will be a budget for communications including video updates to the public as the district moves into Module 2. A shorter, informal video summary will be assembled within the next few weeks to go out to the community over the summer.

The first meeting of the School Building Committee was held on April 2, 2025.

The agenda was largely an overview of the entire process, as well as identifying the meeting structure, officers, and immediate steps in the process. With the district now in "Module 1", the group reviewed the Eligibility Period Deliverables, which are in process through the summer.

At the present time, the District expects to be ready to attend the October 29, 2025 MSBA Board of Directors meeting to be welcomed into Module 2, which is when the Owners Project Manager (OPM) and Designer are selected. That would trigger a start to the actual Feasibility Study work in the late winter/early spring of 2026.

The decision was also made to recommend the School Committee expend up to $29,000 for the purpose of early visioning work with an educational planner. That will be reviewed with the School Committee for action on Wednesday, April 9th.

On March 12, 2025, the School Committee received a slate of nominees for appointment to the School Building Committee. Nominations were made by various oversight boards, and ensured a fair and equitable process, with strong representation from all three member communities. The School Committee unanimously approved the slate of nominees and formally established the Middle/High School Building Committee (SBC) as outlined below. The SBC is set to hold their first meeting to organize and establish an understanding of the road ahead in early April.

The member list below is formatted as Name, Role, and then the group that the individual was nominated by. All members of the SBC are voting members except the two (2) student representatives.

1. SBC Chairperson - - Matthew Landers, School Committee Member, School Committee
2. SBC Vice-Chairperson - - Jim Kolb, Community Representative w/Industry Experience, Superintendent & Facilities Manager
3. Nerissa Wallen, School Committee Member, School Committee
4. Brian Forget, Superintendent, MSBA Required Role
5. Richard Poor, Director of Finance & Operations (Effective 7/1/25), MSBA Required Role
6. Patrick Kelley, High School Principal, MSBA Required Role
7. Alan MacRae, Middle School Principal, MSBA Required Role
8. Jonathan Skoniecki, Manager of Facilities & Grounds, MSBA Required Role
9. Patrick Heffernan, Town Official, Town Official: Select Board, Newbury Select Board
10. Christine Kneeland, Town Official: Selectman, Rowley Board of Selectmen
11. Michael Colburn, Town Official: Selectman, Salisbury Board of Selectmen
12. Alyson Irvin, Educator: Middle School, MS Faculty through Principal
13. Matthew Haley, Educator: High School, HS Faculty through Principal
14. Peter Abren, Parent: Middle School, MS School Council
15. Erica Champagne, Parent: High School, HS School Council
16. River Wynne, Student: High School Junior, HS Student Council
17. Patrick Jansen, Student: High School Sophomore, HS Student Council
18. Peter Secondiani, Community Representative w/Industry Experience, Superintendent & Facilities Manager

The process to appoint the School Building Committee (SBC) has begun. Communications are being sent out to various groups directly from those identified below as responsible for nominating representation to the SBC. Anyone interested in participating can reach out to the appropriate contact, and those details can be found at the "District Staff" link above. Ultimately, the School Committee will vote to appoint the SBC based on the nominations from the various representative groups, and that is anticipated to be completed no later than their March 12, 2025 meeting. You can view an overview of the SBC in PDF format at this link.

What is a School Building Committee?

A "School Building Committee (SBC)" in the context of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is a locally appointed committee within a school district that works directly with the MSBA to oversee the planning, design, and construction of a new school building or major renovation project, ensuring it meets the state's standards and funding guidelines while representing the community's needs throughout the process. The School Building Committee makes a final recommendation to the School Committee for a building design.

What‘s expected of School Building Committee members?

School Building Committees for projects in the MSBA’s Core program often run 5-7 years from the time the committee is established and starts the study and pre-design work through project completion and the final audit. The main meetings will happen every 3-4 weeks, usually in the evenings, and they often last 2-3 hours. Depending on the specific tasks for each meeting, members will be expected to review varying amounts of materials in advance of the meetings to be prepared for scheduled discussions, and materials are provided at least 2 days prior. In addition, the SBC will take a lead role in scheduling and coordinating various discussion groups, community meetings, and other listening sessions that will be scheduled periodically through the design phase to share information and general feedback on the process and design. Members will be expected and encouraged to gather input from those they represent throughout the process. Members are considered public officials and are expected to comply with Massachusetts State Ethics, which may somewhat limit the members’ ability to advocate in the lead-up to the votes. Meetings will be open to the public and video recorded.

Who will serve on the School Building Committee for Triton’s Middle School/High School project?

The School Committee will appoint a fully representative SBC as outlined below. As noted above, even though the dedicated SBC is a smaller group for the purpose of efficiency, all Triton Community members will have opportunities throughout the process and project to provide input and feedback into the design and decisions made.

School Administration:

• Superintendent of Schools

• Director of Finance & Operations

• District Facilities Manager

• Middle School Principal

• High School Principal

• School Committee members

Staff/Students/Families:

• 1 Middle School Educator (nominated by Principal)
• 1 Middle School Parent/Guardian (nominated by Middle School Council)
• 1 High School Educator (nominated by Principal)
• 2 High School Students (nominated by Student Council, students will be non-voting members of the SBC)
• 1 HIgh School Parent/Guardian (nominated by High School Council)

Town & Community:

• Newbury Town Official (Nominated by Newbury Select Board)
• Rowley Town Official (Nominated by Rowley Board of Selectmen)
• Salisbury Town Official (Nominated by Salisbury Board of Selectmen)
• 2 Community Members with Architecture, Construction, or Engineering Experience (nominated by Superintendent and Facilities Manager)

Good Afternoon Everyone,

Based on some of the questions folks have raised about timing, I wanted to provide a follow-up to the news we shared via a press release last week about the Middle/High School being welcomed into the MSBA pipeline.

For starters and to clarify any confusion, those who receive the print edition of the Daily News will see that our exciting news was prominently printed on the front page today, but with a Pentucket Regional headline and location. I am not quite sure how that could happen, but I have been in communication with Dave Rogers (the Editor) today, and the error has been corrected in the online version. I also expect a correction alongside the original press release will be in tomorrow's paper.  Please rest assured that I will provide accurate and timely updates directly to you as we work through the process in the months ahead.

You can see our official welcome letter into "Module 1 - Eligibility" by clicking here, but I did want to provide a quick summary of what comes next.

***What happens DURING the Eligibility Period? ***

• Our timeline starts on February 3rd, and we have up to 9 months (270 days) to complete a series of tasks. We anticipate being able to check several boxes quickly and hope to complete everything by the end of next summer.
• There are several administrative tasks that need to be completed in Module 1, ranging from documentation of existing procedures to agreeing on future enrollment projections that will become the basis of a proposed solution, but the two key tasks are:
  • Establishing the Building Committee: This process will begin in January by the School Committee, and be finalized by April. The Building Committee will have a broad representation of all constituents, including school and town officials, educators, students, and family/community members.
  • Funding the Feasibility Study: Since we have been hoping for this welcome into the MSBA program for years, we have worked with our town officials to set aside funding ($1.7M) to pay for this first portion of the process. This means we do not have to bring a request to town meetings for approval and an override vote. This is generally a major hurdle for districts, and having this in place is one of the reasons that we will be able to 'check all the boxes' in Module 1 more quickly than most!

***What happens AFTER the Eligibility Period? ***

• Once we complete the Eligibility Period tasks, we return to the MSBA to be welcomed into Module 2
• The real work begins once a design team is selected at the beginning of Module 2 and we start the Feasibility Study. We hope to begin that selection process by fall of next year (2025).
• During that next phase (18 to 24 months) we will be studying ALL options, from a simple renovation of the existing spaces to a full knock down and building an entirely new building, and all variations in between. This extensive study is a requirement of the MSBA process!
• As noted in the letter, we will even study the concept of bringing the 6th grade over to the middle school (to potentially make it a 6-8 middle school, a configuration common in other districts) as part of this process.  Whether or not to move in that direction is a decision that will be made down the road, with extensive opportunity for community feedback!
• We anticipate bringing a fully developed proposed design and budget to town meetings for approval and funding votes in 2027, hopefully by the spring. If the project is approved, that would mean construction begins in late 2027 or early 2028.
• We would expect the actual construction phase to take between 18 and 24 months, depending on the complexity of the chosen design. As a general rule, new construction is often quicker than phased remodeling and renovation.
• The study and development of a schematic design will provide many opportunities for engagement and involvement for everyone, from teachers and students to families and community members, ensuring that we develop a solution that affordably meets all our needs.

There is much to be done, but I am thrilled that we are on our way.  I will be sharing much more later this winter and spring, but please don't hesitate to reach out if there are any questions I can answer for you.

Respectfully,

Brian

Brian L. Forget

Superintendent of Schools

Triton Regional School District

(978) 465-2397

Superintendent Brian Forget and the Triton Regional School Committee are pleased to share that the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Board of Directors voted on Friday, December 13th to welcome the Middle/High School into the Eligibility Period. This vote signals the start of a multi-year partnership with the MSBA that will provide a robust study of the existing campus needs, including a review of all possible solutions (renovation, addition, and rebuild). The MSBA’s grants fund a significant portion of the projects resulting from these partnerships. School Committee Chair Linda Litcofsky reflected, "We have spent many years now working on how best to address the well-documented needs at the regional campus, and I am so pleased for this approval from the MSBA as it will open the door to such great possibilities for our future students, staff, and our entire community."

The news today comes at a crucial time, as the District and town officials from the three Triton member towns of Newbury, Rowley, and Salisbury have been working on an alternative option in case the District was not welcomed into the program. The research and planning that has been done since the start in 2019 with a Facilities Assessment will help inform and expedite the options review through the MSBA process. Chair of the Rowley Board of Selectmen, Christine Kneeland shared “I have been on the Triton Facilities Subcommittee since its inception, and the Triton School Committee and Administration have been filing applications on this project with the MSBA since 2022. I feel great pleasure that the MSBA has finally accepted Triton into their program. and I look forward to seeing the project all the way through to the ribbon-cutting ceremony!”

After the School Committee establishes a school building committee comprised of a variety of stakeholders, the Feasibility Study is expected to begin in spring 2025. This stage requires the review of all possible project options to create a cost-effective building solution with an assumed 50+ year life expectancy and is expected to cost roughly $1,500,000 to $1,750,000. Over the past 5 years, the District, with the support of town officials and approval of Town Meetings, established and funded a Stabilization Account in this amount, to eliminate the need to turn to taxpayers. "The planning throughout this process has been thorough and complete, and the District has maintained constant communication with us over the past few years as Town Officials and involved us in the process," Newbury Selectboard Chair Alicia Greco shared.

Once established, the School Building Committee will be focused on a cost-effective solution that meets the needs of Triton’s students, staff, and member communities. Ultimately, a fully developed project design and budget will be brought forward for approval by annual town meetings and a construction funding vote at the ballot box. That is expected to occur in 2027 at the earliest.  Michael Colburn, Chairman of the Salisbury Board of Selectmen stated, "I am thrilled about the partnership with the MSBA and what it means for our future students, and our Community needs to know that we are committed to doing this cost-effectively." A partnership with the MSBA expands the options to be considered and does not mean that a 'Cadillac' option needs to be selected.

The District is being welcomed into "Module 1 - Eligibility" effective February 3, 2025 and will be required to study all possible solutions. A final decision around the right approach and solution will be confirmed in the months and years ahead with multiple opportunities for community-wide input before the full project design is developed, proposed, and brought before residents for approval. The District is committed to providing the Triton Community with routine and comprehensive updates and opportunities to participate in the process. You can read extensive details on the prescribed MSBA process at https://www.massschoolbuildings.org/building.

Anyone with questions is encouraged to contact Superintendent Brian Forget at Brian.Forget@tritonschools.org.