Medford School Building Committee narrows options for high school rebuild; preferred design to be picked June 10

Medford school and project leaders told a crowd at a June community forum that the School Building Committee will choose a single preferred design for Medford High School on June 10, a step required before the district submits a Preferred Schematic Report to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

At the forum Stan Graham, chair of the Medford Pro Building Committee and vice chair of the Medford School Committee, said the June 10 selection will narrow the district's choices so the team can refine plans and schedules. "On June 10th, we're going to go from the set of options you'll see tonight to a single option," Graham said, encouraging residents to provide feedback before the vote.

Why it matters: the selection shapes which parts of the existing campus are saved, how and when students will be relocated during construction, and how much the MSBA will reimburse. The project carries multi-year milestones: the SBC will approve the preferred-schematic submission June 15, the team must submit that report to the MSBA by June 25, MSBA review and feedback are expected in July, the MSBA board meets Aug. 26 to consider schematic-design approval, schematic design runs into early 2027, and local approvals are targeted in May 2027.

What the team presented: the project team (lead architect Matt Rice of SMA, Jen Carlson of Lefield as owner's project manager, and civil engineer Laura Swan) laid out six alternatives and described several variants that evolved after staff reviewed a deed restriction on parts of Edgerly Field. The 1967 agreement with the Department of Conservation and Recreation limits development on portions of Edgerly Field to recreational uses and access roads; several options were revised so building massing avoids the restricted area.

The six alternatives include: A.1 (a comprehensive code-upgrade renovation of the existing building), multiple addition-and-renovation variants (including revised C2.2A and C3.4A), B1.2 (addition/renovation that preserves most structure while reconfiguring interiors), and D1.1 (new construction on the southern parking lot). The team also modeled a "high-school-only" variant at the MSBA's request to show the cost implications of excluding non-high-school programs now housed in the building.

Costs and reimbursement: presenters emphasized trade-offs between upfront cost, MSBA reimbursement, and program scope. The A.1 code-upgrade option would bring the building to current code but, because it would not meet the MSBA's educational-program requirements, it would likely receive no MSBA reimbursement; presenters warned that scenario would leave the city responsible for the full project cost. The team also showed a "no pooling" (NP) column: under new construction a replacement pool would be a separate project and require an additional vote.

Modular classrooms and phasing: after community feedback the team removed modular classrooms from most options. The change reduces some categorical costs (modular classrooms are not MSBA-reimbursable) but typically lengthens the construction schedule because the project must phase permanent replacement space rather than move programs into temporary modular buildings. Presenters described phased sequencing that would bring key spaces (pool, gym, northern addition with CTE and academic spaces) online earlier, with later phases demolishing and replacing remaining wings.

Fields and site logistics: the team said Edgerly Field and other open spaces will likely be used early in construction for geothermal wells, staging, or temporary parking, and therefore may be unavailable for school or community use for an extended period; exact timing depends on land-counsel review of deed restrictions and the construction manager's sequencing. Several residents urged preserving or adding on-site stadium/track/field inventory (including a field-over-parking option) for equity and to reduce reliance on off-site venues.

Programs housed at the high school: district leaders noted the building currently contains non-high-school programs (Medford Family Network, Kids Corner, the district welcome/registration center, municipal daycare and other wraparound services, and a therapeutic day program). The MSBA statement of interest contemplated keeping those programs on site, but the modeled high-school-only option would require the district to identify relocation sites and estimate the relocation or operating costs; presenters said that analysis is ongoing and not included in the high-school-only cost line.

Construction manager and cost certainty: the team expects to engage a construction manager in the fall (target: October) to finalize phasing, staging, and more detailed cost estimates. Current cost figures shown to the committee are escalated to the expected start of construction (roughly 2028) using standard industry escalation assumptions.

Representative quotes:
"This is a big project. Schools cost a lot of money. Every day that we wait is another day where we're escalating cost," Stan Graham said.
"We removed the modulars because the community told us they were undesirable, but removing modulars extends schedule and changes phasing," Jen Carlson said.

What's next: the team asked residents to submit feedback by the end of day Friday via the QR code or voice-and-vision cards; that input will be tabulated for the School Building Committee ahead of the June 10 meeting. After the SBC selects a preferred option and the district submits the Preferred Schematic Report to the MSBA, the MSBA review and board approvals will define the district's final grant participation and the schedule into schematic design and construction.

The forum closed with an invitation to view display boards and models in the lobby and to use the survey to register a preferred alternative. The project team emphasized that specific program-relocation costs and exact field-return schedules will be defined after further study with the construction manager and land counsel.