Medford committee orders quick survey of alternate high‑school sites as MSBA timeline advances

The Medford School Committee voted unanimously to ask its owner’s project manager to perform a rapid, written comparison of alternative sites for a proposed new Medford High School and to document why specific locations would be ruled out.

The move matters because the district is working inside Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) deadlines for a Preliminary Design Program (PDP) submission and because MSBA rules affect what building elements the state will reimburse, committee members and project staff said.

Committee member Luke moved the request for Left Field, the district’s owner’s project manager, to prepare a simple chart and supporting notes about alternative parcels and why they may not be viable; members approved the motion by roll call 15-0. Left Field representatives and school officials then reviewed next steps in the design‑team selection process and the MSBA schedule.

Left Field told the committee it would prepare a concise summary of candidate sites so the district can show “we looked at all of the options” before formally narrowing to a preferred site. "We could certainly do that. The meeting ... was recorded and it is available on the YouTube channel as well," a Left Field representative said while explaining where prior site‑study material can be found.

Left Field also said the project team remains on track for the MSBA PDP submission in January 2026. "We are confident that we can still hit the January 2026 submission of the PDP," the firm said, though the designer‑selection meetings with the MSBA are constrained by the authority’s calendar. The committee was given MSBA scheduling dates the firm identified: the MSBA designer selection panel meetings are scheduled for Sept. 23 and Oct. 7, and the team anticipated issuing the designer Request for Services (RFS) at the end of July.

Committee discussion reviewed site‑size and program tradeoffs. Project staff and members said the existing high‑school site is roughly 30 acres while one discussed alternative, Columbus Park (sometimes cited as Columbus Square), is about 5 acres — roughly one‑sixth the size of the current site — which would force major tradeoffs on fields, parking and program space. Committee members noted that building on a smaller downtown parcel would likely require a taller structure and would reduce or eliminate some outdoor athletic and recreation spaces.

MSBA reimbursement rules for specialty spaces were described as a key constraint. Left Field explained that MSBA will participate in costs for certain eligible spaces within its base allotments but will not fund everything discussed; for example, a full new pool would be paid for entirely by the city, whereas renovating a pool that remains in the project footprint could be more financially efficient. The team noted MSBA allows a high‑school gym up to roughly 12,000 square feet in typical cases, but exact reimbursement depends on the educational program and MSBA conversation.

Committee members and staff also discussed phasing and logistics if the project remains on the existing site, including the possibility of keeping portions of the building in use while constructing new wings or renovating in phases. Left Field said those options will be evaluated more fully once an architect is onboard and the educational program (the document that defines required spaces and uses) is drafted.

The committee asked for clearer public communication. Members proposed a September public forum and a fact‑based project website with downloadable documents and a timeline so residents can follow decisions as the designer selection and PDP submission proceed.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: Left Field will prepare the requested one‑page (and a more detailed) chart of candidate properties and reasons for elimination; the district will post or link available prior study materials; the project team will issue the designer RFS per the MSBA schedule and pursue designer selection interviews in September/October; and the district will plan a community update in September.

The committee’s formal motion to have Left Field do a cursory analysis and create a chart passed (approved, motion recorded; mover: Luke; second: not specified; vote: 15 yes, 0 no).