A major topic of the meeting was the potential financial burden of the proposed $600 million budget for a new school in Medford. Committee members expressed concerns about the unpredictability of inflation, which could impact future costs. One member noted that setting the budget too low might lead to difficult choices, such as cutting important programs like vocational or preschool offerings if costs rise unexpectedly. The member emphasized the uncertainty of future financial conditions, cautioning against premature budget caps that could limit the district’s options later on.

Another participant pointed out that although the current estimate stands at $600 million, this figure may not reflect the financial realities when the project potentially begins in 2028. They referenced recent cost increases in everyday expenses, such as the price of eggs, as an example of how unpredictable economic conditions can be. This participant argued for flexibility in determining the project’s budget. The discussion included an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in forecasting costs, with historical data showing significant fluctuations in construction expenses.

A motion to reduce the upper budget limit to $400 million was considered but ultimately did not pass, with a vote of two in favor and thirteen against. While some members felt that a lower number might facilitate community discussions, others emphasized that the budget figure is not intended to be seen as final at this stage. The committee ultimately approved the Request for Services (RFS) as amended, allowing the process with the MSBA to proceed.

The meeting also delved into the selection process for a design firm, a critical step that involves the MSBA’s criteria and timeline. The necessity of adhering to a tight schedule was stressed, as the MSBA’s review process includes a series of public meetings and prescribed forms. The committee discussed the limited representation from Medford in the designer selection panel, which is dominated by MSBA representatives. Concerns were raised about the potential for the MSBA to overrule Medford’s preferences if a favored architect does not meet their standards. Despite these concerns, it was clarified that all candidate firms must meet rigorous qualification criteria.

The importance of community outreach was another focal point, with the committee emphasizing the need for effective communication with stakeholders. Various tools, including technology and in-person meetings, were highlighted as essential for engaging the community. The proposed creation of a project website was described as a “virtual file cabinet,” designed to consolidate information, dispel misinformation, and provide quick access to project updates. The involvement of students in the outreach process, particularly those in vocational and media programs, was seen as beneficial, offering them an opportunity to contribute to the project while enhancing engagement.

The committee also addressed the challenges of managing multiple school projects concurrently, such as the Southshore Tech High School and River High School projects. Discussions focused on staffing capacity, with assurances that the core team for the Southshore project would be dedicated solely to it, with no overlap with the River project. The educational liaison, Adele, was noted to have reduced her involvement after completing significant programming and design stages for the River project.

There was also an exploration of contracting methodologies, comparing Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk) with Design Bid Build. The CM at Risk approach allows for earlier builder involvement, which could facilitate better estimates and scheduling. In contrast, the Design Bid Build method might lead to a less integrated approach, as the builder is brought in after finalizing all design documents.