The committee devoted attention to the designer selection process, following Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) guidelines. The detailed procedure involves a designer selection panel (DSP), which includes 13 MSBA-appointed members and three district representatives. The aim is to choose a design firm based on qualifications, with the process culminating in interviews and negotiations. The timeline outlined by the committee includes an initial meeting on September 23 to review applications, followed by interviews scheduled for October 6.

Committee members stressed the importance of being vocal during the DSP meetings, as the district’s three representatives play a role in expressing local preferences. The committee was advised against arriving with pre-determined rankings; instead, a point-based system will guide the ranking of firms. This system assigns three points to the first choice, two to the second, and one to the third. The highest-ranked firm will enter into negotiations, with alternatives available if talks falter. Documentation and thorough evaluations are emphasized, as incomplete submissions could lead to disqualification. Additionally, questions about public record status revealed that while documents will eventually become public, they are not required to be shared during the selection process.

In tandem with the designer selection, the committee explored site options for a new school, with a focus on evaluating the Andrews Middle School site and other potential locations. Despite its consideration, the Andrews site was deemed unviable due to traffic and logistical challenges. The committee also expressed interest in a phased construction approach at the existing high school site, which would require relocating students and staff. This method was compared with other potential sites and involved consideration of Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) land and Article 97 opportunities.

Medford Square was briefly discussed as a potential site, but a development company already selected for the area likely disqualifies it. Columbus Park and Playet Park were also considered, but both were deemed inadequate due to limited space for facilities and parking. The committee acknowledged the need to narrow down the feasibility study focus and emphasized communicating site selection reasoning to the public.

The educational plan was another key discussion point, deemed critical for decision-making within the district. The plan’s development involves collaboration among educators, with tours of other high schools providing insights into different educational environments. Drafts of the educational plan are expected by the end of the following week, allowing for teacher input before the final deadline at the end of September.

Throughout these discussions, committee members were encouraged to focus on their expertise areas, providing feedback that reflects diverse community interests. The importance of collaborative efforts was underscored, with various strategies and tools proposed to facilitate thorough and fair evaluations.