A New MHS: Non-Reimbursable Spaces #1

As the conceptual design phase comes to a close and the deadline for final changes approaches, the Medford School Committee must provide guidance to the building committee about spaces in the new building. This is the second in a series of blog posts describing my votes as a sitting member of the school committee, and it focuses on the July 2026 votes related to non-reimbursable spaces and sustainability.

For context, the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) reimburses a portion of the cost to build educational spaces in a new or renovated building. (If a building committee elects solely to bring an existing building up to code, with no new additions or renovations, the MSBA oes not reimburse any of the expenses.) The exact reimbursement rate is set once the design is finalized, although there is a minimum from project outset (Medford's is 52.3%). Any spaces that do not qualify as core educational spaces (or that exceed the reimbursable footprint) must be funded entirely by the municipality (whether through debt exclusion or non-property-tax funding mechanisms). Grants, etc. received for funding reimbursable spaces are deducted from the project total not the post-reimbursement calculation.

The Medford High School (MHS) project includes a number of spaces and programs that are not reimbursable. Some of these exist in the building currently. Others would be new additions and were included in the project to meet an existing community need. While the Mayor agreed in spring 2026 to study alternatives for locating these programs elsewhere in the City, it is my personal opinion that the limited number of City-owned properties and the conditions thereof significantly lowers the likelihood that such alternative locations can accommodate all the programs for which there is community need. As such, the committees and indeed the school district are faced with a series of complex tradeoffs between utility and cost. My own approach to these questions, as a member of the school committee, is to center the value of these programs and spaces first to our students, second to the teachers and staff who support them, and third, to the broader Medford community.

July 2026 - Vote to eliminate dedicated storage space for renters from the design 

Yes. The current Medford High School, having been built for a larger student body than currently exists, has a number of unused spaces, several of which are currently being used to store materials used exclusively by outside groups who are recurring renters. These include a full lecture hall that has become the Japanese Language School’s  dedicated library. The total square footage of the storage spaces (above and beyond the classrooms and gathering spaces being rented) is 2,760 square feet, estimated to add just under $4.5 million to the project.

Although I appreciate the need to be welcoming to long-term renters who bring in regular income that could, in theory*, supplement the base budget, I feel the direct benefit of this extra storage to student learning is limited. Ultimately, I could not get behind providing taxpayer-funded storage space to external users when internal users (that is, teachers) will be limited in their own storage options. (This is due, at least in part, to the shared classroom model required to meet MSBA’s “85% of the time” usage threshold for reimbursement.) 

Asking certain renters to fund construction of these spaces is something I am open to, although I do worry about being beholden to external stakeholders. Either way, eliminating the storage space does not close off all rental options. Groups can still use the spaces in the new building for a variety of purposes and I hope they will.

July 2026 - Vote to include a school-based teen health center in the design

Yes. My support for this amenity is rooted in both academic research and on-the-ground conversation, summarized below. My overarching position is that putting access to health care in a location where a majority of Medford teens will improve academic and health outcomes, particularly for students who are underserved by the current infrastructure. 

Research findings show that school-based health centers:

• Lead to faster and higher return rates of students to class, correlating with higher academic outcomes (various sources)

• Reduce hospitalization for chronic conditions like asthma (Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 2024)

• Lower the frequency of emergency department visits for mental and behavioral health disorders (APA Journal of Families, Systems, & Health, 2025) 

• Increase healthy behaviors, health knowledge, and medical self advocacy among youth, as well as overall satisfaction about health care (American Journal of Public Health)

• Are particularly well equipped to provide screening, brief intervention, and referrals to treatment (Journal of Community Psychology, 2024) 

• Increase multidisciplinary coordination between pediatricians and school-based staff (Journal of School Health, 2025)

• Mitigate barriers such as long wait lists for referrals or wait times for appointments (various sources)

Conversations with MPS staff and community:

• Medford residents who have worked in school-based health centers and schools with teen health centers sing their praises in support of the above findings

• MPS nurses and counseling department staff are fully on board with this proposal (in fact, it was first suggested by the director of health services and the district’s consulting physician several years ago)

• On-site medical providers and lab facilities reduces time students spend out of class and improves consistency of care (i.e., timely follow-up to recommended interventions)

• It expands the scope of practice within the school. Counselors, nurses, etc. cannot diagnose or prescribe services/medication; they mostly triage. Better coordination between school services and a student’s medical providers, again, means faster turnaround for testing and treatment as well as access to medical providers as consultants to staff. 

• Medford, like many other communities, has both an acute and chronic need for more mental health support in the schools. Mental and reproductive health care are the most accessed services of teen health centers.

• Teens gain increasing independence and autonomy over their medical care as they get older, but are still limited in their ability to access those services due to schedules, family responsibilities, and other constraints on their time. Simply put, non-urgent medical needs are often deprioritized purely due to logistics. An in-school health center makes it easier to receive that care. 

• 52% of MHS students are high needs; 39% are low income. One third of MHS students are on Mass Health and at least 15% of MHS students do not have documented insurance. 17% of Medford students are non-compliant on vaccines

• While the numbers may be less than other more vulnerable communities, these are often the students who struggle the most to get the support they need, and whose families’ voices are often missing from the conversation.

• As it turns out, Medford already sends students to teen health centers…in other schools. Following in those district’s footsteps by building our own school-based teen health center at Medford HIght School is not just “keeping up with the Joneses,” it is providing a service that is truly needed. Every other center our staff talked to said they were full up with appointments. 

• The proposed footprint of this project is the bare minimum of what is needed to get grants that can support the center’s operation, in whole or in part. The $2.4 million to give ourselves that option and to provide the services our on-the-ground staff says these students need is not a luxury; it is a key piece of the solution to a growing need.

July 2026 - Vote to approve sustainability guidelines for the project

Yes. Sustainability decisions are a tough one for me because so often it feels like a tradeoff between saving money and saving the environment. But Member Parks’s resolution was designed to both align with the City’s climate goals and answer the architect’s questions about which design elements to prioritize so that the sustainability advisory committee (who better understand the constraints, possibilities, and the market) could make recommendations to the building committee. Our vote confirmed the priorities for those specific recommendations: meet the minimum MSBA LEED requirement (v4 silver), come as close as possible to net-zero energy; choose healthy building materials to maximize indoor air quality, water efficiency and stewardship; reduce energy, water, and maintenance costs; and decision-making with long-term operating and maintenance costs at the forefront. It is my opinion that these guidelines provide a reasonable balance of ambition and awareness about what is possible and what is practical.

The other piece of the value puzzle for me goes beyond the cost/benefit analysis of the investment itself and lands solidly in the territory of our shared societal values.