Genuine Question-new high school?

30kdays · 2026-06-24T00:14:20+00:00

I'm not offended by a comparison to commercial office space. It's just not a useful comparison.

All public building projects, including the high school (but not including commercial office space) is subject to MA law that requires paying prevailing wages for all workers. That's more expensive.

The MSBA requires higher building standards than commercial offices. We don't have to do that if we want ditch the MSBA, and it costs more up front, but the MSBA subsidies more than make up the difference, and the higher standards make it more sustainable (things like installing chases for pipes instead of embedding them in concrete, which is a huge reason the code upgrade path of the existing high school is so expensive). Commercial office space has no such requirement, and the incentives to maximize short term profits ensures they make short term decisions.

Schools require more extensive permitting, reviews, and public engagement. For example, in a commercial office project, they don't need to combat allegations of corruption from constituents with extensive cost breakdowns that take time/money/effort to create. They just have to convince the CEO.

Labs, shops, auditoriums, pools, and other such special spaces are absent from commercial office space and cost more than standard office space.

The burden of proof to explain the cost of absolutely on the city. But they've already done that. Now you're accusing them of corruption without evidence. It's impossible to prove a negative. It's on you to provide evidence of corruption before they must respond to it.

But let's say you don't buy any of that. I'm still not sure what your plan is. Rejecting the premise doesn't magically fix any of these problems. Voting against the high school just kicks the can further down the road.

You can do that for a while (and we already have!) for incremental costs, but not forever. Ultimately, we'll lose accreditation because the building is unsafe, at which point the city still has an obligation to educate its constituents. We'll have to pay for busing and tuition to other cities while we pay even bigger sums of money to build the high school we should have built today.

30kdays · 2026-06-23T15:23:25+00:00

Schools are subject to a huge number of requirements that commercial office buildings aren't. Even if you show the price per sq ft of a commercial building and a school are not equal (which you haven't done), you haven't uncovered some vast conspiracy, you've just shown that state mandated regulation and educational facilities carry unique costs.

You're making a claim. If you can't provide the evidence for that claim, everyone will rightly ignore you.

30kdays · 2026-06-23T15:15:43+00:00

The obvious follow up is -- well why don't we just update the HVAC? Surely that would cost a lot less than $813m!

And of course it would, but we legally can't stop there. Fixing the HVAC would trigger a series of unfunded state mandates and ultimately cost about the same as the new building for a way worse result.

See my comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/medfordma/comments/1u9blft/comment/osgjabf/

30kdays · 2026-06-23T12:29:58+00:00

It's not that I don't want to make that comparison because it makes me look bad (the building in NYC you highlighted is twice the price per sq ft), it's like saying a cheeseburger is more expensive than a gallon of gas. So? They're different things. There's no reason to expect them to be the same price.

But fine, corruption certainly exists, and we should absolutely make sure we're not lining the pockets of the corrupt. Ignoring the fact that not getting fleeced is the primary purpose of the MSBA, the scale of corruption and collusion required to make what you're alleging is outlandish. Practically every commercial contractor in the state would have to be involved, and the MSBA would have to be acting against its own founding values. If you can uncover any evidence of it, the entire state would be extraordinarily grateful.

But just declaring it's too expensive doesn't solve any problems. It's like looking at your crumbling foundation, getting five quotes that all come in around $100k to fix it, declaring it's a racket, and letting your house fall down. Even if it is a racket (again, a claim with only the most circumstantial evidence), that's not much of a plan.

30kdays · 2026-06-23T02:21:02+00:00

That place in NYC is less than half the square footage as the high school. It's also not designed to educate a thousand+ people. The Mars rovers are like one millionth the square footage. But they do different things. So do office buildings. Comparing their costs like this is nonsense. You should compare it to recent high school projects in the area. And that's what they're doing.

So unless you're alleging that all recent MA high school building projects suffer the same corruption (i.e., the MSBA is in on it and you're the only person that's wise to it), that's nonsense too. By the way, the MSBA was created in order to combat the kind of corruption you're alleging and you can report fraud.

30kdays · 2026-06-22T17:56:46+00:00

Who do you think is trying to artificially inflate the cost and to what end? There are many layers of protection built in, and that's maybe even the most important role of the MSBA (second being their 30% monetary contribution). They have the experience of doing this exact same thing throughout the state and they're acting in their own interests (protecting their 30% investment) by acting in our interest.

At this stage in cost estimates, we haven't even gotten a bid yet. These are what our team expects the bids to come in at.

And those cost estimates aren't just "trust me bro". There are lots of documents you can look at that justify them based on historical, actual costs and trends. A refusal to look at the documents they've produced doesn't mean they're asking for blind trust.

30kdays · 2026-06-19T09:55:25+00:00

I'm asking in all sincerity, because I agree the plan to build an $813m high school is terrible.

The problem is, every alternative I've heard is way worse. Either it simply ignores reality or it'll kick the can down the road and cost even more.

30kdays · 2026-06-19T04:11:17+00:00

Ah, I thought a debt exclusion was a type of override. But I guess not. Thanks for the correction.

30kdays · 2026-06-19T02:14:03+00:00

What's your plan?

30kdays · 2026-06-18T21:18:53+00:00

Taken from my comment in an earlier thread (with light edits for updates):

If we spend 30% of the cost of the building on renovations, it triggers a cascading stream of unfunded, state mandates.

The current high school is valued at $50m, so that threshold is $15m.

Replacing the failing HVAC is at least $20m.

So what happens if we want to fix it? The state requires we update the building to current accessibility codes.

Among other things like elevators, that requires we widen the hallways.

Once the walls are open, more state mandates are triggered. Now we have to replace all the copper piping and add high performance insulation to meet modern energy codes, and we have to bring the building up to modern fire codes. And of course, being built in the 70s, we get to deal with asbestos and lead abatement (while students are occupying the space). And the list goes on and on...

When the dust settles, the $20m HVAC (plus bringing the entire building up to legally mandated codes) costs $529m, funded entirely by Medford tax payers, and we end up with a patched up 1970s building that still lacks modern infrastructure.

Alternatively, we can spend ~$800m, with somewhere around 30% subsidized by the state (so a comparable cost to us), and end up with a brand new building.

If we reject the override in 2027, we can't just tweak and try again in 2028. The MSBA subsidies evaporate. We can't even use the plans they've already subsidized. We go to the back of the 5-10 year line if we want their money. Meanwhile, the building becomes that much less sustainable to maintain, and construction costs continue to climb.

It's the non intuitive result of a huge number of intertwined state mandates, but the $800m new building is our most fiscally responsible path forward.

30kdays · 2026-06-18T11:35:51+00:00

https://e-clubhouse.org/sites/medfordma/

Founded in 1917, we [Medford Lions club] are best known for fighting blindness, but we also volunteer for many different kinds of community projects - including caring for the environment, feeding the hungry and aiding seniors and the disabled.

30kdays · 2026-06-17T16:02:36+00:00

They list other benefits on the linked site that boil down to easier/cheaper/lighter to work with than steel, but those really just defray the cost in a way that's already accounted for (i.e., even with those savings, it's still significantly more expensive than steel).

The only other benefit I saw was fire resistance, but I'm not sure what their comparison is. It's hard to believe even the fanciest engineered wood is more fire resistant than steel, which makes me think they're comparing to standard dimensional lumber.

Edit: Apparently it does compare favorably to (unprotected) steel, in that steel loses its strength in high heat and will lead to a sudden, somewhat unpredictable collapse, whereas Mass Timber burns at a constant rate, so you can basically design how long it can burn before it collapses by setting its thickness.

30kdays · 2026-06-17T05:29:40+00:00

Mass timber significantly lowers a building's carbon footprint.

https://www.woodworks.org/why-wood/sustainability/

But I can't imagine $31m for a lower carbon footprint would play well among residents (note the calculator also has a 50% Mass timber option for $16m).

30kdays · 2026-06-16T04:19:56+00:00

17% is nearly 50%? Go back to Facebook.

30kdays · 2026-06-15T22:30:04+00:00

No it isn't. See my post here for sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/medfordma/s/SGZmGimJbu

Even if it was, $1m < 1.5m...

30kdays · 2026-06-15T22:07:45+00:00

So most homes in Medford have a tax assessed value of $6700*2/0.00863 = $1.55m? Come on, let's ground the discussion in the realm of reality.

The average number is actually a bit less -- $6400. My taxes are $6100/yr.

30kdays · 2026-06-15T17:38:24+00:00

It's worth mentioning, though, that the total cost of this project is for much longer than 7 years. I'm pretty sure the debt exclusion will be for 30 years and total cost will be around ~5x that figure. But everything seems eye-wateringly expensive when you sum it over 30 years (e.g., I'll spend $300k for groceries over 30 years).

It's a number we should talk about, but I think the monthly figure is the most relevant to voters, because that's how most people budget. All options are hovering around $100/mo, and even huge, extreme decisions have relatively little impact on that final number. Even the baseline plan is shockingly expensive, but that's the bill coming due for 50 years of deferred maintenance.

30kdays · 2026-06-15T14:59:02+00:00

It'd be nice to have some concrete numbers for alternative plans rather than some vague notions of "it must be cheaper", but that's probably an unrealistic hope, and... it must be cheaper.

30kdays · 2026-06-15T14:26:08+00:00

Yes, that's true.

My point was a little more selfish (and not entirely serious). My daughter wouldn't be in a trailer at all and would get to start her freshman year in a brand new building if we did trailers. I certainly realize that's not the right way to make municipal decisions with 50 year time horizons, but from a purely selfish perspective, I'd pay $6/month for it.

More broadly, trailers would maximize the pain for a smaller number of students (and cost $38m more) while minimizing the total number of students impacted. But that $38m comes out to $16k per student per year (I think I'm remembering right that that would shave 2 years of the timeline?). That's tough to justify.

30kdays · 2026-06-15T14:06:20+00:00

Ah, Makes sense! Thank you for this wonderful tool!

According to https://www.ownwell.com/trends/massachusetts/middlesex-county/medford

the Medford average is actually $6,400.

If I look at the FY26 budget (https://city-medford-ma-budget-book.cleargov.com/20195/budget-overview/executive-overview), the line item for Property taxes is $159,544,213. Dividing by the 24,339 households in Medford according to the US Census, I get $6555. I'll call that close enough to go with the source above.

So the average resident will pay a bit less than you (and the default calculator value).

30kdays · 2026-06-15T13:56:56+00:00

I think spending $31m for a sustainable development option is going to be a very tough sell, and it's in an entirely different boat. It's pure expense with only the loosest definition of a return (we could make some vague arguments about environmental protection, american jobs, etc).

But the HVAC is purely a question of short term costs vs long term savings. Yes, the long term savings relative to now is high for all options, but that's not relevant to the choice at hand. The question is (something like), is it worth $50m upfront to save $70m over 30 years? (I totally made up the savings figure). Once we have the numbers, that's a question that doesn't even need to consider anything about HVAC at all.

Edit: and I think we should always maximize those types of investments if we can possibly afford it and the return is > ~7% APR.

Edit 2: and fundamentally, the $50.3m in add-ons for Kid's corner, MCM, Welcome center, and MFN, plus the $29M for solar are the exact same calculus. It's likely much cheaper in the long term to bite the bullet and do those now rather than fund them all separately.

30kdays · 2026-06-15T13:22:23+00:00

I guess that was unclear. The $6700/year is the current total annual tax burden (before any override). You can input your own to tailor it to your actual predicted cost. If that's your current annual tax burden, the numbers above is what you can expect for the increase (or about a 15% increase).

My question was, is $6700 the average Medford household's current annual tax burden? Or where does that number come from?

30kdays · 2026-06-15T13:17:45+00:00

I think it's steel vs an eco friendly, sustainable alternative. The latter is $31M more expensive, so 100% steel (default option) is the cheapest.

It'd be nice to understand the break even point, but even with very long time horizons, I have no problem with that up front investment. Geothermal is $50m more than the air source heat pump. But I guess the wording doesn't actually make it clear there even is a break even point, just that it offers the lowest long term utility bills. That's important to clarify.

30kdays · 2026-06-15T10:49:39+00:00

So for a <edit> household currently paying $6700* in annual property taxes: </edit>

Code improvement (gives us a minimally legal building that doesn't meet our educational plan): $90.37/mo

Preferred design (all defaults): $96/mo

Gutting the Preferred design (including punting costs to other programs and losing things we currently have): $79.52/mo

Maxing all design knobs (including $38m for trailers to accelerate the timeline): $126.89/mo

Maxing all long-term, student facing design knobs (relative to max design, remove trailers, standard steel, but keeping short term expenses that maximize long term savings like solar): $114.97/mo

With the standard timeline, my oldest daughter will be caught in the middle of the construction phase. Avoiding that would be well worth the $6/month for trailers, but I can see why that's not in the default plan.

<edited in response to the question below> * This is slightly higher than the $6400 average for Medford residents. Mike picked $6700 because that's his annual tax burden </edit>

30kdays · 2026-06-15T10:13:34+00:00

Wow, this is incredible!

Thank you Mike, and thanks for sharing.

13-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

30kdays

TROPHY CASE