Simpson Housing still full of hope
Published on December 15th, 2004
STONEHAM, MA - For Simpson Housing, LP representative Bill Caulder, hope hasn't faded that the town's Boston Regional Medical Center (BRMC) workgroup will eventually approve plans to construct 550 residential dwellings at the former hospital site.
While Caulder understands the workgroup's skepticism with the proposal given the findings of Judi Barrett from Community Opportunity's Group, he believes an impasse that led to the recent cancellation of a public hearing on the project can be easily breached by further researching the project's value to the town.
"If the project is to become part of Stoneham's residential inventory, of course we're going to impact the town. But we feel that we've properly accounted for increased staff and costs for the town," said Caulder.
"Once we get a better handle on the value for the project, I don't think any of these issues will exist. And that's the biggest discrepancy in my mind. Once we go through some additional exercises to find out if the costs and values are realistic, I think we'll find that there are more than enough funds left over," he added.
According to several BRMC workgroup members interviewed since last November's public hearing was cancelled, dismal financial projections estimated by Barrett, who serves as the town's consultant on the project, sank any possibility of the proposal moving forward.
But while Barrett's suggestion that the residential component would only generate $262,000 in net revenue for the town caused town officials to double-guess their feelings on the project, many members consider the ultimate tipping point to be a letter sent by Stoneham Fire Chief Lawrence Lamey to the consultant.
In that letter, Lamey insisted that the site's distance from the current fire station, coupled with the 1000 person population surge expected at the site, would drive the need for a new substation near the development - a capital cost estimated at $2.5 million. In addition, Lamey concluded that without additional staffing, another annual $360,000 price tag, the substation wouldn't be able to function.
"I wasn't happy with some of the analysis, for example, the public safety issues," said Finance Board member and BRMC workgroup member Richard Gregorio. "Personally, I argued that the project doesn't necessitate that substation. But that's something we need to study."
Although Lamey's call for a substation was not echoed in Barrett's report, perhaps validating Gregorio's point that a new station will not be required, several other financial estimates caused workgroup members to raise eyebrows.
For example, Barrett's report figures on 72 new students entering the school system as a result of the residential growth, 18 percent of whom would probably require special education services.
In total, the town's consultant estimated that the school-costs related to the project would drive a need for a $460,000 annual appropriation to the school department. However, that total appropriation was based on the assumption that special education costs would average out to $15,000 per student, a prediction that hasn't sat well with school administrators and School Committee members.
"Both consultants [for the town and developer] claim they have formulas that they can back up. But that being said, nothing is average when it comes to special education costs. A single special education student could cost up to $100,000, throwing that whole projection out of balance. But that's just speculation," said School Committee member and BRMC workgroup member David Sheils.
Yet another potential emotional and financial downside to the project related to the schools, Barrett notes that the school system's elementary schools have room for about 100 additional students. And while that capacity exceeds the 72 student jump predicted by the consultant, Barrett notes that a significant deviation from that figure could result in additional capital costs - school renovations.
But perhaps the greater consequence, as seen by parents, Barrett concludes that a potential redistricting of the town's elementary schools could be very likely.
"Redistricting is such a hot button issue that to make a recommendation or comment on it at this point would be premature. We don't know if this project will go through the workgroup, we don't know if it will ultimately be approved, and we don't know what the real numbers will be if it goes through. So, I can't open or close the door on that issue," said Sheils.
According to Caulder, he also believes that Barrett's school-cost projections are a little low. And in an attempt to alleviate the concerns of the school department, the developer has agreed to increase their own school cost estimates by $100,000, bringing the total to $560,000.
"We met with Dave and some School Committee members [this Tuesday] to hash through Judi Barrett's report. We also felt the per-pupil cost was low. So we endeavored to include what they feel are their best estimates for the costs," said Caulder of the decision to increase the estimates.
Saying that he will also meet with police and fire officials to gain an understanding of what additional costs will make them feel comfortable with the project, Caulder's willingness to compromise with some of the estimates would appear to launch more torpedoes into the chances of getting an approval.
However, Caulder believes that the most significant difference between his and the town's consultant is not municipal cost-projections, but rather, estimates for how much net revenue the residential development will generate.
According to the Simpson Housing spokesman, while Barrett estimates the project creating a net revenue of $262,000, his estimates show the residential component turning over $600,000 to $800,000 in revenues after costs to the town are factored in.
"The bottom line is I think we're going to be making the town more money. It's not going to be a drain by any means. What's obvious is that everybody's been talking about 25 percent of this project being affordable. But people have been ignoring that 75 percent of this is market rate. That's a lot of inventory," Caulder explained.
According to Gregorio, he personally would vote in favor of the project if the residential component of the development generates any net revenue, as the commercial component of the project will prove to make the proposal financially appealing.
"If this project has any net-benefit to the town, then I will vote for it. Because the sweetener for this is the commercial aspect. That's where the revenues will be coming from," the Finance Board Chairman said.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!