Somerville Mayor discusses Powder House School development

                Over 50 Somerville, Mass., residents, neighbors and elected officials gathered at a community meeting yesterday to discuss the ongoing redevelopment process of the vacant Powder House Community School.
    Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone told community members that the meeting, previously scheduled to discuss the redevelopment proposal submitted by Tufts, would instead be used to address community concerns about the planning process.
    After responding to a Request for Proposals (RFP), Tufts was initially selected by the city as the preferred developer. The two parties entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. The RFP required the developer complete the construction process within three years - but Tufts determined it would be unable to follow through.
    "Over the last three weeks it suddenly became clear to us that Tufts was hedging on those three years," Curtatone said. "We asked for clarification, and it was made explicitly clear to me by their administrators that [they would] not build within five years and are more than likely never going to build within 10 ... We were not going to allow anybody to mothball the area."
    According to Curtatone, Tufts' removal from the redevelopment planning stemmed from the school's financial constraints.
    "They made clear to us that they budgeted enough money to purchase the land, but never put any money in an account to build anything," he said. "My response was, 'You should have never been in the process'"
    A previous statement from the Tufts Office of Public Relations also suggested that the university could not continue due to monetary reasons.
    "Tufts University has reached an agreement with the City of Somerville to withdraw from development of the Powder House Community School project," a statement the university's Office of Public Relations previously released to the Daily said. "While Tufts had hoped to make this project a reality, we have reluctantly concluded that it is no longer feasible given the many and growing demands on our financial resources."
    Curtatone expressed frustration with the process. He refuted the notion that the city and university had reached an agreement.
    "There was no agreed upon ending of these negotiations," he said. "The city ended it. I ended it ... They had no choice in the process. We stopped it, we took their deposit ... I am not happy with the situation."
    The redevelopment of the property has now been delayed, according to Curtatone who explained that the city and community must go back to the drawing board.
    "I believe [Tufts] did a disservice to the community and this neighborhood," he said. "I understand circumstances change, that happens in development, but they made it clear they never had or planned to have enough money to build ... I think there were a lot of months of wasted time."
    Somerville Director of Planning George Proakis followed Curtatone with a presentation on the proposals the city received beyond that which Tufts submitted. He explained that a committee will discuss the top two alternative proposals, but said that the city has not yet decided if it will reopen the bidding process.
    Throughout the meeting, neighborhood residents expressed concerns about the ways in which the space would be used, and wondered if the city needed to sell the land.
    Curtatone said he supported the construction of residential units on the property and explained that the Boston area is experiencing a major housing crunch. In response, the City of Somerville is hoping to add 6,000 housing units as well as 125 acres of open land.
    Residents also asked whether the current building needed to be demolished. If it is to stay, the building would require major renovations, Curtatone said.
    "We found that there were a significant number of challenges to retrofit the facility," he said. "It's not impossible, but it presented enough barriers that led us away to realize we would not be able to do it."
    A major problem is the amount of asbestos in the existing building. According to Proakis, Tufts provided environmental assessments and determined the remediation would be $2 million over what the university had initially planned for. However, this was not why the university was unable to complete the process, Curtatone said.
    With this added cost in mind, meeting participants and members of the Technical Advisory Committee expressed a desire to return to the negotiating table and request additional proposals.
    "My interest is taking the information which Tufts learned in the environmental studies and engaging in the process again," Sean Becker, a Ward 7 resident and member of the Technical Advisory Committee, said. "That information substantially changed what was originally an unknown in the RFP process. Therefore, continuing the current RFP process seems to be somewhat of a moot point in that we [would] want to reissue more information if we were to go forward."
    While Becker addressed support for some proposals to make use of the land in the interim, he also said the city must reconsider the sale price of the land.
    "There has been a substantial change in land value [since the proposals were requested]," he said.
    Curtatone said community engagement will be an important part of the process going forward, and he hopes to hold another meeting within a month. He added that despite the delay, the city remains committed to working with Tufts on other projects.
    "I'm not happy with what happened with them, but we want to work with them - we're going to be good neighbors," he said. "We have seen a lot of strides in our relationship with them, especially within the last decade, and we need to continue to do that ... They play an important role in the community, in our economy ... [and] as frustrated and as disappointed as I am, [hopefully] this doesn't turn back the clock 20 years in our relationship."