Residents Voice Frustration Over Status of Medfield State Hospital Site

Medfield residents are frustrated by the lack of cooperative communication with the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) and the town's inability to provide a clear reuse plan for the former .

Medfield residents Bill Massaro and John Harney made their frustrations known at last week’s board of selectmen meeting – sparking a 32 minute discussion – and at times debate – of the town’s direction and involvement in the property.

Massaro, a 30-plus year resident and abutter to the state hospital prpoerty –  vented frustrations regarding DCAM’s inability to work openly with the town and its residents, primarily responding to the many questions and concerns regarding the future plans and .

“I am somewhat frustrated,” Massaro said. “I am frustrated that [DCAM] did not make distribution of the documents [responses to residents’ concerns]. We have a meeting on [Jan.] 12th and this wouldn’t be the first time that all distribution gets made by me [and not DCAM].”

To elaborate on his frustration with DCAM, Massaro referred to the letters he received from the state agency in response to questions and concerns submitted by residents.

“We have been making the same types of comments and concerns for quite some time now [to DCAM],” Massaro said. “Mostly regarding the nature and extent of some of the issues [at the state hospital site].”

This, according to Massaro, was DCAM’s response to residents’ concerns to various issues regarding cleanup of the state hospital:

• "Construction and Demolition (C&D) area IS adequately defined and IS only 3.2 acres."
• "Toxic sediment in the river IS adequately defined and IS only 800 square feet." ... “These are things we [residents] have said are not correct and we wish to see data supporting [DCAM’s statements],” Massaro said.
• "PAHs in the sediment, despite our concerns ARE NOT toxic," Massaro read.
• "Despite our concerns, there is no risk to well no. 6 from CVOCs or contaminated material under the groundwater level," Massaro read.
• "The large deposits of coal ash in the power plant area and C&D area DO NOT necessarily represent a risk. “Whatever that means,” Massaro said.
• “Despite our requests that they not crush any concrete on site, they have said they reserve the right to make the decision whether to crush clean concrete on site," Massaro said. "If they do, they will use it in the C&D area."

"It is somewhat frustrating that they have not moved from all their initial positions,” Massaro said.

Harney, a former Medfield selectman and town resident for more than 46 years, said he shares Massaro’s frustrations and concerns, adding he was disappointed in DCAM for not informing Medfield residents of filling an excavation at the state hospital site with material from a Boston area landfill.

“I found it really startling [DCAM] would take material from what was a huge landfill in Dorchester and bring it out here to fill an excavation, supposedly what was excavated, in order to take out hazardous material, oil,” Harney said. “To then fill it with material from a landfill.

“I understand the landfill has been built upon but to do that without consulting the town at all or informing the town and then to say that they will continue to bring material out to Medfield just shows such bad faith. It’s very difficult to be sanguine about how all of this is going to turn out.”

A concern for both Massaro and Harney is the state remains on its original schedule for redevelopment and reuse of the site, despite “serious” concerns to the environmental status of the property.

“As Mr. Massaro has pointed out repeatedly in the past, the state is still on its schedule,” Harney said. “They still look to keep the bids going out and the redevelopment beginning on the schedule they told us some time back. … To initiate the redevelopment.”

Massaro added the schedule for redevelopment was originally slated for 2013.

“They are still moving on a schedule,” Massaro said. “They are moving to finish all the environmental work by the end of the 2012, which was their original schedule. The next piece of their plan was to be out on the street bidding the property somewhere around the spring of 2013. Nothing that said about the eventual use of the property will be necessarily has to impact that 2013 date.”

Calling for the Town to Review Alternative Reuse Plans for State Hospital Site

In addition to frustrations regarding DCAM, Massaro and Harney voiced concern the town was being reactive rather than proactive in terms of planning possible reuses for the state hospital property.

“I’m not convinced the town is going to bring anything new to the discussions and DCAM could very well finish up the period they were willing to entertain alternate uses and say ‘OK, well we haven’t seen anything different, this is what we are going forward with,’” Massaro said. “It’s going to be what it was.”

The plan Massaro is referring to are the 440 housing units the selectmen negotiated with DCAM and endorsed in 2005. It is a plan that .

“I have always taken the position that I believe the 440 housing plan the selectmen negotiated with DCAM is a good, solid plan for the town and it addresses the many needs, including the 40B requirements,” Sullivan said. “It does it in a way that protects the town by having half of the units for 55 and older and it addresses a big need in the town because we have seen a flood of people leaving the town because they can’t find suitable housing for an affordable price. I think that’s still a good plan.”

Sullivan and Massaro debated the economics and impact on the town with 40B housing. Massaro stressed he was not concentrated on the town’s 40B requirement but rather how much these units will end up costing taxpayers due to an increase in student enrollment. After going back-and-forth with Sullivan for several minutes, Massaro admitted the discussion had lost its value.

“Obviously, this is going around in circles and it’s not going anywhere,” Massaro said. “40B is not driving this, economics is driving this. 40B is not driving my concerns about the number of units that are going up out there. It is the economics and the impact to the town. That’s it. It’s very simple.”

He then proceeded to list what data he would like to see included in the town’s cost benefit analysis of the proposed reuse plan.

“I want the town to consider the cost of students, I want them to consider the $10,741 plus that it will likely be this year, not the $6,600 DCAM said the town was going to make money on the development,” Massaro said. “I want the right number of units up there that don’t impact the town – that impact the town in the least possible way. I want the town to look at the cost of water, the town to look at the legislation that requires us to provide free water.

“I want the town to look at the cost of refurbishing or rebuilding the water tower. None of those infrastructure costs are in any cost benefit analysis that have been done to date and there’s no reason the town should not be establishing a baseline of what’s going to happen up there. Regardless of what the final development looks like in detail. You can do broad analyses now to determine impacts. Update what you did seven years ago and bring it into the 21st century and get working on it.”

When Board of Selectmen chair Osler “Pete” Peterson asked for input from his colleagues to gauge the town's interest in “restarting the process of looking at the uses” of the hospital property from the town’s standpoint, he was met with hesitation.

“Should we be proactive on our side of the table and try to figure it out?” Peterson asked. “Are we willing to spend some money on some consultants to go through that exercise? See if we can come up with a different answer. Before, when we did this years ago, housing was the only answer.”

Selectman Ann Thompson said she would have to think about it due to past experiences and the cost of consultants.

“I started on the original reuse committee, 31, 32 years ago and we went through every step along the way and I don’t know, I have to think about whether we should go through that again,” Thompson said.

Selectman Mark Fisher, who asked several times throughout the meeting to table public discussion of the state hospital and move on to other agenda items, offered a sarcastic suggestion to the board.

“It might be some possibility to try and look at that,” Fisher said in response to Peterson’s question. “The question is what’s really available other than housing? Casino would be great. Put a casino over there. There you go, talk to Bob Kraft and there you go.”

As selectmen laughed in amusement at Fisher’s remark, Harney voiced frustration with the response.

“Mr. chairman, it’s not, [the state hospital] really not a point of levity,” Harney said to Peterson. “It’s a most serious subject the town faces and we really don’t have any planning going on from the town’s side.”

Peterson agreed and said the town has been concentrating on the environmental issues of the site.

“We aren’t planning about the ultimate reuse of the property,” Peterson said.

Harney told the selectmen the town ought to start planning.

“I have been personally advocating a meeting of boards,” Harney said. “There are various boards not involved in this that should be involved. [The reuse of the hospital] is going to determine to a good extent what the next two to three decades of Medfield’s life is going to be. To sit here and say that there’s any doubt that the town should be doing some planning and should be updating its figures … I find absolutely a discouragement.”

Peterson asked for his colleagues to entertain the possibility of hiring consultants to revisit and study possible reuses other than housing for the property and to further discuss it at the Jan. 3 meeting.