State and city outline joint development plan for Route 79 waterfront; MassDOT, RDA favor single development team

Fall River City Council members received a detailed briefing from state and local officials about plans for the Route 79/Wall Street corridor waterfront redevelopment and how the state intends to manage disposition of federally and state‑assisted parcels.

Representatives from the city’s redevelopment authority, the Bristol County Economic Development Council, and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) told the council that the state and city will pursue a joint development process aimed at attracting a single experienced development team or consortium to coordinate a multi‑parcel buildout along the waterfront.

Kenneth Faiola Jr., executive vice president of the Bristol County EDC, summarized the master plan prepared by the Fall River Redevelopment Authority. The master plan envisions about 2,000,000 gross square feet of new development: roughly 1,480 residential units, 61,000 square feet of commercial space and about 2,220 parking spaces, spread across 22 acres. The project area is zoned WTOD (waterfront) with building heights typically at six stories (approximately 80 feet) and parking ratios that vary by building size.

Scott Bosworth, MassDOT’s project manager attending with chief intergovernmental officer Gus Pickford, said the property includes parcels acquired or improved with federal and state funds and that both federal and state rules will affect how the land is disposed. Bosworth described a joint process in which the state and the host community would develop a request for information (RFI) followed by a request for proposals (RFP). “We would together put together an RFI that would lead to an RFP that would set out our collective goals for redevelopment of the site,” Bosworth said. He said the state typically markets broadly — locally, regionally and nationally — and that the project’s scale and rail access will likely attract national developers.

Officials emphasized that federal law requires proceeds from federally supported property to be returned to federal highway programs unless a specific disposition route is approved; they also described state law options that could provide more local control. Council members heard that, as a parallel route, a legislative petition proposing an outright transfer of land to the Fall River Redevelopment Authority is moving through the State House; if enacted, that would change oversight and how sale proceeds are spent. Bosworth said the state is proceeding under current federal and state rules but will adapt if legislation changes.

Several councilors pressed officials on who would control the property and how proceeds would be used. Officials said that if the state retained disposition authority the proceeds would flow into state transportation funds; if the redevelopment authority received the parcels via legislation, the RDA could reinvest proceeds into local priorities such as parking garages and public infrastructure. Bosworth and redevelopment staff said a single development team with clawback provisions — a master developer responsible for phased implementation — is the preferred model to ensure coherent design and delivery, though they acknowledged that multiple‑partner approaches are possible.

Officials described the market rationale for mixed‑use, market‑rate housing on the waterfront: Fall River has a high share of subsidized rentals (about 28 percent of rental units), and master‑plan market analysis concluded there is demand for new market‑rate units within a broad Greater Fall River market area. The master plan estimated private investment approaching $1 billion and suggested a 10–12 year buildout.

Council members asked about timing and next steps. MassDOT officials said they planned to release an RFI as soon as procedures were finalized — officials noted internal canvassing and federal clearances had recently finished — with draft schedules for an RFI and RFP to be shared with the city. The state indicated it could begin outreach in the fall and aims to have developers engaged while utilities and stub‑ins from the highway project are completed (infrastructure work was described as running ahead of schedule and stubbed to each parcel). Officials said they would present a draft RFI schedule to the council and that the state’s process, if done collaboratively, can be completed in under a year to select a development partner.

Councilors emphasized local priorities — control over parking, minimizing tax concessions and preserving opportunities for small local businesses — and several said they prefer legislation that gives the Redevelopment Authority direct control. After the presentation councilors moved to table further action and asked officials to return with continued updates and a schedule for the RFI and RFP process.

A motion to table the agenda item for further action was made and carried.