Consultants present survey results and preliminary fiscal model for MCI master plan

Consultants leading the MCI master plan update summarized public feedback and early fiscal findings at the committee’s July 9 meeting, saying the online survey posted on mci-conquer.org produced 542 responses in just over two weeks.

Phil, the consulting presenter, said the responses skewed toward longer-term, older residents but also included many people who hadn’t attended the June design charette. “We had 542 responses, in just over two weeks,” Phil said, and added that the comments showed broad interest in housing and new commercial amenities alongside consistent worries about traffic on Commonwealth Avenue and Route 2.

The survey identified several recurring themes that the consultant team will test in the plan-refinement process: housing density and building height (responses split, with more support when taller buildings are framed as enabling a mixed-use core), parking and mode-share tradeoffs, potential retail (including grocery), connections to the rail trail and the size and character of public open spaces. The team also said many respondents asked why Public Works (DPW) is being considered for relocation to the site; consultants said they will provide additional explanation and alternatives in future materials.

Tom Layton of Stantec presented a preliminary fiscal model that the team said is intended to be a live tool for testing program scenarios rather than a final accounting. “This is a first conversation about the fiscal impacts,” Tom said. He described modeling development types separately (rental and ownership townhomes, multifamily with/without structured parking, retail and hotel) and using similarly situated regional comparables to size assessed values. The consultants said they will refine per-unit values, bedroom mixes and student-yield assumptions in follow-up calls with town and school finance staff.

Tom summarized the early, high-level findings as directional: denser residential formats — particularly multifamily with structured parking — are more likely to produce net positive fiscal outcomes because they increase tax base without proportionally expanding land-area–driven public-works costs. Some retail formats looked slightly negative in the preliminary runs, and hotels showed strong revenue potential through occupancy taxes. He cautioned the results are sensitive to inputs such as assumed per-unit assessed values, the bedroom mix and school student-yield rates.

Committee members pressed the consultants on transportation and school impacts. One committee member said, “If you have 800 to thousand units and something goes wrong … you have a major problem,” voicing a common concern about relying on a single primary access point and school capacity. Several members urged the consultants to model a northern access/curb cut in conversations with DCAM and MassDOT and to use local MAPC or district student-yield and marginal-cost figures for school-impact estimates.

Consultants said next steps include scheduled methodology reviews and calls with town and school finance staff in the coming weeks, running low- and high-program scenarios, continuing DPW and wastewater coordination, and sharing an updated illustrative plan ahead of a public meeting set for Sept. 9. The team is also conducting developer outreach to test market feasibility and gather input on program and parking assumptions.

The committee did not take any formal votes on the plan at this meeting; members asked the consulting team to return with revised analysis and clearer graphic materials to illustrate density and building-height scenarios for the public.