HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-15 Discussion Exhibit H-Fiscal Impact Study Fiscal Impact Analysis
East Mill Renovation
North Andover, Massachusetts
November 8, 2007
1.0 Overview
Connery Associates has prepared a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the adaptive reuse of the
East Mill in North Andover Massachusetts for RCG North Andover Mills LLC of
Somerville Massachusetts. This Fiscal Impact Analysis is intended to fulfill the Site Plan
Review requirements of Section 8.3(5)(3)(xxviii) of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw
which requires the preparation of a fiscal impact report. The scope of this analysis
focuses on Phase II of the multi-phased development of the 22.6 acre site, which includes
the following components: (1) upgrades and renovations to existing buildings to improve
the marketability of the current vacant office space; (2) introduction of higher value retail
uses to existing vacant office space; (3) conversion of 65,000 square feet of vacant office
space into 50 (studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom) rental apartments; and (4) the
construction of 137 new(one and two bedroom) condominiums.
Given the high vacancy rate of the property in its current state, there will be significant
positive fiscal impacts associated with the commercial and residential components of this
proposal. The infrastructure improvements, physical renovations, expansion of parking
areas, and expansion of allowed uses will likely lead to higher occupancy rates, higher
rents, and stabilization of expenses, which will accrue to the Town's tax base through
assessed values and positive externalities on the Downtown/Main Street area as well as
the surrounding neighborhood. The analysis focuses in detail on the residential
component (207 residences) of the Master Plan for the redevelopment of the site (both
Phase I and 11). However, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the fiscal
value of the entire Master Plan for the East Mill redevelopment project, the analysis also
reflects the fiscal value and 15,000 sq. ft. of new retail/restaurant space permitted in
Phase I and an additional 50,000 sq. ft. of newly renovated commercial space in Phase II.
The primary objective of this study is to provide the Town of North Andover with a
sound estimate of the annual net fiscal impact of the entire East Mill redevelopment
project as reflected in the owner's proposed redevelopment master plan. Fiscal Year
2008 data for operational expenditures has been employed for this study, and values are
expressed in current dollars. For purposes of clarity, the larger values have been rounded
to the nearest $1,000 in appropriate instances.
Table 1, below, indicates the various components of the proposed residential unit mix of
Phase II as well as the previously approved Phase I.
I
Table 1
Residential Unit Type
Condominium Type Number of Units
Phase I Approved Phase 11 Proposed
1 bedroom market rate 0 41
2 bedroom market rate 0 96
Total 0 137
Apartment Type Number of Units
Phase I Approved Phase II Proposed
1 bedroom market rate S 21
2 bedroom market rate 12 29
Total 20 50
2.0 Summary of Findings
The residential components of the East Mill master plan for redevelopment
(both Phase I and Phase II) are projected to generate approximately
$564,000 in gross annual revenue; having a cost to revenue ratio of 0.53 and a
net annual fiscal benefit of$266,000.
• The commercial components of the East Mill master plan for redevelopment
(both Phase I and Phase II) are projected to add an additional $92,000 of
annual net fiscal benefit
• The combined residential and commercial components of the east Mill
Renovation (Pleases I and II) are projected to generate an annual net fiscal
benefit of approximately $358,000, in current dollars.
• The residential. components of Phase I and II are projected to generate lb
students. Enrollments could begin in the 2009-10 school year and average 3
students per year for a five years period.
• The East Mill renovation (Phases I and 11) will generate approximately $200,000
in building permit fees associated with the residential component and $250,000
overall.
2
• The East Mill (Phases I and II) is projected to add approximately $59,250,000 to
North Andover's total assessed valuation and represent a major source of new
growth tax benefits.
• The East Mill renovation project is projected to add approximately $3,400,000 to
local retail expenditures and assist in supporting existing local businesses,
particularly the downtown/Main Street commercial businesses.
3.0 Summary of Methodology
The analysis divides municipal residential service cost into two broad categories;
education costs and general service costs (all other non-school costs). For each general
service cost category, a per capita cost analysis was undertaken for those municipal
departments where there is a measurable service cost. The Per Capita Method is
appropriately applied to residential development rather•than commercial development
since it assumes that there is a direct relationship between numbers of people and
municipal service demands. Additionally, the per capita approach was selected because it
almost always generates a conservative (high) cost estimate and provides the community
with a cautious general service cost estimate. The analysis also takes into account the
average commercial / industrial service cost incurred by municipal departments for•the
provision of public services; and accordingly deducts a service cost amount in order to
more accurately illustrate the residential service cost.
To determine the estimated annual general service cost we examined the proposal's
impact on a department by department basis. Full per capita service costs for items like
police and fire were included as well as all human service costs such as libraries,
recreation, elections, public health. However, since the proposal includes private
assumption of traditional public responsibilities such as internal road maintenance, trash
collection, lighting, and snow plowing; we made adjustments and reduced public works
costs accordingly. Importantly, there are departments or budget line items that will not
be fiscally impacted by the proposal in a measurable way. Examples of non included
items are the existing debt, existing employee salary / benefits/ insurance, overlay
accounts and free cash. Further, we did not add costs relative to general government
{Town Boards and Town Manager) since no measurable costs were apparent except for
the instance of the Town Clerk, and election functions which have been included in the
cost estimates. After determining the per capita costs for the impacted departments we
applied said value to the estimated population of the proposal to generate an annual
general service cost.
For education costs, we examined the current education budget and given our estimate of
the average annual number of school aged children to be generated by the proposal, we
developed an estimated total annual cost. Our education cost analysis was based the cost
of instruction (with all associated employment benefits), special education costs, the cost
of supplies and materials per student, anticipated transportation costs, and a prorate share
of any identifiable capital costs. The resulting value represents the estimated total
incremental education cost assigned to the proposal.
3
Determination of municipal service cost represents only one part of the fiscal equation.
To estimate the net annual fiscal profile we examined the revenue stream to be produced
by the proposal. In this instance for the apartment component we employed the income
method based on anticipated rents to determine assessed value. For the condominiums we
employed the full and fair market approach. We also examined the value of local receipt
revenue including automotive excise taxes and potential for any additional Chapter 70
foundation school aid. We combined all revenue sources to determine a gross revenue
stream. Items such as public works enterprise funds or ambulance service re-
imbursements were not calculated as part of the revenue stream (or the cost element)
since they are essentially pay as you use services. Relating the total annual estimated
service costs of the proposal to the total annual estimated revenue stream generates the
annual fiscal profile for the residential component.
For the commercial component we generated estimated assessed value based on local and
regional assessed value per square foot for similar uses and applied the tax rate to
generate estimated gross revenue, Further, we factored a commercial service cost
estimated on a per sq ft basis to arrive at a net fiscal value for the commercial
components.
4.0 Residential Fiscal Impact
We have divided municipal expenditures into two broad categories: school expenditures
by which is meant the incremental cost of adding new school age children to the public
school system; and non-school costs which represents all other forms of municipal
service costs i.e. public safety, cultural, recreation, and other public services,
4.1 Education Costs
For North Andover, as in most communities, education is the single most expensive
residential municipal service cost. In FY2008,the total operating school budget for
North Andover, including all employee benefits is approximately $40,000,000.
However, in large measure the cost of adding new students is not an application of the
cost per pupil times the number of new students because administrative, physical plant
and certain operational costs are rarely impacted, Additional school costs vary from
community to community but in general they are a function of the physical capacity/
physical condition of the existing system, local enrollment trends, and the underlying
growth rate of the community. If a school system has considerable or moderate physical
plant capacity, a stable to slow student enrollment growth pattern, and a low community
population growth rate, the incremental cost associated with the addition of new students
is usually considerably less than the average per student cost. However, if the overall
school system is experiencing rapid enrollment gains, and community wide population
growth rates are high and projected to remain high, it is likely that any additional students
may generate an increase in staff, redistricting or in some cases additions to the physical
plant. In this instance, our review of total enrollment indicates that from 1998 to 2007
enrollment has increased by approximately 700 students (3900 to 4,600) or an annualized
4
growth rate of 2% per year, a significant annual growth rate considering the region as a
whole is experiencing stability or small declines in total enrollment. However, we note
that in recent years -there has been a noticeable increase in private school enrollment, (as
High as 20%). If this trend continues, it will likely lead to some level of overall
enrollment decline.
For the purposes of this report we have assumed that any new students generated by the
proposal would attend the existing school system. Therefore, the cost of adding new
students is a marginal or incremental cost i.e. a function of new instructors, supplies,
special education, and transportation costs.
Table 2 below illustrates the values used to estimate the number of school aged children
by unit type. The total number of school aged children (SAC) represents an "average
year", however, it should be anticipated that the actual number of students may fluctuate
on an annual basis by five to ten percent. As part of this report, we are submitting a copy
of Housing the Commonwealth's School Aged Children prepared in 2003; the report was
prepared for the Citizens Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA). The report is the
most detailed survey of student generation by multi-family housing types in
Massachusetts. Among its key findings, are that building type, location, and number of
bedrooms play a significant role in student generation rates. Residential developments
with two or less bedrooms per unit were found to generate relatively few school aged
children, while three bedroom multi family units generated more school aged children but
still considerably less than single family development. Another important factor in the
generation of school aged children from multi-family development is the issue of
traditional neighborhood location versus an atypical or isolated location. If a site is
perceived to simply be different from a "traditional"neighborhood, or if the site is a stand
alone location without easy pedestrian links to surrounding neighborhoods, or secure
private play space, or located in a mixed use or commercial setting, then the number of
school aged children per unit type may decline by up to 80% from the multi-family
developments in typical locations. It has been our experience that atypical locations have
at least four of the following characteristics:
Multi family locations and building types that are not physically or easily
connected by pedestrian access to surrounding established residential
neighborhoods; or are set off from traditional neighborhoods.
• Multi-family residences that provide minimal safe private recreation areas
for children.
• Multi-family residential development located above commercial uses.
• Multi-family residences accessed primarily by elevators.
• Multi-family locations located in primarily mixed use or commercial
settings.
5
In this instance we believe the East Mill site has some atypical location criteria, as noted
above, but not all. While we believe the number of school aged children will be lower
than what is generated from a typical or traditional multi-family location we have
employed regional and North Andover enrollment data for established and traditional
locations as the basis of our school aged children estimate in order and create a
conservative estimate. As indicated by Table 2 below the studio and one bedroom units
will not generate school aged children on any consistent basis; all the additional school
aged children will emanate from the two bedroom residences and there are no family
oriented three bedroom residences. The relatively high percentage of one bedroom units
(34%) significantly depresses the school enrollment as does the absence of three bedroom
units.
Table 2. School age Children by Unit Type — Phases I and II
Residence Type Number Students/unit Students
Studio and one 29 0.00 0
bedroom, rental
One bedroom 41 0.00 0
condominium
Two bedroom 96 0.10 9.60
condominium
Two bedroom rental 41 0.15 6.15
Total 207 0.08 15.75 16
As indicated, we anticipate that the East Mill will generate approximately 16 additional
students at the time of project completion. If we assume that the proposal will take five
years to complete we can anticipate approximately three (3) students per year stating in
the 2009 -2010 school year. It is estimated that approximately nine (9) new students will
attend the various elementary and middle school grades and seven (7) will attend various
high school grades.
To determine the education costs associated with 16 additional students we have
employed the following estimates in the preparation of Table 3 below: for each additional
new teacher we have allotted $70,000 dollars for salary and benefits; to cover services,
supplies, and equipment costs we have assigned a cost $1,000 per student; to account for
special needs cost, we have assigned $16,000 per special education student, and assumed
that 16% of all students will require some form of special needs assistance. Additionally,
Ave assumed that while generating relatively few students there may be additional
transportation costs and therefore added a cost of$1,000 per additional student. As
indicated by Table 3, the sum of the various costs represents the total estimated annual
education cost,
6
Table 3. Estimated Annual Education Costs
Number Number Cost of Services 1 Special Bus Total
of of Instruction Supply Needs Route Education
Students Teachers (1) Cost (2) Cost (3) Cost
(FTE)
16 1.0 $70,000 $16,000 $48,000 $16,000 $150,000
(1) The services and supplies costs are calculated for all 16 students.
(2) 3 special need students at$16,000 per student.
(3) Assumes a cost of$1,000 per student for annual transportation cost.
Based on the total costs indicated in Table 3 above, we can estimate the cost per new
student at approximately $9,357; ($150,000 total education cost divided by 16 new
students). For purposes of comparison, the current net school spending per student is
approximately $9,000. Subtracting the approximately, $1,000 in state aid per student nets
a local cost of$8,000 per student. For the purposes of this report we will employ the
methodology indicated above and the higher cost per student in order to provide a
conservative (high) school cost estimate. Accordingly method we can estimate an
increase to annual school cost of$150,000 i.e. $725 per proposed unit.
4.2 General Service Costs
In calculating general service costs, we examined the operating budget of each municipal
department. If the nature of the proposal was determined to have a direct impact in a
measurable manner on a municipal department, said budget were included as part of
general service cost analysis. However, not all municipal departments are impacted. In
this instance, we can determine no fiscal impact to such items as the Reserve Fund, Legal
Department, Board of Selectman, Assessors, and various other town administrative
boards. The East Mill proposal will pay building permit and various other construction
fees; therefore, there is no incremental cost impact to the building department during the
construction phase of the proposal. Finally, the proposed renovations will pay the public
works enterprise fund fees as do all residential uses in North Andover, and therefore,
have not been included as an additional incremental cost (or revenue).
General Service cost is primarily driven by population demand; and is often expressed as
a per capita cost. In this instance the 207 approved (20) and proposed residences (187)
have estimated population of approximately 1.75 people per household, a ratio lower than
the existing town average of 2.6 people per household (2000 US Census); a number that
is heavily influenced by the predominance of single family houses with four to five
bedrooms, as compared to the proposed residential component which averages 1.75
bedrooms per unit. Accordingly, we can anticipate a total population of approximately
365 people at full build out.
As indicated in Table 5 below, where no measurable departmental cost impact is
anticipated, we have indicated said decision by showing a zero in the fiscal impact
column. Column one (left to right) lists the individual operating budgets; column two
7
indicates the FY07 budget, column three (moving left to right) indicates the current per
capita cost; and column four indicates the anticipated incremental cost is anticipated. The
values in said column are a function of 365 new residents multiplied by the existing
departmental costs per capita.
Adding the individual departmental cost impacts generates the estimated total general
service cost per year, and dividing said number by the total of 207 units generates the
general service cost per residential unit. As with the school cost estimates the sensitivity
is 5% to 10% per year (in either direction) given background economic or unknown
general service cost factors.
Table 5. General Service Impact by Service Category
Departmental FY08 Budgets Cost per Fiscal
Budget Capita FY08 Impact
1) 2
General Government $ 2,400,000 $ 88 $ 32,100
Services
Public Safety $ 8,290,000 $305 $111,300
Public Works $ 4,616,000 $170 $ 0(3)
Health and Hunan $ 765,000 $ 28 $ 10,200
Services
Culture/ Recreation $ 750,000 $ 28 $ 10,200
Total $17,021,000 $ 163,800
(1) Assumes a population of 27,200
(2) Based on 365 new residents
(3)All public works costs currently provided to public ways, all other items will be the
responsibility of the owner.
Given the estimated additional population of 365; the initial general service cost estimate
is $163,800. However, departmental operating budgets also service non-residential uses
(comnnercial, industrial and institutional uses). Using the proportional valuation method
detailed in The Fiscal Impact Handbook by Burchell and Listokin, we estimate that 10%
Of current total service costs by affected department are attributable to non-residential
land uses. 163,800 total general service cost noted above for residential uses by, by 10%
to $147,500. Accordingly, the estimated general service cost per proposed residence is
estimated to be $713.
Table 6. Total Municipal Service Casts — Residential Phases I and II
Number of Education Non-education Total Service Total Annual
Residences Cost per Unit Cost per Unit Cost per Unit Service Cost
207 $725 $713 $1,438 $297,666
8
5.0 Revenue Sources and Cost to Revenue- Residential
The proposed residential community will have both for sale and rental opportunities. The
rental properties will be assessed using the income method and the for sale properties the
full and fair market value technique.
Using an estimated market rent value of$2.00 per square foot and a market rentable area
of approximately 1000 square feet, the 70 market rate rental units will generate a gross
annual rent of$1,680,000. Using the above noted gross income and assuming a 5%
vacancy rate, a 30% operation and maintenance deduction, and a cap rate of 0.11; we
estimate the taxable value of the proposed development to be approximately $9,927,000.
Accordingly, the $10.45 tax rate yields an annual property tax of approximately $103,700
or$1,482 per unit.
The condominium component will be taxed using the frill and fair market value.
Assuming an average of$300 per foot for an average 1,000 square foot unit the 137,000
sq. ft. of market rate condominiums will have an assessed value of approximately
$41,100,000. Accordingly, the condominium component will generate approximately
$429,000 in annual property taxes or$3,131 per unit.
The total assessed valuation for the combined condominium and rental components is
approximately $51,000,000; and the annual property tax yield for both the rental and
condominium components will be approximately $533,000 with a composite tax per unit
of$2,576,
Table 7 below, illustrates the various revenue sources that are associated with the
proposal. The projected revenue steam includes property taxes, local receipts and excise
taxes. The far right column of Table 6 indicates the cost to revenue ratio for the proposal
as a whole. This ratio represents the average annual fiscal profile or the percentage of
every revenue dollar received needed to cover all service costs. The cost to revenue ratio
serves as fiscal shorthand to indicate the order of magnitude of the estimated annual fiscal
gain or loss. From year to year this may vary from 5% to 10% (in either direction)
depending on background economic conditions. In this instance the estimated cost to
service ratio is 0.53, a fiscally positive outcome.
Table 7. Service Cost to Revenue Ratio — Residential Phase I and II
Residential Average State Excise Average Service Cost Cost to
Component Property. Aid(1) Taxes (2) Revenue per Unit Revenue
Tape per Unit Ratio
207 $2,576 $0 $151 $2,727 $1,438 0.53
Residences
9
1. We determined that for the 16 additional students added over a period of 5 yews,the nature of the
state aid formula is such that will most likely not generate any incremental Ch.70 education aid.
2. We calculated an annual excise tax of$87,750(330 on site vehicles at$95 per year($31,350)or
$151 per unit).
In current dollar terms, the residential component of the East Mill renovation effort
(Phases I and II) are projected to generate approximately $564,000 in annual
revenue (property and excise tax) and $298,000 in annual municipal service cost.
The annual net fiscal benefit will be approximately$266,000 based on an annual
average service cost to revenue ratio of 0.53.
6.0 Commercial Component
The commercial aspect of the East Mill redevelopment is already underway with 64,478
square feet of occupied office/medical/rand d and warehousing.
Further, the previously approved Phase 1 has permitted an additional 15,000 square feet
of retail and restaurant space which based on our review of existing retail values in North
Andover we can anticipate an assessed value of$3,000,000 at completion,
Phase II includes an additional renovated 50,000 square feet of commercial space. While
the mix of commercial space will likely change, we have assumed (for the purposes of
this estimate) the following: 25,000 sq ft of office space at an assessed value of$80 per
foot, 15,000 sq ft. of retail/restaurant space at $150 per sq ft. and 10,000 sq ft of medical
space at $100 per sq. ft. of assessed value.
Table 8 below summarizes the anticipated additional fiscal characteri sties of the proposed
commercial component in Phases I and II using the assessed values noted above and the
service cost per square foot used in the Ozzy Properties Fiscal Analysis of April 2007
which was peer reviewed and accepted by the Town of North Andover(i.e. 21 cents per
foot for renovated space).
Table 8. Net fiscal Estimate-Commercial Component
Commercial Square Assessed Annual Service Cost Net gain,
Use Feet Value Taxes (loss)
Retail Phase 1 15,000 $2,250,000 $28,900 $ 3,200 $25,700
Commercial
Please 2 50,000 $6,000,000 $77,000 $11,000 $65,000
Retail,
Office/Medical
Total 65,000 $8,250,000 $105,900 $14,200 $91,700
As indicated by Table 8, the approved commercial components of Phase I and the
proposed additional Commercial component of Phase II will generate approximately
$92,000 per year in net fiscal benefit.
10
Combining the net fiscal benefit($92,000) from the Phase I and II commercial
components with the net benefit ($266,000), from the 207 residences Phase I and II
generates, an annual net fiscal benefit of approximately $358,000 (current dollars) is
anticipated.
7.0 New Growth Tax Benefits
Consistent with State regulations the taxes generated by new growth may be collected
and used as a revenue source for one year before becoming part of total assessed
valuation and subject to mandated levy limitations. This feature of municipal finance
was designed to provide municipalities with budgetary flexibility and to encourage new
growth. As the project is constructed the appropriate tax year value will be calculated as
new growth revenues. Over a five year period, the proposal will add approximately
$59,250,000 million dollars to the total assessed valuation of the community and will
allow the taxes collected from said development to be treated as new growth revenue.
8.0 Construction Permit Revenue and Utility Connection Fees
In addition to property taxes and excise taxes the proposed residences and commercial
development will generate building permit, electrical, and plumbing fees. We estimate
that the proposal will generate approximately $250,000 dollars in additional fees, (local
receipts), during the project build-out period. Said fees will be one time fees but will
constitute a short term immediate fiscal benefit to the community. Given that the local
project management costs will likely not exceed $50,000, the large majority of said fees
will constitute a net income to the Town before completion of the proposal and before
any attendant service costs accrue.
9.0 Economic Impact and Related Fiscal Benefits.
Based on the anticipated rental values we estimate that the average new household
income will be at least $100,000. The total disposable income (including food and
clothing purchases) will be at least 25% of the gross income of the new residents.
Therefore, each household will have approximately $25,000 of annual disposable
income. Given the variety and amount of retail and service establishments in the
immediate environs it is conceivable that sales in the primary market area will capture at
least 30% of available disposable income. At said rate, each of the 207 residential units
will expend up to $7,500 within North Andover for a total of$1,550,000 dollars annually.
Using the traditional retail multiplier of 2.2, total retail sales will be approximately
$3,400,000 million dollars per year within North Andover. This additional expenditure
will add support to the commercial tax base of the community and given the location of
the proposal constitute a considerable economic benefit to existing Downtown/Main
street commercial businesses.
11
Appendix 1
Comparable Multi-family Locations — Regional xx
Naive/Location Number of Number• of Students per
Residences Students Residence
Canton Center 268 12 0.044
Village at Vinnen 518 8 0.015
Square Swampscott
Cronin's Landing 281 1 0.014
Waltham
Long View Place 348 2 0.006
Waltham
Park View 350 10 0.035
Winchester
Wellinton Place 137 10 0.073
Medford
Coolidge St. 342 6 0.017
Condominiums
Watertown
Jefferson at Salem 265 30 0.113
Station, Salem
(4013)
Oak Grove Village 267 4 0.015
Melrose (Phase 1)
Parkway Mystic, 48 1 0.200
Arlington
Total 2,948 75 0.0254
The unit mix of the above is approximately 35% one bedroom, 55% two
bedroom, and 5%three bedrooms. The affordable rate is approximately 5%.
12
North Andover Multi-F mily 2007
No.of No. No. of No. of Students %of 3 or more
Units Affordable 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR BRs Students per Unit per BR BRs
Site
30.0%
Woodridge Homes 230 230 92 69 46 23 460 141 0.613 0.307
32 0 0 32 0 0 13 0.0%
Andrew Circle 64 1 0.406 0.203
24.9%
Village Green 205 0 28 126 51 0 433 55 0.268 0.127
18.3%
Herita e Green 438 0 56 302 80 0 900 100 0.228 0.111
13.1%
Meadow View 168 0 36 110 22 0 322 38 0.226 0.118
24.5%
Royal Crest 588 0 0 444 144 0 1320 94 0.160 0.071
10.0%
Mill Pond 120 0 0 108 12 0 252 18 0.150 0.071
39 0 0 39 0 0 3 0.0P
Alcott Village 78 0.077 0.038
3.4%
Brookside 29 0 0 28 1 0 59 2 0.069 0.034
Sutton Pond 1 187 0 102 $3 2 0 274 3 0.016 0.011
2036 230 314 1,341 358 23 4162 467 0.229 0.112
Total
North Andover Average
15% one bedroom
66% two bedroom
19%three and four bedroom
East Mill Renovation
29% one bedroom
71% two bedroom
0% three or more bedrooms
13
I
Appendix 2
Multi-family SAC Generation Rates by Community (204-07)**
Nance/ Location Number of Multi- Number of Students per
Family Residences Students Residence
Town of Acton 2,271 267 0.117
Incl. 40B
Town of Andover 636 104 0.163
Town of Concord 122 13 0.106
Multi-family rentals
Boxborough 572 74 0.129
Condominiums
Reading 527 49 0.092
Condominiums
Incl. 40B
Scituate 112 10 0.089
Condominiums
Marshfield 445 83 0.186
Condominiums
Incl. 40B
Total 4,685 590 0.126
` The unit mix of the comparables noted above is approximately 30% one bedroom,
62%two bedroom and 8%three bedroom. The affordable rate is approximately l 1%.
14
`EP
1'.
J
3
4
About the Author
John W. Connery
Connery Associates
Principal
Education: Master of City Planning
Ohio State University 1971
Bachelor of Arts
Boston University 1969
Experience:
Mr. Connery has 36 years of community planning experience. He has worked in the Mid
West and for the past 33 years in New England. As founding principal of Connery
Associates in 1980, he has had over 250 municipal and private clients. Mr. Connery has
developed an expertise in municipal zoning, fiscal impact analysis, and project
permitting. His professional assignments have included numerous downtown
redevelopment projects, community master plans, zoning studies, and cost of
development/fiscal impact studies.
Working with Goody Clancy and Associates in 2001 he completed and had adopted the
Zoning Plan for Eastern Cambridge with the associated fiscal impact analysis. Mr.
Connery's current private sector projects include various residential and commercial
fiscal impact studies in Massachusetts including the expansion of Mashpce Commons,
the Natick Mall, and life style shopping centers in Dedham, Lynnfield, and Westwood.
Further, Mr. Connery has also recently prepared fiscal analyses for senior living facilities
in Lynnfield, Braintree, Sharon and Dedham Massachusetts. He is also preparing fiscal
impact studies for various 40B and traditional residential developments throughout the
Commonwealth; and he is currently preparing comprehensive zoning amendments for
Lynn, Watertown, Lawrence, Melrose and Malden Massachusetts.
With Judi Barrett (principal author) of Community Opportunities Group he has assisted
in the development of 42 connnunity case study regarding the relationship of school
aged children and multi-family housing and the resulting fiscal impacts.
Mr. Connery has also taught one-semester courses in urban planning at the University of
Massachusetts at Boston and at Boston University, and has been a guest lecturer at both
Harvard and Tufts University Graduate School on a number of occasions. He has been
ernployed as an expert land use and zoning witness before both the Land Court and
Superior Court for both public and private clients. He is a past president of the
Massachusetts Consulting Planners Association and an active non-professional member
of the American Institute of Archaeologists.
Telephone 781 665 8130 Fax 781 665 5864
E-mail: JoliilConnery@comcast.net
comcast.net
15