Massachusetts Committed $236,694 to Contractors For The “Lancaster Industrial School for Girls” Master-Planning Process, Through November

 

Contracting Speck Dempsey, Nelson Nygaard and Dain Torpy for this year’s master-planning process in Lancaster, including a “Walkable City Talk” by designer/author Jeff Speck, will cost the state $236K according to records received from the state.    Take a look at the contract and RFP response.

 

Russ Williston
10/19/2025

 

In response to a public record request, the Massachusetts Department of Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) provided a copy of a “Statewide Contract” and the RFP response submitted by Speck Dempsey, Nelson Nygaard and Dain Torpy for the “Lancaster Industrial School for Girls” redevelopment master-planning process.

 

Grab a copy of the Contract and RFP Response (About 20MB)

 

 

The “Statewide Contract” is not dated; it’s signed by a manager from Nelson Nygaard.   It’s left unsigned by DCAMM – but it’s all DCAMM provided in response to a request for contracts, so presumably it represents the agreement in effect now.   The Request-For-Proposals (RFP) response is dated 5/23/2025.

The statewide contract anticipated the project would start June 25, 2025 and end by November 31.   The total budget is $236,693.

 

 

 

 

The total budget from the attached “RFP response” breaks down the project budget:

1.  Review Site Conditions: $11,400

 

During the public engagement meetings, the contractors talked a bit about the existing site: they reviewed the buildings that could be preserved, the interesting trees, and the existing road network.

 

2.  Review Existing Documentation: $5,400

 

The contractors looked at the master plans that Lancaster commissioned in 2023.   Jeff Speck referenced them in the public engagement meetings.   Those plans sited far less housing on the site.  The new plans carried forward considerations for the existing housing on Old Common Road, with a “primary entrance” on Still River Road instead.

 

3.  Design and Implement Planning Process:  $103,288

 

This includes the “public engagement meetings” that we experienced:  the contractors held two meetings in the Middle School auditorium, a “meet-the-designers” event at the library on the same day as the first meeting, and a “pop-up event” at one of the summer lawn concerts on the green.   (The lawn concert ended up being a poorly attended one on a rainy day, unfortunately.)

Jeff Speck gave his “Walkable City” talk at the first public engagement meeting:  I heard good feedback and agree that it was inspiring.

 

4.  Complete Master Plan: $48,000

 

I believe we saw the hand-drawn “2-D illustration plan” at the second public engagement meetings and subsequent slideshows.    I don’t believe I’ve seen the supporting narrative shared publicly.

I don’t think I’ve seen an “AutoCAD 2-D regulating plan” yet.   The plans I’ve seen presented have had relatively loose scales and soft edges.

I don’t think DCAMM approved any of the “optional” expenses in the contract they shared – they weren’t included in the total project cost.   So we may not see the 3-D renderings.

5.  Prepare Regulatory Documents:  $68,605

 

There’s a typo in the above image – it should say “Task V” here, not “Task VI.”

The project has since deviated from the plan here.   The RFP response expects that the contractors will develop zoning bylaw language for Lancaster to adopt at a Special Meeting in October:

“This project will deliver a draft bylaw that can be adopted by
Town Meeting and will also be a financeable shared vision for
the site as-of-right in preparation for a disposition solicitation. As
such, our team will produce zoning and subdivision standards
with a form-based approach that codifies the master plan vision
as-of-right.”

By early September, public sentiment on the 385-housing-unit master plan was polling poorly in the engagement meetings and social media.   A vote at a Town Meeting seemed doomed:  DCAMM diverged from the plan, aborted plans for a public meeting vote, and instead pursued a closed-door negotiation on a “Development Agreement” with a single member of the Select Board:  they hope to unveil that agreement for a Select Board vote in December.

To date, no new zoning bylaws have been proposed for the site.

 

(6. Public Meeting Participation)

 

 

 

The billing for this task wasn’t broken out for the total – which is too bad, as DCAMM might look for a discount here.   DCAMM anticipated that Lancaster would hold a Special Town Meeting in October to adopt the zoning for the project.   The contractors would have made a presentation at the meeting.

The project principles did attend a planning board meeting at one point, and Adam Baacke and Chris Dempsey have appeared at several Select Board meetings.

 

Timeline:  June 2025 through October 2025

The RFP response includes a timeline for June through October.   We generally followed this timeline through August.   After that DCAMM backed away from seeking zoning approval – there was nothing firm for the Planning Board to approve, and the Special Town Meeting was never scheduled.

It does shed a little light on why it felt like the town was being forced to follow DCAMMs schedule, and why we felt we were being railroaded towards a decision:  it’s because DCAMM had a schedule for railroading us towards a decision.

The contractors are only engaged through November

If we expected that Speck Dempsey would be a hand guiding the process through to completion – the “contract” will disappoint you in that regard.  Jeff Speck won’t personally oversee the siting of the pickle ball court.  They were only anticipated to be involved through October to appear the Special Town Meeting; the final planning will be up to the eventual developer.

According to recent Select Board meetings, DCAMM has recently become more cognizant of the restrictions the existing public water supply and sewer infrastructure will place on the project – the master plans may not be feasible.    If the project needs to be revised – either to scale it back, or to include a well on the site – the contractors aren’t currently committed to produce an updated plan.  

If the state needs to revise the plan, DCAMM should reengage these contractors.  They should allow more time, commit the resources and do it properly.   Lancaster shouldn’t settle for an unworkable master plan just because DCAMMs contract ended.

Lancaster needs to stop letting DCAMM dictate the schedule for this process.   Lancaster was not party to developing this schedule; we’re under no obligation to work within it.