Victor Normand, Chairman of the Devens Economic Analysis Team. (Photo by Lisa Aciukewicz)
Victor Normand has been chairman of the Devens Economic Analysis Team (DEAT) since its appointment by the Board of Selectmen in 2010. This week the group presented its final report to the selectmen Tuesday evening (see story). Two weeks before the meeting on a fall afternoon, the Press sat down with Normand to discuss what he thinks should come next.
Normand has been an active town volunteer for years. He is a member of the Master Plan Steering Committee, which will be holding its own Devens Forum on Nov. 12, and he is a member of the town’s personnel board. He is a co-owner of Acton Real Estate. Prior to that, he served for ten years as Director of Community Development for Devens at MassDevelopment.
This interview has been condensed and edited.
What are three takeaways you’d like people to get from reading this year’s report of the Devens Economic Analysis Team?
Normand: The first is that Devens is economically viable. Twenty years ago there were estimates of the potential economic development that could occur at Devens; now there are actuals. There is a tax base. It’s a diversified, robust tax base. And within the existing tax base, there are programmed increases in valuation due to expiring tax agreements. If no one builds anything else at Devens, you still have more value every year as the tax agreements go away.
You say there is considerable upside to future revenues, given the amount of land that remains to be developed.
Normand: The plan at Devens was for a total of 8 million square feet of development. That was determined by taking the 4,400 acres purchased by the state and subtracting from it everything that can’t be developed, whether it’s land that is environmentally challenged or serves a public purpose, and what was left is enough land to support 8 million square feet of development. The potential is there to go beyond that, but I would say that was the goal. While there is still the potential for over 4 million square feet of development, I think that based on the track record of the past 20 years, based on the actual development potential, that MassDevelopment will easily meet its 8 million square feet goal.
What’s the second takeaway?
Normand: If you look at the 4 million square feet that remain, it supports the notion that there is a lot more work to be done by MassDevelopment. Companies who want to relocate there are dependent on MassDevelopment to identify the land and to work with them to make their projects viable before they even apply for their permits from the Devens Enterprise Commission. MassDevelopment has an extraordinary track record…they need to remain in place to carry this forward. None of the three towns has the redevelopment capacity to step into their shoes, and it wouldn’t make sense to for them to do that.
And the third?
Normand: The third point is that MassDevelopment will be done at some point and that the towns need to be prepared for that. And that’s why our recommendation is that the town of Harvard begin that planning process.
All three towns Shirley, Ayer, and Harvard decided in a 1994 Super Town Meeting vote that they wanted to implement the reuse plan they had written with MassDevelopment, and they wanted to be able to make an informed decision in the future. By their vote the towns empowered MassDevelopment and the Devens Enterprise Commission to implement the plan. In the plan there was acknowledgment that we really didn’t know how long this was going to take, that it’s really driven by economic circumstance, but they set a date 40 years into the future that at or before that date, we will go back and review where we’re at and determine permanent governance of Devens.
There are lots of examples of closed military bases that didn’t have the power of this reuse plan that have … achieved nowhere near the economic success that this plan has had. I think it is to the credit of the commonwealth and the towns that they came to this extraordinary decision and said let’s establish what the overall goals are for this project and then let these quasi-public organizations come in and do it. By any measure, it’s working.
The reuse plan doesn’t say that the towns have to take anything back, right?
Normand: No. But in order for Harvard and the towns to make an informed decision, we’re saying that not just the economics but all of the other aspects we’ve listed in our report—and more—need to be thoroughly vetted, so that you have an informed community … making a very informed decision. And it’s a huge decision. There’s a lot at stake. Its impact on the towns, particularly Harvard, is so profound that in fairness to the community we need to know everything about it … the pluses, the minuses. I think it deserves a real professional approach to the planning, and it needs to be acknowledged that it’s going to take a long time, probably years, to plan this. And I think at that point, when Harvard, and I hope the other towns, have a clear idea what their vision is, then I think the three towns and MassDevelopment should get together and work out the final disposition of Devens.
The selectmen seem inclined at this point to disband the DEAT. Do you support that?
Normand: Yes, I do. Absolutely. Because I think the overriding mission that we had was to look at the economics of Devens. Economic analysis is what we were really focused on. Occasionally we were called upon to look at other aspects of Devens, but whenever we were, we always tried to deal with those reviews from an economic perspective. The question was, what’s really going on at Devens economically. Is it an economic basket case, is it a benefit?…From a strictly economic perspective an annual update to the DEAT report can be done very simply now by just going to the assessor and asking them for the new growth year over the past year.
What would you like to happen next?
Normand: I think the dialogue about what should be done with Devens should continue, but I really think volunteers can only go so far. Not that there aren’t a lot of smart people in Harvard who couldn’t grasp all these things, but it really is an effort that needs to be ongoing and sustained, and done in a very objective fashion.
So you’d favor bringing in a full-time planner?
Normand: I would bring in a consultant and charge them with developing a plan. And hopefully the DEAT report and the soon-to-be completed 2012 Master Plan report can be used to make the case to MassDevelopment and the state that they ought to be funding this work.
Without public input?
Normand: No, no. It’s critically important that the community be involved. Because what we’re really talking about now, if you take economics off the table, we’re really talking about the character of the community. How does taking back Devens change the character of the community. Everything—housing, education, open space, recreation—how does it change the community? On balance is … combining favorable or is it not?
Do you see Harvard doing this alone?
Normand: I think that each of the three towns … should look at taking back their historical land from Devens from the perspective of their town. How would taking on fire protection, police protection, and public education for their portion of Devens affect them. The other towns don’t have as big a task as Harvard does. Rather than having the three towns sit down together to develop a common vision, I would recommend, and the committee recommends, doing just the opposite, that each town first really take a town-centric view of Devens, and then come to the table. And MassDevelopment as well.
Once the three towns have developed their own plans for Devens, would this be the point at which you’d look for opportunities for regionalization?
Normand: To some extent, if the towns do what we’ve suggested, it may inform them on regional opportunities. Fire protection is an example … Because Ayer does have a full-time fire department, extending that to protect Devens—that was their proposal at one time—maybe that still makes sense. There will be opportunities. The regional dispatch center… and the hazardous waste collection they’ve got going at Devens—these attempts at regionalization have been working. When the towns all get together there may be some obvious things that would work better from a regional perspective. …
One thing that must happen with final disposition is that there must be a new piece of legislation. Chapter 498, the law that created the Devens Regional Enterprise Zone, does not sunset itself. MassDevelopment’s involvement and the DEC were created by the Legislature, and their mission can only be concluded by the Legislature. That’s a real opportunity. Because you’ve got the need for this piece of legislation to put permanent government in place, that’s an opportunity to create by statute any regional entities that need to be created. For example, the creation of a municipal utility, which the DEAT has recommended, could be included in this legislation.
Once MassDevelopment has sold all of the Devens land, will there still be a need for the Devens Enterprise Commission?
Normand: There may not be. At that point, the permitting process may be much more manageable. But maybe not. Things change. There’s no reason the expedited permitting process couldn’t remain in place. The towns and MassDevelopment could get together and say we think the Devens Regional Enterprise Zone should remain an overlay district where permitting is controlled by a commission with more local representation.
What is your worst nightmare regarding the future of Devens?
Normand: My worst nightmare is that people don’t think about it. The subject just kind of ebbs and flows, and there’s no long-term planning with respect to Devens. And then, at some point, MassDevelopment is done. The agency looks at Devens and says, “We haven’t sold all the land but we’ve sold 90 percent of it, and we don’t need to have such a presence at Devens to sell the other 10 percent; we can do that from Boston easily enough.” And it becomes short notice to the towns. … That’s my worst nightmare, that there isn’t enough time to go through a real thoughtful planning process.
You know what is going to be occurring at Devens over the next five years or 10 years. You can pretty accurately predict in terms of the economic development … My point is that the remainder of Devens is not a blank slate where someone could radically alter the plan. I don’t see that happening because of the integrity of the plan and because of the investment that’s been made in its infrastructure.
When you look at what’s left to be developed at Devens, do you have a metric in mind that would tell you that MassDevelopment’s work is done?
Normand: I don’t. There are two tasks at Devens. One is the whole economic development piece, which is selling the land and attracting industry, creating jobs. And the other part of their mission was upgrading the infrastructure. It was an aging military base. The military knew … that the future of the base was not bright, and so they weren’t investing in their infrastructure, and so there were some real challenges for any developer. They’re very far along with the infrastructure part. Most of the work that’s left has to do with that other piece, actually selling the land, backing industry, creating jobs. And that’s the piece that’s left to be done. And how fast it gets done—that’s a function of the larger economy.
What’s different in this year’s DEAT report compared to those of previous years?
Normand: The only thing that’s different is our conclusion that the economic question is answered; that although the remaining issues have an economic component, such as hiring additional municipal employees in order to carry out a plan, the money’s there to do it. So, if it’s not an economic issue, then it goes to the character of the town: How does taking back Harvard’s Devens land affect the rest of the town? We really wanted to make the point that Devens is economically viable. That was our mission and that’s what we want the headline in the Press to read.
