On Nov. 27, 2007, then-Public Works Commissioner Raeanne Curtis sent an email to then-Office of Policy and Management Commissioner Robert Genuario that provided the department’s best estimate for the “restoration and reuse” of the buildings at the former Seaside Regional Center in Waterford.

It would require a $47.75 million investment, said the Curtis email.

How then, nine years of further deterioration of the buildings later, can it cost $18 million? That’s the number a consultant arrived at, stating that for $10 million the state could renovate the main hospital building and the former nurses’ residence enough to provide a “shell” for future development. With another $8 million in private investment, Seaside could have a $200-a-night lodge and amenities for larger gatherings.

That scenario is the basis for the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s plans for saving the historic buildings and transforming Seaside into a state park.

In responding to my question how a restoration estimated by the state at nearly $48 million in 2007 is now $30 million less, Dennis Schain, communications director for DEEP, basically responded, trust us.

“Our cost estimates for state and private share of costs to create state park lodge at Seaside are detailed in Section 5 of the PKF feasibility report,” stated Schain, adding, “PKF is highly regarded and respected firm. We have confidence in the model they have developed …”

“We are not in a position to comment on the 2007 information you presented,” Schain added, noting the estimate did not include “backup assumptions.” And apparently DEEP is not interested in searching state records to find out why a fellow state agency came up with such a different estimate.

From my perspective, that 2007 estimate sounds more realistic.

That’s not the only thing that does not add up about the Malloy administration’s approach to Seaside.

In September 2014, developer Mark Steiner seemed closer than ever to realizing his plan to redevelop Seaside. Daniel Hostettler, managing director of the highly successful Ocean House inn of Westerly, had joined the Steiner project, adding greater legitimacy. Those plans called for renovating the existing structures as condominiums, with Hostettler developing a 32-room luxury inn. The shoreline would remain public.

Just four months earlier, the state Department of Administrative Services had assured then-state Sen. Andrea Stillman and then-Rep. Betsy Ritter that it was all systems go. “Purchase and sale agreement (with Steiner) is in full force and effect and the buyer is in compliance.”

In September 2014, the Waterford Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the necessary zone changes for the inn concept. Unfortunately for Steiner, he needed four votes because of a public petition opposing the zone change.

Chances for a successful legal challenge to that vote were strong. Supplying one of the critical “no” votes was an adjoining property owner who had previously voiced opposition to the project and whose wife was a plaintiff in litigation against the developer. Given the blatant conflict, he should have recused himself.

The issue became moot, however, when Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced at the end of September that year that Connecticut was terminating the contract with Steiner, pointing to the developer’s “failure to receive … necessary Land Use Approvals.”

However, the “Purchase and Sale Agreement” with Steiner’s “Seaside in Waterford, LLC” states, “If the issuance of any permits or approvals for the Property have been appealed, the Purchaser shall have the right to automatically extend …”

In other words, the developer has not failed to receive necessary approvals until court appeals are exhausted.

Steiner filed a lawsuit against the state last August for violating the contract. The Office of the Claims Commissioner is reviewing it.

As to which project would benefit Waterford, those numbers point to the Steiner/Hostettler plan. Waterford First Selectman Dan Steward told me town officials estimate the Steiner/Hostettler plan would generate $2 million to $3 million in town tax revenues annually. The state-owned lodging development would generate only $100,000 to $200,000, he said.

There was no advanced planning behind Malloy’s 2014 state park declaration. He was up for re-election and Ritter was fighting, unsuccessfully, for a state Senate seat. Both needed a boost and Malloy seemed to calculate a Seaside State Park announcement might provide it locally.

The best calculation for the Malloy administration might be to seek a settlement with Steiner that gives him one more crack at his development proposal, with reasonable deadlines that assure he puts up or shuts up.

If that doesn’t work, the state could always turn back to the mathematically challenged lodging idea.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.