Loading...
Questions for Applicants Childs Park Open Space Project 1. Why has the pond not been dredged for 40 years? 2. Time frame on application will not work for this funding round-could this be put of until the next round and be completed next fall? 3. The estimate assumes that no permitting is necessary. Please show that no permits are required for the water being pumped into a storm drain and that dredged materials are allowed to be disposed of on-site. 4. Are there unique or threatened plants or animals in the pond? 5. What other sources of funding have been explored for this project? 6. Only one estimate has been provided. Has the applicant requested other bids? 7. Are there any restrictions currently in place that would limit the public’s access to the park and/or pond? Hospital Hill Chapel Historic Preservation Project 1. What other sources have been/are being sought to fund this project? 2. Can this project be completed in stages? 3. The three bids are in a wide range. Why is the request for the largest amount? 4. Outside of Resurrection Life Ministries services and activities what other community groups make use of the Chapel? Would the Chapel be open to the public for meetings, etc.? 5. The architect suggests to the applicant that the plans can be used to apply for a Massachusetts Rehabilitation Historic Tax Credit. Is the applicant applying for a tax credit in this amount, or some other amount? 6. What is the public benefit? What is being proposed here by the applicant for benefit to the broader community? 7. What long term preservation restriction is being proposed by the applicant? 8. It appears that the two most urgent needs to protect the integrity of the structure are: the tower stability and the leaky roof. If CPA money were awarded for these areas, what would be your strategy for funding and completing the larger project? 9. Historic structures like this require a sizable yearly maintenance budget. Please provide a budget for ongoing maintenance and describe your funding source for this budget. 10. Due to the limited funds available for this round of funding the committee may decide to partially fund some projects. To help the committee w/ this decision please prioritize your projects in terms of funding need (e.g. exterior work, interior spaces, accessibility, etc). Academy of Music Historic Preservation Project 1. Have other funding sources being sought for this project? 2. Can this project be completed in stages? 3. The applicant states that the $230,000 in CPA funds awarded proved to be insufficient for the scope of work anticipated; specifically, the door replacement on the east side could not proceed. Why did the funds prove insufficient? 4. Applicant should provide a comparison of work completed; comparing budgeted to actual costs, and a budget for the scope of work that was not able to be completed from the original funds. 5. Applicant should note which items in the new requested budget were not part of the original scope of work. Why were these needs not discussed in the prior application? 6. It seems like the budget of $525,125 will be the target amount of funds to raise in a capital campaign, and that CPA funds are being requested to provide some portion of this. Given our funding situation, there is a possibility that CPA funds could be available for only a small portion of this work. Applicant should describe how the prior award of CPA funds, plus potentially an additional investment of CPA funds, could be best used to leverage fundraising through a capital campaign. 7. Have other supplementary funds been acquired for either phase 1 or phase 2? Dorsey-Jones House Historic Preservation Project 1. The cost estimate provided by Novak Contracting and Remodeling seems to anticipate replacement of many of the exterior features of the house. This cost estimate appears to be the basis of the CPA funding request. The letter from Wright Builders, however, seems directed toward a greater effort to preserve elements of original construction and to rehabilitate the exterior of the house so it appears as it did in the era of its construction. Would you provide the CPC with more information on the cost of each element of construction that would be undertaken to restore the house to its 1850s appearance? 2. Other than the restoration of the exterior of the house, does the applicant anticipate that there will be additional activities (e.g. house tours, documentary recording of the restoration effort for exhibition at the Ruggles Center) that will arise from the project and provide benefit to the public? 3. What long term preservation restriction is being proposed by the applicant? 4. Is this house at imminent risk of being altered or demolished? Is its structural integrity currently at risk? 5. Would the owner be willing to put a permanent historic preservation restriction on the house if a smaller CPA award were granted? 6. If CPC funds are used for this restoration project could there be a guarantee of limited public access provided by the applicant. 7. What efforts have been made to identify other funds or grants that might supplement Northampton’s CPA funds? Overlook at Northampton Community Housing Project 1. What type of affordable housing restriction would the applicant provide to ensure that the facility provides community housing on a sustained basis? 2. The applicant has indicated on page 4 of the project narrative that some of the work will commence before the CPA funds would be available. Would the applicant please indicate which elements of the work detailed in the application will not be undertaken prior to the release of CPA funds, assuming a CPA grant was awarded by the City Council? 3. The grant application mentions exploration of the Small House model of skilled nursing care. If such a model was pursued, what elements of the work detailed in the application would continue to provide service to a potentially reconfigured facility? Which would be lost to demolition or replacement by alternative systems? 4. If the Small House model was pursued, what legal mechanism would the applicant propose to maintain the affordability restriction mentioned above, even if the facility was substantially modified from its existing configuration? 5. Can the applicant provide more detail on the economic demographics of the current residents of the facility, as this information will be critical in determining whether this project qualifies as community housing under the CPA? 6. When did applicant purchase the property? Prior to purchase, what was plan for addressing capital needs? Was purchase price based on value of building in as-is condition? 7. If MHS moved forward with the acquisition knowing of the unmet capital needs, and without a commitment of funding to pay for the improvements, what was the plan for addressing these needs? 8. For a housing development project, the CPC typically requires a Sources and Uses of Funds Statement/ Development budget, along with an operating budget. Neither has been provided. Please provide these to the CPC, so we can determine what improvements can be funded either through funds received at closing, through cash available from operations, or through debt supported by operating budget cash flow. 9. In addition to conventional funding sources, what State sources are available to support the operations of nursing homes like this? Are these other funds being pursued? 10. Does MHS have other organizational resources that can support the improvements? 11. Of the three improvements for which CPA funds are requested, can the applicant provide information on what are the highest priorities and why? 12. What are the repair estimates based upon? Will the applicant secure at least 3 bids if awarded the funding? 13. Does the timeline for the repairs match the availability of CPA funding, which would likely not be available until early 2010? 14. Due to the limited funds available for this round of funding the committee may decide to partially fund some projects. To help the committee w/ this decision please prioritize your projects in terms of funding need (e.g. life-safety systems, wander-guard, emergency lighting, etc) 15. Describe Overlook’s eligibility criteria for new residents. Are Northampton residents given any preference over other applicants Habitat for Humanity Community Housing Project 1. Why didn’t the site development work reveal the extent of the ledge? 2. How would the requested $180,000 be allocated – for two homes, three homes or in another way? 3. The applicant states that the number of units has been changed to 5. What other substantive changes have been made to the project- other than changes to the budget and project timeline? 4. The applicant states that they have worked out a Regulatory Agreement that is acceptable to DHCD and to the City. What are the terms of this regulatory agreement? 5. Because of the staggered construction, Habitat is asking for the $180,000 in CPC funds over 3 years. Please verify the anticipated month and year that each of the 3 draws will be needed. 6. The earlier award of $120,000 was targeted for site work and infrastructure. Now that this work has been completed w/out drawing on the CPC award of 2008 how will these funds be used? 7. In trying to clarify the Sources and Uses of Funds, please clarify if my understanding is correct. My understanding is that the applicant is presenting the following- please confirm whether these understandings are correct: a. The $120,000 Source labeled “Fund for Humanity” is the no interest loan that Habitat will make to each homebuyer, or $24,000 per home. b. The homeowner’s monthly payment on this $24,000 loan will be $347.67 c. This monthly payment means that a homebuyer’s annual income must be at least $27,814. Grove Street Inn Community Housing Project 1. Is there currently an affordable housing “restriction” on this parcel or will one need to be crafted by the applicant and CPC staff? 2. Applicant identifies Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding from the State as an alternative, but notes that it is very competitive. In addition, the applicant states that “if funds were to be applied for through that source, a currently operating program would be cut, as there have been no new funds allocated for rehabilitation.” Please explain what this means- how receipt of ESG funds for rehab would result in reduced operating funds. 3. The applicant notes that exterior painting may be the last component of the project, and can be withheld and other funding sources sought if there is a funding shortfall. Can we reasonably assume that if this $50,000 in funds for exterior painting was not provided by the CPC, and that the other work can proceed without this painting? Given the demand on CPA funds, are there other items in the scope of work that are less critical? 4. The application notes (under “Other Contributions”) that Service Net is responsible under its contract to pay for water and sewer, electricity, heating fuel, insurance, and household supplies, which collectively come to about $25,000 per year; as well as personnel and staffing costs. It would be helpful if the applicant could provide an operating budget for the property, so we can see what cash flow (if any) is available to pay for repairs or for debt service on money borrowed to finance repairs. 5. The application notes that $3,293.70 will be in-kind support of city staff. Have other funding options been explored to supplement the work? CDBG? 6. What work, in addition to that included in this request, is needed to bring the house into overall good repair? 7. The committee normally expects to see bids for work such as this. You indicate that you think the time-line for this is too long. At what point should we expect to see bids? 8. A question related to bids: the figure of $50,000 for exterior painting seems, on the face of it, excessive. Can you justify this figure? Valley CDC Homeownership Sustainability Fund 1. If available, applicant should provide some basic data on the foreclosure trends in Hampshire County over the past couple of years- the number of foreclosures, the number of foreclosure filings, any other data that the applicant thinks will give the CPC a better sense of the crisis. 2. Applicant received prior CPA funding and notes that 29 households have been assisted. Can Valley CDC provide information on the number of these households that have incomes at or below 80% of area median income? Can Valley CDC commit, with new CPA funding, to serve at least 2/3 of the percentage of households with incomes under 80% of median income as were served under the prior effort (in other words, if the data shows that 60% of households assisted with the first pot of CPA funds had incomes under 80% of area median income, can Valley CDC commit to providing at least 2/3 of this percentage, or 40%, to households at or below 80% of median income) with the new CPA funds? 3. Does the Obama Administration’s foreclosure prevention program announced last March provide additional opportunities for Valley CDC to help homeowners at risk? 4. The indirect (admin) rate of 31% seems high. Is there any flexibility in this % given the limited resources available in this round of CPC funding? Valley CDC Predevelopment Fund 1. In the first paragraph of the narrative, applicant asks that additional CPA funds be provided so that Valley CDC can support predevelopment activities prior to receiving site control. However, later in the narrative, the applicant notes that the CPA funds could be helpful in some projects by covering a portion of an acquisition loan and thus lowering development costs. So, to be more precise, it appears that Valley CDC is asking for funding for its predevelopment funds that can be used at various stages of predevelopment, prior to construction loan closing. Is this correct? 2. How has the $10,000 in prior CPA funds for the Predevelopment Loan Fund been used? Chesterfield Road Dam Historic Preservation Project 1. The applicant states that the State has mandated repair or removal of the dam and the Northampton DPW has determined that removal is more cost effective, and established a timeline for its removal. Is there a timeline mandated by the State for repair or removal? Does the State have final say over whether the dam is repaired or removed, or is this a local decision? 2. Confirm that the City is committed to spending $800,000, whether the dam is removed or repaired? 3. Over what time period will the Friends raise the additional $200,000? What sources are anticipated to provide this $200,000? Are any funds pledged? What happens if sufficient funds are not raised? What is your strategy for raising the large balance of your project budget? 4. What is the significance of the determination by the Massachusetts Historical Commission that the removal of the dam is “unlikely to affect any significant historic or archaeological resources?” Are the Friends able to demonstrate that this conclusion is not correct? Can the Conservation Commission and/or the Historic Commission review the facts and weigh in on which interpretation is correct? 5. If CPA funds are committed for this, how can disbursements be structured so that no CPA funds are spent until a) sufficient funds are raised for the repair; and b) all City and State approvals for repair of the dam have been received? 6. Please tell more about the Friends of the Upper Reservoir and the Chesterfield Dam? Is it a legal non-profit with a board of directors? An informal citizen group? What is your membership base? How long have you been in existence? 7. Letter of support from NHC is to spend CPA dollars to support the effort to "explore the repair and restoration of the…Dam", but the grant request is for the actual repair of the Dam. How specifically do you intend CPA dollars to be used? 8. If the dam is repaired, what funds are required for its upkeep and where would these funds come from? 9. Will the state provide any funds towards the removal or repair of the dam or will it all the funds come from the City? 10. Given the sensitive environmental and wildlife aspects of the Upper Reservoir as described in the application, would the installation and maintenance of hydro- power facilities create a negative impact? 11. Obviously, there are a number of competing interests in this project (the Friends, those interested in historic preservation, those interested in conservation – with interests on both sides of preserving the dam, those interested in micro-hydro power generation, those primarily concerned with cost, with safety, etc.). There is also a lack of clarity regarding the CPC role in reaching a decision about how to move forward. The final decision rests with the BPW, presumably regardless of whatever recommendations the CPC might reach. Do we know to what degree the BPW decision will rest purely on financial considerations, and to what degree other variables and the views of other players might be important? 12. The scenario for saving the dam rests fairly heavily on the related project of micro-hydro power generation. This is beyond the domain of the CPC. Can a sensible evaluation of the efficacy of micro-hydro generation be carried out prior to a decision about keeping the dam? How would this go forward? Leeds Hotel Bridge Historic Preservation Project 1. The $50,000 estimate is provided by DPW, which said it is based on an estimate from a preferred engineering firm. Applicant should forward the actual estimate from the engineering firm, rather than a summary memo. 2. There is no budget of potential sources and uses provided for restoring the bridge. The applicant should submit a preliminary budget with at least a range of anticipated costs, as well as anticipated sources. 3. The application has stated that the Leeds Civic Association will fundraise for non- structural and aesthetic upkeep. How much will this cost? Where does LCA anticipate raising the funds from? 4. Will the DPW issue an RFP for this engineering study or is the intent to sole source the work to a preferred consultant? 5. How does the rehabilitation of the Hotel Bridge fit into the City and Leeds transportation plans? 6. Will part of the engineering study entail assessing the bridge for future vehicular traffic? 7. Can the applicant provide letters of support from the community to substantiate broad support for this project and expenditure? 8. Has an application been made yet to nominate the Hotel Bridge for placement on the State Registry of Historic Places? 9. Is the bridge currently fit for pedestrian traffic? Are there any current safety issues? 10. What other sources of funding have been explored for this project? Look Park Open Space and Recreation Project 1. Please show how this project eligible as a recreation project under current CPA law. 2. Where does the estimated project budget of $700,000 come from? What sources will be used? Will the Massachusetts National Guard commit to use of the heavy equipment described in the application? Are resources available through the State Land and Water Conservation Program? What other sources will be pursued? 3. The applicant states that if Willow Lake is not dredged there is a possibility that the flow of water from the Mill River will be greatly restricted, causing the lake to slowly dry up. How likely is this to happen, and over what time period will the level of the lake be reduced? 4. What is your commitment to the City in terms of future long-term use of the new fields for recreational (sports) activities? A handshake, a 30 year contract, an easement …? 5. Will the length of the inlet from Mill River be dredged also or just Willow Lake? 6. The pond was dredged 25 years ago and these plans are to dredge again in 2010. Do you expect that this process will need to take place again in 2035? 7. On page 26 the narrative describes that the wetlands determination will be undertaken under Army Corps of Engineer standards. How do these incorporate or overlap w/ the MA wetlands Act and the local wetlands ordinance? 8. Your budget states $1,500 for a Site Meeting. Can you explain these expenses? 9. Will the $70k requested be spent for design services regardless of your success in acquiring other funds to actually implement the three projects? 10. Is there sufficient available space near the current storage “barns” to accommodate the new recycle area and materials? 11. Would it make sense to determine, presumably through taking samples, whether the lake sediment is suitable for playing fields before putting in place all of the plans and permits for the overall project? Can this suitability be determined prior to receipt of CPC funds? 12. What would the project look like if the sediment were not suitable for the playing fields? 13. What would the project look like if the National Guard does not do the dredging? Can the arrangement with the National Guard be finalized prior to receipt of CPC funds? 14. How many and what types of playing fields are planned through this expansion? Beaver Brook/Broad Brook Open Space Acquisition Project 1. The acquisition cost of the parcel is not clearly stated- although it can be inferred to be just under$560,000 from the budget provided by the applicant. What is the purchase price? Is there an existing purchase and sale agreement or option on the land? What is the current appraised value of the land? 2. The applicant states that this 100 acre parcel provides a potential connection to over 700 acres of protected space. Can applicant provide a map showing how this parcel relates to previously protected parcels? 3. The applicant states that the City will apply for a LAND Grant for 2/3 of the purchase cost. The applicant should provide more detail on this (what entity makes the awards, what the timing is for application and response, what are the terms of the grant, how likely is its receipt)? 4. The letter from Broad Brook Coalition states that it hopes to make a contribution to this project from its Land Acquisition Fund. Can some of this be used to decrease the amount of CPA funds? 5. If the applicant applies for the LAND Grant and does not receive it, how much of the CPA money will have been spent? 6. The applicant states that “two dilapidated old homes will be torn down and restored prior to the City taking title”. Does this mean the seller will restore the homes or the land upon which the homes currently sit? If the plan is to restore the homes, what will happen to them? 7. What will be the extent of public access to this parcel if purchased by the City? 8. There is currently a network of trails through this parcel used by a local snowmobile club. Will they have continued access in the future? 9. Does the City have plans to re-use the existing two house lots on Rte 9 for future residential purposes? Barrett Street Marsh Open Space Preservation Project 1. The report of the Task Force lays out a series of recommendations divided into immediate, within a year, and within 5 years. Which portions of each of these will the $5,000 in CPA funds cover? Where will the Conservation Commission acquire the other funding needed to implement the recommendations? 2. Please attach a budget to this application and identify who would complete the work. Conservation Commission Conservation Fund As you described, a significant fraction of the current conservation fund is being held as consideration for five parcels totaling nearly 200 acres of land. How are these parcels ranked in terms of "priority"? What do you estimate the additional cost will be to purchase these parcels? What percent of this cost do you hope to pay with CPA funds? If you cannot secure CPA funds for their purchase, what are your other funding options?