Round 2-2009 Applicant Answers
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?
?? Removal is less expensive in the short run, but The Friends believe that, even in
tough times, the value of what will be lost is worth more than a $400,000 price
tag difference. The State has a moveable date as long as there is ‘forward
movement.’ The City’s BPW has worked to meet a schedule that they put
th
forward last year. On September 14 the BPW and the Joint Committee agreed
to seek an extension of six months to enable The Friends to fundraise on behalf
of the dam repair, and they asked the DPW to request a six month extension
th
from the Office of Dam Safety. That permission was granted on Sept. 18 and
formally submitted to Jim Laurilla on Sept. 21st (see attachment) as of now, the
new timeline has been pushed back by six months.
Does the State have final say over whether the dam is repaired or
removed, or is this a local decision?
?? The decision to repair or remove is entirely up to the City of Northampton as
the dam owner and the BPW which has jurisdiction and responsibility for the
dam. The State’s Office of Dam Safety Director Ed Hughes has repeatedly
stated that the Commonwealth does not care which direction the City goes in
as long as there is progress.
2. Confirm that the City is committed to spending $800,000, whether the
dam is removed or repaired?
?? The City is committed to spending the least amount of money it possibly can
on this project. This project was not of their making, which is why The
Friends offer their support.
?? To date the DPW has only sought support for removal. We are negotiating
with the BPW to seek funds to off-set the $800,000 by seeking grants for
repair and we have promised to share any and all grant information that we
find that will help reduce that initial $800,000.
?? This is another reason that the micro-hydro is of such importance. If BPW
can be shown that the opportunities for repair offer more income potential
than removal, then they would be in a better position to show their rate
payers that this is a good investment. The Friends have been asked to ‘prove’
that the potential for micro-hydro is indeed possible, and have plans to bring
in a micro-hydro expert to Massachusetts in late October who can offer a
fresh and more positive opinion.
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?
?? The time period is six months to raise the second $200,000+. The Friends aim
to raise at least $50,000 from local supporters and the balance from additional
grants. The Friends are preparing a campaign to solicit funds from local
supporters from early October until we reach our goal. We will meet one-on-one
with key prospects in early October and will send out an appeal to our general
mailing list by the end of October. We will hold fundraising house parties before
the holiday season, and as it will likely be necessary, will send out a second
appeal in early February. To date we have pledges from five individuals (two are
Friends), and those funds will pay for the fundraising campaign, street signs and
micro-hydro feasibility study costs. Our goal is to prove to the BPW that we are
capable of raising this money by first meeting the $400,000+ mark, then
negotiate for a stronger timeline for the micro-hydro.
?? A minimum of $150,000 in additional grants will be sought. To date, we have
identified both Federal sources at the Dept. of Energy and FEMA’s National Dam
Safety Program, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), EPA’s
The State Innovations Grants Program, REAP Rural Energy For America Program
Grants (due July 2010), and local, regional and state foundations including the
Community Foundation of Western MA (due Aug 2010), the Grantham
Foundation, New England Grass Roots Environmental Fund (submitted), The
Massachusetts Environmental Trust, to name a few. All will require additional
research and some will extend into FY11. Representative Neal has legislation
pending for a dam repair bill, noting that there are hundreds of dams in the
same state as the Chesterfield Road Dam and cities lack the funds to repair
them. Should this go through, we would immediately seek a grant.
What happens if sufficient funds are not raised?
?? If we don’t raise the amount needed, the BPW will tear out the dam and drain
the reservoir, and any pledged CPA funds will revert back to the CPC.
?? Our strategy to raise the funds for the micro-hydro is very clear: we will grant
write, work with our State and Federal Representatives and Senators, and
continue to follow our state and local leads. To date we have been in touch with
Mass Technology Collaborative’s Mass Renewable Energy Trust which could fund
as much as $300,000 to $400,000 (applications may only be submit after the
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) permit is submitted. We have
written a small grant to bring our thus far pro bono consultant to Massachusetts
and to pay him to write a detailed report that we can use to seek micro-hydro
funding. (Our consultant is unaware that this grant was written.) Senator Stan
Rosenberg’s staff members have been instructed to perform grant search work
for us, and Representative Richie Neal’s office has asked us to submit a proposal
to take to the Governor. That was completed in late September. We have
presented before the City’s Energy Commission and received their support to
help us move this project forward. Department of Energy grants (DOE) are
accepted in early September. We will work with the DPW on 2010’s grant cycle.
These grants must be submitted by the municipality, and we have offered to co-
write them.
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?
?? In a phone conversation between Fran Thibault and Tim Kelly from the
th
Massachusetts Historical Commission on Friday, Sept. 25, Ms. Thibault asked
where they got their information for their determination and she was told that
the Massachusetts Historical Commission ‘followed GZA’s report.’ This is
profound news. The information regarding the Chesterfield Road site came from
the city of Northampton’s own consultants, not from Massachusetts Historical
Society’s own research.
?? The significance is critical, no exhaustive efforts have been made to prove or
disprove that this region is or is not historic. A request was made for information
on how The Friends get this determination and how we proceed to get the
dam/reservoir placed into the National Historic Registry, and that information is
pending from Massachusetts Historical Commission’s Survey Department.
?? The Northampton Historic Commission saw the Massachusetts Historical
Commission one-page letter as insufficient research to make any determination.
We would welcome the support that the Historic Commission could make in this
regard. To date we have followed up with the Northampton Historical
Commission’s recommendations to see if there is any record of this as an historic
site, and not to take that to mean that this has no historic value, but rather that
it has not been so deemed. An email exchange with the Library of Congress has
sent us additional information and we are investigating this. Any Northampton
City Commission that is willing to support this project by helping The Friends
more deeply understand this region, the dam, and its significance and potential
is welcome.
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?
?? The Friends are not in favor of the DPW receiving funds until they have begun
the renovation. The Friends will need a letter from the CPA stating that the
funds have been approved and that dispersal will take place when various pre-
determined points have been met. The Friends and the DPW will negotiate a
timeline in the coming months, after it is clear which design plan will be adopted,
after bids have been accepted and the cost is more certain, and at which points
the DPW will need dollars.
?? It is important to note that the BPW will not approve final dam repair design until
the funds have been raised or committed, and the design is necessary for the
State and City approvals. CPA funds will not be used under any circumstances
rd
but repair. As of the BPW meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 23 the DPW is able to
proceed with permits for the dredging of the dam, a requirement that must be
completed regardless of dam removal or repair. Ned Huntley stated that this
work could proceed in the coming months. The Friends believe that this would
serve as a much needed example of “forward motion” required by the Office of
Dam Safety.
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?
?? The Friends have been an informal citizen group but our plan is to set up a
501c3 nonprofit organization. We are contacting an attorney now. The Friends
formed out of necessity in late May after the BPW shared their plans for dam
removal and draining the Upper Reservoir without public input, and in direct
response to the BPW’s initial refusal to allow a group of neighbors to fundraise to
save the dam. We named ourselves at the start of August. We are new, but we
have members with significant experience with land preservation projects,
fundraising, power companies, website design, and other skills. Initial members
were neighbors and concerned citizens, but our volunteers and the number of
supporters, continues to grow.
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?
?? We have every intention to give this money to the DPW to repair the dam. We
are seeking additional funds from other sources to pay fundraising costs, put up
a website, and bring our own hydro-engineer to Massachusetts. $400,000+ is a
lot of money, in particular in a bad economy, however we intend to use CPA
funds ONLY for dam repair.
8. If the dam is repaired, what funds are required for its upkeep and where
would these funds come from?
?? Initial estimates for maintenance came in at $150,000, an amount that could
easily be raised by the installation of micro-hydro. Should the micro-hydro prove
not feasible, or if the dollars are not available for installation due to the economy
or loss of Federal programs, then we will continue to privately fundraise to offset
a portion of that amount ($3000 a year) until this amount is raised in full.
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?
?? As far as we are aware, no state funds are pending.
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?
?? According to our micro-hydro engineer, the impact on fish would be limited for
the operation of the micro-hydro. There would be screening that would keep
fish, trash and natural debris, like leaves, out. Fortunately there are no salmon
in this water, so we will not be required to install a fish ladder. Hydro
maintenance is minimal, primarily inspections and removing leaves from the
screening.
?? It would take perfect timing for the dam restoration and hydro installation to
take place simultaneously, but if we could get permits moving soon, we may, at
minimum, be able to install part of the ‘penstock’ that would lead to the turbine.
?? Since The Friends submit this CPA grant, we have learned that the State has
rejected the City’s proposal to flush the Upper Reservoir sediment into the
reservoir above Musante beach. This means that the area will need to be
dredged, which will create significant disturbance as it will change the depth.
Since we were just informed of this on September 23rd, we have not had time
explore the impact that this would cause, however, unless endangered species
found in the Reservoir, this work will likely proceed.
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?
?? We can only trust that our City officials will tell us the truth when asked. Our
understanding from several discussions and our repeatedly asking if there are
any other issues that we are unaware of, has only resulted in the same answer:
“The BPW is only concerned about protecting the rate payers.” The rate payers
issue is understandable. No one reliant upon City water should have to pay any
more than necessary, but in answer to a direct question, the BPW says it does
have the resources to remove the dam. According to Terry Culhane, “we would
have to move some money around, but yes, we have the money.” Ideally they
would not have to spend it, but they have the resources. (This answer is
available on tape at North Street Association’s website.) According to Wayne
Feiden that answer is untrue, but that was the answer given.
?? Few officials work in isolation, and are free of outside influences. When The
Friends submit the grant, the BPW was working in direct opposition to our goals.
On September 14th, the Joint Committee negotiated a six month extension from
the BPW so we could fundraise. The BPW clearly responds to pressure, and we
have the support of all but one City Counselor (and only because that individual
has not been reached.) Those running in Ward 7 are very much in favor of
saving the Reservoir and Dam.
?? Below are some of the players whose voices may impact the BPW:
?? The Fish People from American Rivers have stated to The Friends on two
occasions that they do not have the commitment or the passion to match ours.
They are backing out of supporting the removal of this dam. In fact, they
repeated our own words, that removing this dam so the fish could only travel 1.6
miles doesn’t make sense. This organization and its money were of primary
importance to the BPW as they would have brought in $50,000, half of their
pledges for removal. This loss is significant.
?? The Public. Of the hundreds of people The Friends have spoken to, only a small
handful of people have outwardly been opposed to this and these few have been
supportive of removing all dams, not just this one. The vast majority want to
see the reservoir saved. To date the 300+ names have offered their full support.
Some have offered cash. Others have offered their skills. When looking at this
project, the dollar difference between removal and renovation is seen as minimal
and the loss of the water for a small sum is viewed as short-sighted. People love
and appreciate this reservoir. This is worth saving on many levels, but in
particular because of its beauty, its location as the most visible portion of the
wildlife corridor that the region is working to link and protect, and for the
obvious value of water. We continue to garner public support and we have only
begun to engage other groups to raise awareness about this project.
?? City Counselors. We are working with several City Counselor’s to address the
BPW’s concerns and thus far, they have been important mediators and allies.
They have spent hours on the phone and in meetings with The Friends. Each
has offered support, made an effort to share ideas, and many have urged the
BPW to give us the time to save this dam and reservoir.
th
?? Energy Commission. We met with the Energy Commission on Sept. 24 and
received their support in the pursuit of the micro-hydro. The Counselor on this
committee has again pledged full support.
?? Joint Commission. We have their support and they have been instrumental in
assisting The Friends by facilitating an agreement that we could proceed for six
months to fundraise to save the reservoir and dam.
?? Other Variables. Water and the environment are complex issues on their own.
Given the State’s unfunded demands, a recession, lack of City funds, and a
general lack of staff time to be visionary, for the BPW, draining the reservoir
looks like the only option. The Friends see this quite differently. This moment is
an opportunity.
?? The dredging will increase initial costs, but will dramatically increase the
reservoir’s capacity (from 6 million gallons to its original 16 million) which will
increases water flow at the Dam, making micro-hydro more feasible. For brook
trout lovers, deeper water will lower the water temperature which may increase
the fish population. The recent emergency at the new water plant makes the
need for water redundancy ever more important. The Upper Reservoir has long
protected the Lower Reservoir (which is still a back-up water supply, that can be
online in less than a workday) by serving as the silt catch basin. The
Northampton Fire Department wants to see a dry hydrant installed to assist with
potential fires in the area.
?? Micro Hydro The community is ready to embrace alternative energy, wants to
protect wildlife and their habitat, and they are looking to our leaders to make this
possible. No one The Friends have talked to has been disinterested in exploring
the hydro potential. This alone makes saving the reservoir important, but for a
BPW that sees their responsibility only in dollars, this is where these ‘competing’
interests happily merge. Everything positive points to retaining the Upper
Reservoir and the Chesterfield Road Dam;
?? The hydro offers excellent potential not only for income, but in making a
difference in enabling citizens to power their homes with clean energy.
?? Hydro income could come not only from selling back to the grid at $ .06 per kW,
but with incentives for municipal projects, this increases to $.10 per kW. While
this sounds minimal, it is free money for the BPW and their ratepayers. Earliest
estimates exceed $1 million earned in 50 years.
?? Maintaining the integrity of a beautiful space while harvesting free energy. Once
the community fully learns that this resource will save them money, provide
clean energy, is possibly a historic site, and is simply one of the most beautiful
and accessible places in Northampton, this will earn their support.
?? CPC. The Friends believe that this project fits the CPA criteria for important open
space and that your decision and its impact will be immediate. Preserving the
reservoir and all it represents rests solely upon saving the dam. This is an
opportunity for the CPC to support this important and deserving project. No
other intentional change in town in the coming year will be as dramatic and have
as negative a consequence as removing this dam.
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?
th
?? Yes. On Sept. 14 Joint Committee Meeting, the BPW and the Joint Committee
agreed that pending a six month extension granted by the Office of Dam Safety,
we had permission to fundraise to save the dam and the reservoir. That
permission was granted from the office in Boston. In fact, the Head of Dam
th
Safety called one of The Friends personally on Friday, September 18 to inform
The Friends of his positive response to the City’s request. It was clear from this
discussion that Ed Hughes understood that The Friends were fundraising.
?? In order to make this determination, we continue to send our hydro engineer
studies, reports and any information we learn from the DPW. With each new
piece of information, he is more convinced that hydro is possible, and a
conservative estimate finds that the Upper Reservoir and Dam are capable of
producing between 40 and 80 homes with power. The Lower Reservoir next to
Musante Beach may be capable of producing power for 300 homes or more.
This is significant.
?? We have written a grant to bring this engineer to Massachusetts and have
several pledges of support to pay for his flight and related expenses, plus a local
bed and breakfast is offering him free room and board for a week. We are
planning to bring him to Massachusetts in late October to conduct an onsite
feasibility study. Engineer Robert Craig believes that it will take him under a
week to complete his analysis which will provide the in-depth information that
will be necessary for future grants and to put to rest some of the conflicting
information received from GZA. (Again, GZA is an excellent company, but they
were hired to find the least costly solution, not to find a long term income stream
for the rate payers.)
?? Terry Culhane asked that we also determine the Lower Reservoir’s capacity, and
we have requested documents from Jim Laurilla to give us the information that
the DPW has about this second dam. For The Friends, this effort is positive,
even though we are being asked, in essence, to do the City’s work and be their
visionaries. We are determined to see this community save the Upper Reservoir
and all that depend upon it, and work to establish green power. Others are
excited as well, and have been waiting to donate toward this project as a first
major greening effort in Northampton that members of the public can support.
?? Thank you for your questions and allowing us to fill in the gaps and inform you
of some of the progress that is taking place. This project is in continual flux, but
again, The Friends remain committed to working with the City of Northampton to
see the Upper Reservoir and the Chesterfield Road Dam (aka Upper Roberts
Meadow Dam) preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.
Attachment: Office of Dam Safety Extension Letter
From: Hughes, Edward (DCR) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 8:39 AM
Subject: Robert Meadows Upper reservoir Dam
Dear Mr. Laurila,
The Office of Dam Safety (ODS) is in receipt of your email dated September 18, 2009,
regarding a request for an extension of the Dam Safety Order dated November 13,
2007 to bring the dam into compliance with dam safety regulations for the Robert
Meadows Upper Reservoir Dam (MA00760) located in Northampton, Massachusetts.
A Certificate of Non-Compliance and Dam Safety Order dated November 13, 2007 was
issued to the City of Northampton DPW which required the dam owner to do the
following:
a.. Hire a registered professional engineer to conduct a Phase II Inspection and
Investigation and submit report to ODS with your proposed timeline to design, permit
and construct the selected alternative to repair, breach or remove the dam no later
than June 30, 2008.
b.. Conduct Follow-Up Inspections every six months until the dam is repaired or
adequately breached.
In consideration of your acknowledgement that the city of Northampton is attempting
to raise funds to repair rather than remove the dam, ODS will grant the dam owner a
six (6) month extension of time to come into compliance with the Dam Safety Order.
The new due dates for compliance are as follows:
1.. Conduct Follow-Up Inspections - The frequency for Follow-Up Inspections remains
the same. The Follow-Up Inspection Reports must be completed every six months until
the dam is repaired or adequately breached.
2.. Phase II Inspection and Investigation - Completed and submitted to ODS.
3.. Bring the dam into compliance with dam safety regulations - Design and permitting
efforts for the dam breach option may cease during this six month period. ODS must be
notified no later than March 30, 2010 on the City's decision to either repair or breach
the dam.
In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 253 and 302 CMR 10.00, it is the sole responsibility
of the dam owner to protect public safety by conducting regular inspections, and
operating and maintaining in acceptable condition, a regulated dam.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with dam safety.
Ed
Edward J. Hughes
Dam Safety Engineer
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Office of Dam Safety
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114
617-626-4965
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?
?? The purchase price is $550,000, with the total budget including soft costs
th
incurred with closing (property tax due to June 30, title insurance, survey, title
search, recording fees, LSP to witness oil tank removal).
?? The City has a signed Option to purchase the property and will have a signed
Purchase and Sale Agreement by early October, with a financing contingency.
?? The appraised value, based on an arms length appraisal, was $550,000 (as of
July 2009)
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?
The map shows existing open space and linkages we are working
on.
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)?
?? We are applying for a LAND grant (formerly known as Self-Help Grant) from the
Division of Conservation Services, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and
the Environment. Announcements one way or another should be made in
November. We have no idea what the chance of being funded is and it is a very
competitive year. On the other hand, we have receive one of these grants
almost every year for the last two decades, having been turned down for
recreation projects but never a conservation project (in part because we are very
strategic about our applications). 30% of the scoring system is based on the
Northampton’s Commonwealth Capital Score, the state’s scoring of municipal
sustainability and smart growth efforts, and we are the top ranked community
the entire state, which certainly helps us.
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?
?? BBC just contributed heavily towards the North King Street property that we just
acquired, so their funds are very limited. They are willing to help with
fundraising. We are hoping to use fundraising to fund the endowment that we
try to build for every conservation area and to do some ecological restoration if
enough funds are raised. That is probably the only way these funds could work
since we will not raise large amounts of money between now and when we need
to close.
5. If the applicant applies for the LAND Grant and does not receive it, how
much of the CPA money will have been spent?
?? Nothing whatsoever from the funds we are requesting now. We have spent
approximately $6,000 from the CPA Open Space Fund on the project and those
will be lost if the project falls through. We are exploring options on how we
could preserve the property if we did not receive the LAND fund but did receive
CPA funds, which involve limited development, but those options would not work
with LAND (to reduce CPA funds) because we would have to develop some of
the land which would dramatically reduce the LAND grant and make the project
infeasible.
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?
?? The homes coming down have absolutely no salvage value and are in horrible
shape, unsafe to enter or use any materials. The seller will remove the buildings
and structures. Final ecological restoration of the house sites will follow by the
city if BBC is able to raise sufficient funds, but this could wait if necessary.
7. What will be the extent of public access to this parcel if purchased by the
City?
?? The public will be allowed anywhere on the property, although the Conservation
Commission has the right to pass regulations and will close any area of the
property to the public if necessary to preserve ecological resources.
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?
?? No determination has been made, but the general rule of thumb which the
Conservation Commission has always followed to date is not to allow any
motorized vehicles in places where they were not used historically, but to allow
on-going use of formally maintained trails for as long as those trails are used
responsibly, reserving the right to close access if users abuse the privilege.
9. Does the City have plans to re-use the existing two house lots on Rte 9 for
future residential purposes?
?? No. Their demolition and site restoration are critical for ecological and scenic
restoration of the site.
?? IF no LAND funding is received but CPA funding is received, the Conservation
Commission would consider carving off four house lots along the road and
combining those proceeds from the lots along with a very aggressive funding
campaign to purchase the property. This is an option of last resort and may not
be feasible (it would require seller concessions, successful fundraising, and
sensitive permits), but it would still be better than what the private market would
do with the property if the City did not purchase the land.
Conservation Commission Conservation Fund
1. 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"?
?? The top priority is definitely the Beaver Brook/Broad Brook Headwaters parcel.
The Conservation Commission’s separate request to the CPA would, if funded, go
towards acquisition and future soft costs. The CPA Open Space Fund already
funded by the CPA has paid for the approximately $6,000 in soft costs already
expended.
?? The Conservation Commission has not formally set a priority for the other parcels
and certainly wants to do preserve all of them. From the priorities in the Open
Space Plan, the order would probably be:
1. Fitzgerald Lake expansion
2. Mill River Greenways expansion
3. Conte Refuge expansion
4. Venturers’ Field Road farmland preservation
3. What do you estimate the additional cost will be to purchase these
parcels?
?? For the specific parcels identified, we estimate an additional $400,000 would be
needed and leveraged. We fully expect, however, to move forward on many
other parcels which have already been identified in the Open Space Plan, some
of which we have pending offers and some we do not. Our experience in twenty
years of aggressive land preservation is that funding is the limiting factor and we
can move any number of deals forward if we have funding.
4. What percent of this cost do you hope to pay with CPA funds?
?? We don’t have a percentage target. Based on our current projects the
percentage varies wildly, but generally fits in three categories:
?? LARGE PROJECTS (e.g., North King Street expansion to Fitzgerald Lake
Conservation Area and Beaver Brook/Broad Brook), where CPA is funding or
being asked to fund about one-third of the cost.
?? SMALL PROJECTS (e.g., the Bleiman addition to the Meadows Conservation
Area), where CPA is funding 100% of the out-of-pocket cost, but staff time is
actually a bigger costs given that soft costs are often the same for large and
small projects.
?? HIGHLY LEVERAGED PROJECTS (e.g. Rogers addition to the Meadows
Conservation Area), where CPA funding is a very small percentage (in the case of
Rogers, the non-CPA City funds were $30,359 to buy the land based on the value
of back taxes, and CPA funded $400 in soft costs).
5. If you cannot secure CPA funds for their purchase, what are your other
funding options?
?? Most of the projects would not advance without CPA funding. Non-CPA city
money is not available and we have already maxed out our capacity for grants,
applying for most available grants already and our capacity of fundraising,
aggressively raising funds as volunteer, staff time, and purchase opportunities
allow. We would still continue these efforts and continue to purchase land, but
with less match available the number of acquisitions would drop. Our estimate is
that on the average we can purchase 150 acre of land a year for preservation
with CPA funds and less than 50 without. Obviously, acreage is misleading since
back land is inexpensive but not immediately threatened and frontage land
addresses immediate threats and strategic opportunities, but is much more
expensive.
VCDC 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?
?? It is Valley CDC’s expectation that most (if not all) of the Predevelopment Fund
will be spent on activities prior to receiving site control. In the current economic
conditions, state funding for acquisition and predevelopment has been and may
continue to be in short supply.
?? At the 98 King Street, the Community Economic Development Assistance
Corporation (CEDAC) appropriated both predevelopment and acquisition loans
for the project. Additionally, the CEDAC predevelopment loan is paying the
ongoing CEDAC acquisition loan interest payments until state housing
development funding is awarded by the Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) through the One Stop application process.
?? There may be cases in the future where allocating the CPA funded VCDC
Predevelopment Loan funds to pay down a portion of the acquisition or
acquisition carrying costs at times when state predevelopment funding (CEDAC)
is limited or at a premium. This will allow a project to move forward and also
lower the development’s overall unit development cost. The funds would be paid
back to the Predevelopment Loan after closing with the state’s housing
development funds (DHCD).
2. How has the $10,000 in prior CPA funds for the Predevelopment Loan
Fund been used?
?? The prior $10,000 was received by Valley CDC in June 2009. None of the money
has been spent to date due to involvement with other ongoing housing project
activities.
Look Park Open Space and Recreation Project
1. Please show how this project eligible as a recreation project under current
CPA law.
?? In most park settings water features serve as a major attraction point. Willow
Lake is certainly Look Park’s major water feature. One aspect of the Park’s plan
would be to improve the water quality of this asset in the Park by dredging the
lake to create a free flow of water into and out of the lake. We plan to also
make physical improvements by re-stabilizing the lake bank in front of our
Sanctuary shelter and repairing the lake inlet culvert and roadway over the
culvert.
?? The Park plans to create two new recreation areas with each area having, as a
main focus, athletic playing fields that would be made available to City groups on
a scheduled basis during the spring, summer and fall seasons.
?? Mayor Higgins sits on the Park’s Board of Trustees and has made the Park aware
of the City’s need for additional recreational/athletic space. The Park has worked
for a number of years with the Recreation Department to provide space for youth
activities in soccer, touch football and baseball. These new areas would be able
to accommodate athletic space for older age group users.
?? It is the Park’s desire to expand our recreational space for our patrons and to
assist the Recreation Department in addressing its need for additional athletic
fields by developing both the Maroney Property and our former re-cycle area.
?? Each of these areas would incorporate a large rectangular grassed playing field
that would accommodate soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, football or any other
athletic contest requiring a rectangular space.
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?
?? $75,000 of the budget would be for the initial planning stages of the project
which would include all of the testing and permitting for the lake dredging as
well as the full design phase for the two recreation areas. The dredging plans
would be the blue print for the work by the National Guard. The designs for the
recreation areas would contain complete construction specifications that the Park
would use to apply for grants to fund the construction of these new areas.
?? In 2004 the Park’s Master Plan contained very preliminary plans for a “family
recreation area” at the Maroney Property with a projected cost of $250,000.
This 2004 plan, in concept, would be very similar to what we want to do at both
of these areas today. Each area would include as noted above a large grassed
area, a shelter, playground equipment, parking areas and rest room facilities.
Our consultant has projected that each area would cost an estimated $300,000
to complete today, totally $600,000.
?? The remaining $25,000 would be costs related to the National Guard costs for
the dredging as well as the actual State and Local permits for the projects.
There is an engineer battalion of the National Guard located on Spring Street in
Leeds. Plans are underway to arrange for members of this battalion to work on
this project. It is our understanding that the Park will be responsible to provide
the fuel for the heavy equipment as well as food for the personnel working on
the project.
?? The Park plans on applying for Land and Water Conservation Funds in 2010. We
will also be researching any funding available through the Environmental
Protection Agency similar to the Clean Lakes Act in past years. Financial
assistance will be sought through other grant sources and foundations that
support the construction of recreation facilities.
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?
?? Although an exact time period cannot be calculated, over the last 25 years the
area of the lake near the inlet has been reduced to a depth of only a few inches.
It is assumed that this sediment build up has also occurred throughout the rest
of the lake to some degree. As more sediment enters this inlet area it will fill up
to the existing inlet culvert and restrict flow from entering Willow Lake. If this
were to occur the inlet structure would need to be closed to cutoff water from
the Mill River to Willow Lake or risk damage of the water backing up in the inlet
and causing further damage to the existing roadway and culvert structures.
?? It is a certainty that the lake will continue to experience this build up of sediment
at the inlet area as well as the rest of the lake area. The Park now has the prime
opportunity to enlist the assistance of the State’s National Guard unit to do the
dredging work at a significant savings and solve this problem for the foreseeable
future.
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 …?
?? The Park has had a excellent working relationship with the City’s Recreation
Department dating back to 1981 when the Department’s summer program were
moved to the Park after the passage of Proposition 2 ½ . Since 2002 there has
been an increasing number of recreation related events held at the Park. One of
the larger events is a fishing derby held at Willow Lake that attracts hundreds of
young anglers to the banks of the lake in April each year! From the Park’s
perspective this relationship has been a positive one and it would be safe to say
that City supported activities will continue to be hosted by the Park.
?? But since these new athletic field areas are supported by public dollars I would
strongly agree that there should be a memorandum of understanding in place
between the Park’s Board of Trustees and the City’s Recreation Commission
regarding the use of these CPA funded facilities in the future.
5. Will the length of the inlet from Mill River be dredged also or just Willow
Lake?
?? At this time we anticipate dredging the inlet from the Mill River as well as Willow
Lake. If we do not address issues with the inlet any sediment left in place within
the inlet will eventually reach the lake and thereby reduce any benefits gained by
dredging the lake.
?? If the inlet issues are not addressed future dredging of Willow Lake would be
required at an earlier time, as a source of increased sedimentation would be that
much closer to the lake.
?? In addition, sediment currently in the inlet is beginning to damage the existing
culvert under the Park roadway.
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?
?? Depending on land use patterns upstream from Willow Lake, which contribute
sediment into the Mill River, the frequency of dredging will change. In 25 years
more dredging may be necessary, however, if steps are taken to reduce
sediment build up within the lake that period could be stretched to anywhere
from 30-50 years.
?? As a part of the design a sedimentation basin could be constructed in the inlet to
allow for free particles to be knocked out of the water column before reaching
the lake. This could extend the period between dredging significantly.
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?
?? Army Corps of Engineer delineation standards directly overlap with the MA
Wetlands Protection Act.
?? All wetlands indentified for protection under the Act must be indentified using the
Army Corps standards per Massachusetts State Law.
8. Your budget states $1,500 for a Site Meeting. Can you explain these
expenses?
?? Due to the technical nature of this project this meeting will incorporate the
services of a Hydro-Geologist, a Civil Engineer, an Environmental Engineer as
well as Jon Wagner, the Landscape Architect, heading the project.
?? This group will be meeting with all Local, State and Federal agencies having
jurisdiction over the various facets of the project.
?? After this meeting is held a complete report of the meeting as well as answers to
all questions generated at the meeting will be compiled. It is estimated that this
meeting and related work will total 20 hours.
9. Will the $75k requested be spent for design services regardless of your
success in acquiring other funds to actually implement the three projects?
?? The funds requested through CPA will be utilized for the preliminary but vital
permitting work related to the lake dredging and for complete design and
construction specifications for the two recreation areas.
?? The permitting process is necessary to gain permission to do the dredging on the
local, State and Federal levels and will provide the National Guard with a plan for
the dredging operation.
?? The mapping, permitting and design work for the recreation areas will provide
the cost figures that will be fundamental for the grant process to secure funding
for the construction of these areas.
10. Is there sufficient available space near the current storage “barns” to
accommodate the new recycle area and materials?
?? Yes.
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?
?? The suitability of the sediment will be determined as a part of the permitting
process not before. A preliminary sampling protocol will be designed to measure
the bathymetry of the lake, as well as to collect sediment samples. These
samples will be used to determine the suitability of the material to be used for
the playing fields.
?? The dredging of the lake is necessary project related to the future of Willow
Lake. The sediment that is threatening the use of the lake must be removed at
some point.
?? If the sediment is not suitable for playing fields then plans must be made to
move it to the two sites and legally cap it or transport it to another site. Suitable
material for the playing fields may have to be included in the cost of the field
construction.
?? It must be noted the dredged material in 1985 was determined to be suitable
and there is a strong possibility that material now will be usable. Additionally, if
the sediment were unsuitable it would not support the aquatic life that lives in
the lake.
12. What would the project look like if the sediment were not suitable for the
playing fields?
?? As noted above the dredged material would have to be capped in some fashion
or transported off site.
?? The costs for the construction of the recreation areas may be increased to
include suitable materials 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?
?? If for some reason the National Guard were unable to do the dredging work the
cost of the project will soar astronomically! As noted in our application similar
work on the pond in Easthampton is costing approximately $2.5M. Willow Lake
is somewhat smaller but it would be a safe assumption that the costs may
exceed $1.5M. The Park will be forced to seek major funding assistance from
the State or Federal level in order to properly address this issue.
?? The involvement of the State National Guard would be as a part of a training
mission. In order to gain support for this training the approvals from many
different levels of the military throughout the State is required. This process has
been started but it is estimated that final approval will not be forthcoming until
March 2010.
?? It may be possible to start the project using CPC funding with the design phase
of the recreation areas and not start the lake permitting process until the Guard
approval is in place.
?? Due to the nature of the project this would probably push back the time table of
the work to be accomplished. As noted in our application, the permitting process
takes approximately 6 months to complete and relies on the approvals from
various local, state and federal agencies. If the permitting process is started
later, these approvals may not be obtained in enough time to allow for the lake
to be drained and dried out to start the dredging during the winter months in
late 2009 and early 2010.
14. How many and what types of playing fields are planned through this
expansion?
?? As noted earlier regarding the layout of these areas, each would include a large
rectangular grassed area. For the Park’s purposes these large grassed areas can
serve a number of purposes for informal recreational play during picnics or
company outings, etc.
?? These areas will be ideal for more formal play either recreationally or even
interscholastically. All that would be needed would be the proper lining and
goals equipment to support soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, football, etc.
?? The exact number of fields would be flexible depending on the age groups
intended to use the facilities. For some perspective one full sized soccer field
(120 yards x 70 yards) could probably be included in each of these new areas.
At this point we do not know the exact dimensions of the grassed areas so it is
difficult to determine the number of smaller fields that could be configured.
Valley CDC Homeownership Sustainability Proposal
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.
?? FORECLOSURE DATA: In 2007 there were 132 legal foreclosure actions in
Hampshire County, of which 40 were foreclosure auctions and the remaining 92
actions were petitions. 2 of the 40 Hamp Co. auctions were on Northampton
properties and 12 of the 92 petitions were on Northampton properties. Total
foreclosure actions in the county dropped to 97 for all of 2008 in response to the
90 Day Right-to-Cure Law. Among the 97 legal actions in the county in ’08, 15
were auctions and only one Northampton property was included. The remaining
82 legal foreclosure actions in the county in ’08 were petitions to foreclose and
11/82 afflicted Northampton. 2009 data is available for the first 8 months and it
shows a significant increase county wide, as the number of legal foreclosure
actions total 192 for the 8-month period. However, there have been only 3
actual foreclosure auctions in the county during that period and none of those
occurred in Northampton. The remaining 189 legal actions in Hampshire Co.,
during the first 8 months of 2009, have been petitions to foreclose and 16 of
those petitions are on Northampton properties.
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?
?? INCOME DATA: 24/29 or 83% of the homeowners assisted during the last CPA
grant cycle had household incomes below 80% of AMI. Valley CDC can and will
commit, if funded, to ensuring that at least 56% (2/3 of 83%) of the households
counseled under Northampton CPA funding will be at or below 80% of AMI.
3. Does the Obama Administration’s foreclosure prevention program
announced last March provide additional opportunities for Valley CDC
to help homeowners at risk?
?? HOME AFFORDABLE REFINANCE & HOME AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION
PROGRAM: Some of the sub-prime loan investors that hold some of our
foreclosure preventions clients’ loans are participating in HAMP. The sub-prime
loan servicers have been slow in training their staff and implementing the
program. Among these loan servicers, the program implementation is often
shockingly incompetent. This seems to be due, at least in part, to persistent
under-staffing. I’ve had only one client refinance under the program. In
general, our clients, who are eligible to refinance, are taking the opportunity to
refinance with a local lender. Some of our clients, who are eligible for HAMP and
have no other option, have submitted applications for HAMP. So far, all the final
loan modifications recorded for our clients have been under in-house
modification programs and we are satisfied with many of the those modifications.
Our office is working with several homeowners who are currently in trial
modification periods under HAMP. We anticipate that those loans will actually be
modified. Some of the HAMP trial modification periods for our clients have
elapsed and the servicers are repeatedly requesting documentation that we have
already sent 3 or 4 times. We are eager to see some of these HAMP
modifications finalized.
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?
?? ADMIN RATE: Valley CDC is a small agency and due to our size, our admin rate
is 31%, which is the maximum allowable for agencies receiving CDBG funds.
Hospital Hill Chapel Historic Preservation Project
1. What other sources have been/are being sought to fund this project?
?? We have no other sources but we may try for the Mass Historic tax credit which
are highly competitive and we understand are decreasing fast. We will use it if
we get it for cosmetic preservation issues like exact replica masonry stairs and
interior restoration. There is crucial need now because of water penetration,
structural deterioration, energy efficiency and access for people with disabilities.
Without these reconstructions there is a serious threat of loss of the building.
The Architect is researching the nature of this tax credit.
2. Can this project be completed in stages?
?? Yes, some parts can be phased. The code required access needs to be first;
preservation of the structure and environmental energy issues will be next. The
fire safety code work is a very critical expense.
3. The three bids are in a wide range. Why is the request for the largest
amount?
?? As we indicated in our application, there are actually only two qualified bids. The
rd
3 is an estimate, it seriously lacked in depth. It is not comprehensive, detailed,
firm and achievable at the quoted price. He noted that he did not have enough
time despite the fact that he visited three times. Of the other two bids, the larger
is more comprehensive and achievable with no extra cost; but the smaller is not
likely to reach completion especially given unforeseen surprises.
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.?
?? Our plan is to open the chapel for regular meals for the needy members of our
community. To date, Lack of accessibility to the physically disabled has made it
difficult for us to achieve this goal. We will open the chapel up for weddings,
birth day parties and other functions. With the Hospital Hill undergoing a massive
transformation; members of the community could use the chapel for some
activities until the anticipated community center is built. Also we believe that the
restored chapel exterior adds to the beauty of the community and it is there for
them to enjoy.
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?
?? We are still in the process of researching the Architect's suggestion; from what
we have been told it is a very arduous process and there are no guarantees.
6. What is the public benefit? What is being proposed here by the applicant
for benefit to the broader community?
?? The Most critical thing here is to keep this national, regional and local historic
value standing for all present and future generations to see and enjoy. (see
answer # 4)
7. What long term preservation restriction is being proposed by the
applicant?
?? To disallow any exterior changes beyond this phase of work; to enhance historic
preservation to the highest authenticity. If the building were to change hands we
will ensure that the historic character of the building is maintained.
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?
?? We would not be able to fund the high cost of public accessibility with such a
small congregation and we will not be able to fund the rest of the project. Even
the state tax credit program will not complete the other works.
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.
?? Our commitment to the chapel even when we did not own it shows that we will
maintain it after the work is done. We cleaned 400lbs of hazardous bird
droppings at the cost of $8,500; We did not even own the building at that time.
We finished the basement at the cost of $15,000. We have done exterior and
interior painting along with window treatments. We have a painter in our
congregation who is in charge of maintenance he will also oversee the upkeep of
the chapel. We also hope to direct some of the tax credit if we get it to the
maintenance of the chapel.
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).
?? Exterior structure, water and energy first- tower, roof, windows, insulation, and
airlock vestibule. Second is public accessibility ramp, accessible bath rooms and
lift. Third is ceiling, sidewalk,etc
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.
?? The only way to get an actual estimate is to develop the scope of services
required and then get the firm(s) to respond.
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.
?? It is impossible to provide estimates without the engineering assessment.
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?
?? We don’t know the cost until we know what the final project will look like but the
Leeds Civic Assoc. will set up a special “Hotel Bridge Upkeep” account to which
the local community can donate. We also anticipate doing fund raisers such as
“Breakfast On The Bridge” another “High Tea On The Bridge”, Bike Race, etc.
4. Will the DPW issue an RFP for this engineering study or is the intent to
sole source the work to a preferred consultant?
?? DPW can issue an RFP if the CPC requests. DPW has had a relationship with
Greenman Pederson for a number of years in relation to City bridge work.
5. How does the rehabilitation of the Hotel Bridge fit into the City and Leeds
transportation plans?
?? The city planner and the owner of the parcel directly across from the Hotel
Bridge are looking into the possibility of creating an on/off ramp from the bike
trail to Main St. This would link the bike trail with the Robert’s Hill Conservation
Area entrance on Water Street and Musante Beach on Reservoir Road.
6. Will part of the engineering study entail assessing the bridge for future
vehicular traffic?
?? No - The DPW does not intend to make this vehicle Accessible.
7. Can the applicant provide letters of support from the community to
substantiate broad support for this project and expenditure?
th
?? Yes, we will ask them to send them in before the Nov 4 meeting.
8. Has an application been made yet to nominate the Hotel Bridge for
placement on the State Registry of Historic Places?
?? We started it about seven years ago but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere in
the process. We will be resubmitting it now.
9. Is the bridge currently fit for pedestrian traffic? Are there any current
safety issues?
?? There are areas of concern for pedestrian safety due to holes in the decking. It is
currently allowed for pedestrian use only.
10. What other sources of funding have been explored for this project?
?? We are just beginning to explore State Historic Grants, Bike Trail Grants, and
Community Development Grants for the larger project, once we know what that will
look like.
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?
?? See attached letter from David C. Turner, President and CEO of Masonic Health
System, Inc.
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?
?? The fire alarm system will not be replaced prior to the release of CPA funds, nor
will the air circulation system; the road will not be re-graded by that time, either.
Work currently being conducted is to prepare the facility for the winter:
unclogging heating units to ensure that there is heat in residents’ rooms,
preliminary patching and paving of the road to allow for plowing and passage of
emergency vehicles, etc.
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?
?? The road to the facility will certainly remain in place for the foreseeable future.
It is not clear what the long term future of the current facility will be, and
therefore very hard to determine what improvements may be lost, if any. The
small house model will be built one ten-bed unit at a time; the speed of
construction will depend in part on the economic climate and the success of the
Capital Campaign for the facility.
?? The average life span of the residents in long-term care is 2-4 years; many if not
all of our residents will not see the small house model in their lifetimes.
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?
?? Medicaid is the single largest payer for long term care in the United States. It
represents 50% of all skilled nursing residents, including those in for-profit
facilities. Non-profit facilities carry a much higher ratio of Medicaid-eligible
residents. Medicaid eligibility is defined as 100% or less of the Federal Poverty
Level. As a non-profit nursing facility, the Overlook would remain at least 50%
Medicaid eligible, no matter the 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?
?? 65% of the residents of the Overlook at Northampton are Medicaid-eligible,
which is defined at 100% or below the Federal Poverty level
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?
?? MHS closed on the facility on July 22, 2009. The purchase price was well-
documented at $4 million. The facility had been valued by the County at $4.7
Million.
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?
?? Many of the unmet capital needs were known prior to sale, and MHS was aware
that a certain capital outlay would have to be made. However, long neglect of
the life-safety systems has aggravated the problem beyond the original
understanding of the state of the facility. For example, it was known that the
circulation and air handling systems were in need of repair, but the extent of the
damage was not known until MHS took possession of the building. The result is
that actual cost estimates for repairs have far exceeded the original estimate.
This includes items not addressed in this proposal, such as the kitchen, furniture,
equipment and other items.
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.
?? See attached projections from the CFO. This is not considered a development
project at this time; there is no development budget.
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?
?? There are no State funding sources available to support skilled nursing facilities,
other than Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, which do not cover the full
cost of care.
10. Does MHS have other organizational resources that can support the
improvements?
?? As a non-profit organization, MHS is fortunate to have a considerable
endowment, accrued over many years. Cash outlay from that endowment was
used to purchase Hampshire Care, and then the cash was replaced through
financing arrangements. The amount of cash that can be used for capital
improvement from the endowment funds is limited, in order to preserve it for the
future. Therefore, MHS is seeking outside funds (if available) to augment the
funds readily available for capital 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?
1. Fire alarm replacement. This is the most serious life-safety issue. The facility is
on fire watch with the Northampton Fire Department.
2. Air handling and Circulation System. A reliable
3. Re-grading and repair of the road.
12. What are the repair estimates based upon? Will the applicant secure at
least 3 bids if awarded the funding?
?? Repair estimates are based on a field survey conducted the week of July 20,2009
by George Senerth, MHS VP of Environmental Services, McGill Engineering and
Reno Engineering. MHS will most certainly secure at least 3 bids if awarded CPA
funding.
13. Does the timeline for the repairs match the availability of CPA funding,
which would likely not be available until early 2010?
?? As outlined earlier, repairs currently underway are the essentials needed to
secure the facility for the winter, ensuring that resident rooms have adequate
heat, that the road is passable for emergency and delivery vehicles, etc.
Replacement of the Fire Alarm and Air Handling systems and re-grading of the
road will not begin until 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)
1. Fire alarm replacement.
2. Air handling and Circulation System.
3. Re-grading and repair of the road.
15. Describe Overlook’s eligibility criteria for new residents. Are
Northampton residents given any preference over other applicants?
?? Eligibility for skilled nursing facilities, particularly non-profit facilities, is based on
need, not on payer source, residency or any other form of discrimination. While
it is likely that most of the residents would come from Northampton or its
environs, Northampton residents would not be given preference over other
applicants.
Childs Park Open Space Project
1. Why has the pond not been dredged for 40 years?
?? Other financial priorities.
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?
?? The work has not been done for 40 years....sure it could be put off but we would
rather do it now.
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.
?? Mr. Huntley has told us we will be able to pump what little water is in the pond
into the storm drain. We will not be removing enough material to need a permit.
The material will be composted by our staff and used in other location in the
park.
4. Are there unique or threatened plants or animals in the pond?
?? No
5. What other sources of funding have been explored for this project?
?? None
6. Only one estimate has been provided. Has the applicant requested other
bids?
?? We did ask other contractors for bids, the job was so small only one was willing
to submit something in writing.
7. Are there any restrictions currently in place that would limit the public’s
access to the park and/or pond?
?? No the Park has been open to the public for almost 60 years and is not fenced in
any way.
Barrett Street Marsh Open Space 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?
?? The $5,000 is to implement a beaver deceiver, which is an immediate
recommendation of the Barrett Street Marsh Task Force. The Conservation
Commission realizes that the Barrett Street Marsh is dynamic ecosystem with
water levels, vegetation, and wildlife that change seasonally and through the
years, and intends on utilizing these funds for an engineered solution that
immediately protects neighboring properties and the viability of the wetlands and
the wildlife that the marsh supports. Due to exorbitant costs and the necessity
of additional city-wide discussion, the Commission does not intend, at this time,
to implement the one-year and five-year recommendations of the Barrett Street
Marsh Task Force.
2. Please attach a budget to this application and identify who would
complete the work.
?? On June, 19, 2009, Skip Lisle, President of Beaver Deceivers International, Inc.,
provided an appraisal, to a private citizen, for the materials and installation of a
culvert protection and flow device. The cost for the culvert protection and flow
device is approximately $2,500. Since the submittal of the culvert protection and
flow device appraisal, the Conservation Commission and Department of Public
Works has determined that, in order to meet the requirements of a settlement
agreement between the City of Northampton, Pelops Realty Trust, Abutters and
the Department of Environmental Protection, the large dam closest to Barrett
Street must be removed. The removal of this dam requires additional work,
including:
?? Additional design work and installation costs for new beaver deceiver
?? 170’ of pipe from the original dam to the culvert protection system
?? Additional inlet/outlet materials
?? Additional maintenance on existing beaver deceivers
Budget-
Approximately $2,500 for Culvert Protection and Flow Device
Approximately $1,700 for piping-10 per linear foot
Approximately $500 for additional design and installation costs
Approximately $200 for inlet/outlet materials
Approximately $100 for assistance on maintenance of existing deceiver
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? Yes, other work can be completed even if there is no or little money for
painting. Given the demand on CPA funds, are there other items in the scope of work that are less
critical? I would prioritize the project list as follows: 1. 3 bathrooms; 2. Window replacement; 3. Pantry
and food storage renovation; 4. Gutters; 5. Painting; 6. Kitchen upgrade; 7. Porch support; 8. Heating
system upgrades.
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? Insulating the building envelope and replacing/repairing flooring should also be addressed.
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? Contractors will normally only
honor bids or quotes for 30 days. While the budget estimates developed here are only preliminary
quotes, the soundness of the numbers is fairly definite. All labor for work would be based on meeting
state prevailing wage requirements. Once decisions were made on available funds and what projects
would be addressed, firm quotes would be solicited.
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? Central Services routinely solicits quotes for painting projects in
city and school buildings. As a result of prevailing wage regulations it is not uncommon to see quotes of
$15,000-20,000 to paint a number of rooms or paint exterior trim around a building. Here, with the plan
being to repair/replace siding as well as paint all the trim and siding, estimates of around $50,000 may
not be unreasonable.
Habitat for Humanity Community Housing Project
1. Why didn’t the site development work reveal the extent of the ledge?
The earlier site development work was very limited. Due to the cost of heavy equipment at the
site, we do not do a lot of site testing prior to the installation of the underground utilities. We
had a contingency for ledge, but it was more extensive than we had hoped it would be – and
we came across ledge in odd pockets as we started the site work – we revisited the site plan
with the ZBA to minimize the cost of dealing with the ledge and we wanted to avoid blasting as
the neighbors have all along expressed much concern about the possible impact to their
foundations if we did do blasting – we have juggled the site layout so that blasting will not be
needed – the limited removal of ledge can be accomplished with a jack hammer type piece of
heavy equipment.
2. How would the requested $180,000 be allocated – for two homes, three homes or in
another way?
For the purchase of specialized construction services and building materials for the balance of
the three homes at the site, such that in the final analysis – each Habitat home would have
$60,000 in CPA funding. With the constriction on private fundraising opportunities and the
diminished capacity of foundations to provide grants, PVH needs the certainty of the funding
stream so that we can honor our building partnership with Smith Vocational High School
construction trades program.
The $60,000 is an investment – not an grant. PVH issues a 0% mortgage to the families for
the cost of construction and the mortgage repayments provide a stream of funding to continue
building more Habitat homes in Northampton.
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?
The sewer easement issue was sticky, but is in resolution. We have moved from creating a
condo association to building a zero lot line home and creating five fee simple homes instead
of the six unit condominium. Our first two homes will be LEED certified.
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?
The Regulatory Agreement is the document that ensures that the Habitat homes will be
counted towards the City’s 10% affordability requirements. The agreement between PVH &
the City was stricter than the terms of the DHCD Regulatory Agreement so the modification
was to secure and enforce Habitat’s commitment to make the homes affordable to families
earning less than 50% of HUD median income affordability (DHCD’s documents called for
80% of HUD MFI affordability)
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.
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?
The Site work and infrastructure are not complete. The site was cleared and the road carved
in, but the sewerline, waterline, gas line, underground conduits, and road construction remain
to be done. We have dipped into our reserves to move the project along such that we could
be ready for Smith Vocational High School. We are not able to tap the CPA funds until we
own the site, which has been held up by the sewer easement negotiations. We expect to
begin drawing the $120,000 as soon as we own the land (we have expended our Community
Foundation Grant and other grants already awarded to pay these upfront costs until we are
able to draw on the CPA Grant) and expect to draw the lion’s share of the $120,000 in over the
next 9 months. We expect the completion of the first home by end of June 2010 and it will
need the full extent of water, sewer, storm drainage and binder course on the road before we
will be able to receive a Certificate of Occupancy from the building inspector.
Future draws are as follows:
Fall 2010 - $60,000 for foundation and construction materials for 3rd house
Fall 2011 - $60,000 for foundation and construction materials for 4th house
Fall 2012 - $60,000 for foundation and construction materials for 5th house
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.
No, the Fund for Humanity is the fund populated by mortgage payments from the 24 Habitat homes we
have already built and sold. We receive approximately $72,000/year in mortgage repayments. We
earmark these to help build more homes – some of the $72,000 is earmarked for Habitat homes under
construction in Amherst and Franklin County.
b. The homeowner’s monthly payment on this $24,000 loan will be $347.67
The Habitat mortgage will be approximately $125,000 with monthly mortgage payments estimated at
$347/month (this does not include property taxes, insurance, homeowners association fees).
We expect to sell the homes for approximately $125000 and provide a long term (30 year) 0% mortgage.
The monthly mortgage payment is approximately $347. Other monthly housing costs (taxes, insurance,
homeowners association fees) approximate $350/month- approximating a $700/month housing cost. A
family would need to earn no less than $27,814 so as not to be “cost burdened” with this level of monthly
housing expense. Habitat would be able to serve a very low income family with this level of housing
expense.
c. This monthly payment means that a homebuyer’s annual income must be at least $27,814.
Yes – PVH wants to make sure that the family’s monthly housing costs do not exceed 30% of gross
monthly income.