Round Three Answers to CPC Questions
CPC Round 3 Proposal Answers from Applicants
Recreation Department- Playing Fields Feasibility Study
1. Applicant should describe why $40,000 is needed for the detailed analysis of
priority sites and provide a breakdown of the types of work that the money is
anticipated to be used for.
The project is not out to bid yet. We based the figure on previous projects the City has
been involved in, including the Veterans’ Field and Arcanum Field re-designs. We
consulted with Berkshire Design, the firm that has done the three most recent field
renovations for the City including Veterans’ Field, Arcanum Field, and the Sheldon Park
and Ride. A competitive bid process would be needed to move forward for further
details.
2. Please provide a detailed budget with competing estimates for the various parts
of the proposed feasibility study.
As mentioned above, a competitive bid process will be conducted for the actual
feasibility study. The Recreation Department and Planning staff will work together to
conduct a detailed survey and assessment analysis. Assessment of opportunities
throughout the entire City for recreation fields will be heavily based on a Geographic
Information System (GIS) analysis of topography, wetlands, access, land tenure, land
use and other criteria. The Office of Planning and Development will contribute detailed
GIS analysis.
3. Can you specify roughly the number and types of fields you need? Or, more
broadly, what kind of background information has gone into the preparation of
this application?
The Recreation Department is responsible for the scheduling and oversight of non-
school sponsored leagues on approximately 25 different fields in the City from April
through November. There are over 30 groups and/or divisions of leagues, consisting of
approximately 3,000 people, that request use of the facilities throughout the year.
Through these requests alone, we are well aware of the need for more athletic fields.
About a year ago, we held a meeting, led by the Mayor, with over 20 representatives
from the above mentioned league in attendance. A survey was conducted, and
discussion focused on the number of teams and leagues in the City, and the fact that
more field space is needed. The priority need is for soccer and baseball fields.
4. Who will be doing the analysis mentioned in Part 3 of your narrative?
A formal bid process will take place in which we will solicit at least three bids.
5. Please provide additional letters of support?
1
These will be submitted as they are received them from the leagues.
6. What is the time-frame of this request?
If the process begins in January, we should be able to complete the project by the end
of August 2009.
Nonotuck Land Fund
1. If the CPC limited the amount of funding to the appraised value of the
conservation restriction, could the applicant either renegotiate a price equal to
appraised value or obtain the funds above the appraised value from another
source?
Yes, we would renegotiate the price. However, we now have a completed appraisal
which confirms the estimated value of the CR. The appraised value of the CR is
$135,000, essentially equivalent to our offer of $134,720. (Further information from the
appraisal is available to CPC members on request).
2. To help get a sense of value, applicant should provide information on what type
of development is allowed by current zoning, and provide some examples of
what developers are paying for comparable properties.
The area is zoned rural residential. The parcel under discussion has no frontage and is
therefore not suitable for development. However, if abutting property with frontage
were to be obtained, the resulting parcel would have residential development
potential, which is what we are seeking to protect against.
The appraisal shows recent purchase prices of comparable land, not suitable for
development, which average about $2,000 per acre.
The appraisal does not entertain the possibility, and consequent increase in value, of
this parcel being augmented by other land that would provide frontage.
3. Are state funds available for this purpose?
Our research has led us to the conclusion that, since we are not a municipal entity, and
our project is not a municipal one, it does not qualify for state government funding.
4. When can we expect to know the appraised value of the land?
The appraisal is now available and confirms $800 per acre for the CR. Further
information from the appraisal is available to CPC members on request to NLF.
2
5. How was the price determined? How does this price compare with amounts
(per acre) in other projects of this kind?
The offered price was determined relative to the 2007 purchase price of $900 per acre
for the Conservation Restrictions on two parcels of land just across Chesterfield Rd (John
and Dee Clapp's 55 acres purchased by NLF, and Miriam Clapp's 65 acres purchased
by the City). The $900 per acre threshold valuation for CRs in this area had been
established in prior consultations with Mr. Terry Blunt, then with the Massachusetts
Department of Conservation and Recreation. It is worth noting that the appraised
value of the 55 acre CR ($1,900 per acre) was over twice the $900 per acre we
estimated and paid.
For the current project, we reasoned that because the Anderson/Guyette property
does not have frontage (although it has a right to pass and repass across land owned
by another family member), it had a lower value than that previously paid for the CRs
across Chesterfield Rd. We therefore negotiated a lower price of $800 per acre, with
an option to pay less if the CR were appraised at a lesser value. At the same time,
however, we were aware of the potential, significant increase in value of the CR were
the parcel combined with a frontage parcel as discussed in point 2 above.
The appraisal has now been completed and has provided an appraised value of the
CR for the 168.4 acres at $135,000, essentially equivalent to the amount we have
offered ($134,720).
6. Will the City and the Land Fund hold the restriction jointly? Or, if not, how do you
anticipate this going forward?
Our expectation is that, as is typical with CRs in Northampton and as already
preliminarily discussed with OPD, the Conservation Commission will hold the CR, either
solely or jointly. In the latter regard, we understand that the Conservation Commission is
willing to cohold this CR with another suitable nonprofit land conservation organization,
and we are exploring this possibility.
Stewardship would be under the purview of the city. In accordance with discussions
with OPD staff, we have included the requested amount of $200 per acre for a
stewardship endowment.
7. What is the time-frame of this request?
We would like to close on the CR by August 2009. A much less desirable course of
action would be to have to extend our Option to Purchase for another year (until
August 2010), which extension is conditional on our having raised at least $44,458 by
August 2009 (as stipulated in the Option to Purchase).
Conservation Commission Conservation Fund
1. If the CPC were to fund this at a lower amount (such as $100,000) will there be
value in the project?
3
Yes, there will be value at any level of funding. The larger the pool of funding the more
projects we can move forward on, so less money means fewer projects and more lost
opportunities, but it would still be extremely helpful even if our request was reduced.
2. Who would be permitted to apply for these funds? E.g., would non-City
organizations such as the Nonotuck Land Fund, the BBC, and Arcadia be
permitted to apply for these funds for land acquisition?
Any project in partnership with the City in which the City ends up holding or co-holding
permanent rights to the property. We have done joint projects with MassAudubon (100
acres at Arcadia), Broad Brook Coalition (600 acres at Fitzgerald Lake), Nonotuck Land
Fund (100 acres of CR off Chesterfield Road), Nature Conservancy (55 acres on the Mill
River), the Department of Agricultural Resources (several hundred acres of APRs) as well
as non-incorporated neighborhood groups (Friends of Turkey Hill, Montview Avenue
Neighborhood Group). All of these joint projects would have been eligible.
Because the funds would be so limited (even if our full request is funded), the funding
would be used for bridge and gap financing for large projects and shared financing for
very small projects, so it would not replace specific outside grant requests or requests for
CPC funding for large projects.
3. Would this fund be used to acquire conservation restrictions in addition to
outright land purchases?
Yes, both Conservation Restrictions and Agricultural Preservation Restrictions, as long as
the land is permanently preserved at a reasonable price.
4. Are there any criteria you would use to judge applicants for this fund that are
DIFFERENT in any way from the criteria the CPC uses to judge open space
acquisition projects?
All of the CPC criteria would apply, but we would emphasize four key criteria:
?? Cost of waiting for CPC grant rounds—that is would the project either collapse or be
more expensive if we waited for normal CPC grant rounds.
?? Cost of the project—we tend to do projects only at below market prices, because
we have so many opportunities to do so, unless the criteria for a project are so
compelling.
?? Leveraging of other funds—To what extent is will the project leverage other funds
(including seller bargain sales)
?? Likelihood of success—we almost never spend any soft costs until we have a signed
option, and we have never in 20 years not eventually closed on a property we has
under option. As such, we do a fair amount of staff-level due diligence before
proceeding, and we would do the same with CPC funds and expect the same from
our partners.
4
5. Please provide letters of support for this application (including, if possible, from
entities outside of our City government).
OK, will do under separate cover.
6. Is this entire request for soft costs?
No, but given the criteria we will use, especially cost of waiting and leveraging, many of
the projects will be soft costs, because those are the costs that are hardest or
impossible to get from funding sources and that require the fastest turnaround.
Saw Mills/ Mineral Hills Conservation Area Connector
1. Please clarify the amount needed. I understand that if the State Land Grant of
$191,000 is received, a CPC commitment of additional funds would not need to
be disbursed. If the Land Grant is not received, the applicant will need an
additional $125,000 in CPC funds and borrow an additional $100,000 from
Audubon. How will this loan be paid back- are the additional funds received
from the two sources ($225,000 instead of $191,000) being used to pay back
interest on the borrowed funds?
Because the buyer lowered the selling price somewhat, acknowledging the declining
market for land, we can make the numbers workout if we receive the LAND Grant. If
the City receives the LAND Grant, we still have a shortfall (see proforma below). We
will front the funds from fundraising and related accounts, with the understanding that
we will pay those accounts back as soon as we sell the lot. The remainder of the funds
from the sale of the lot or two lots will fund the necessary habitat improvements that we
have identified on the property (removal of fill and wetlands restoration AND removal of
invasive plant species) and allow us to endow the property, and meet our objective of
endowing every single conservation purchase at $200 per acre.
Even with the state LAND grant, borrowing from city funds will freeze other efforts, such
as restoration of the Turkey Hill site and our revolving effort to purchase land for
eventual sale to the Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge. This obviously creates pressure on
us to sell at least one lot as quickly as possible, even if it means selling it at its currently
very depressed price.
IF Massachusetts LAND Program FY2009 Grant is Funded
CPA LAND
USES CITY* TOTAL
(approved) grant
Purchase price $150,000 $33,600 $191,400 $375,000
Closing costs $1,000 $1,000
Appraisal $1,600 $1,600
Title Abstract $1,000 $1,000
Vernal Pool Assessment $500 $500
Site Assessment (21E) $4,600 $4,600
Survey $3,700 $3,700
5
Total Project Cost $150,000 $46,000 $191,400 $387,400
*Eventually reimbursed from lot sale
IF NO LAND FY2009 Grant BUT CPA
CPA CPA MAS
USES (approved) CITY* Funds LOAN* TOTAL
Purchase price $150,000 $0 $125,000 $100,000 $375,000
Closing costs $1,000 $1,000
Interest to MAS $12,000 $12,000
MAS out of pocket $10,000 $10,000
Appraisal $1,600 $1,600
Title Abstract $500 $500
Vernal Pool Assessment $500 $500
Site Assessment (21E) $4,600 $4,600
Survey $3,700 $3,700
Total Project Cost $150,000 $33,900 $125,000 $100,000 $408,900
*Eventually repaid for lot sale
If we do NOT receive the LAND Grant, we will be able to borrow up to $100,000 from
MassAudubon Society, but have to cover their interest costs and out-of-pocket
expenses (primarily their legal costs). In addition, we have to agree to sell the lot within
a set timeframe, which could make us sell the lot at a depressed price depending on
how the market is doing. Again, even with the CPA funds and Mass Audubon, we will
need to freeze some other efforts.
Because of the needs to repay MassAudubon, if we don’t get the LAND grant even if
we do get CPA funds, we will not be able to fund the habitat restorations and the full
endowment that we want to do with every purchase.
2. What are your options if the CPC does not fund the additional $100K AND the
Cons. Comm. does not receive the land grant?
That is the question that we are grabbling with now, and don’t yet know the answer. In
twenty years of buying open space for the city (and being personally involved with
purchasing 2/3rds of all city-owned conservation land and conservation restrictions and
almost 1/3 of all federally protected land in Northampton), we have never not excised
an Option to purchase land. I do not want to start now, both because this is such a
great parcel of land and because it has been an extremely effective track record that
allows us to buy options for $1 when most agencies have to put up a substantial deposit
to purchase an option.
We are looking at every option we can to purchase the property, from looking at other
loan options, to renegotiating with the seller, to some other more complicated options.
6
If we can make it work we will, but at least as of the writing of this, we cannot make the
numbers add up and we would have to pass.
While the decline of Northampton home values in the current recession has been
modest, three changes have been anything but modest:
1. The decline in the value of the building lots and the interest in building lots, on a
property where two buildings lots were going to help solve our cash flow
challenges.
2. The drop in stock value which has made most of our major donors unable to
provide significant donations and most of our smaller donors are too worried
about the future to do so.
3. The freezing of state grants and other funding sources.
3. What is the selling price of this land?
$375,000 (down from the $385,000 that we originally had it under option for and which
was supported by an appraisal.
4. What is the total cost to preserve this land?
Between $387,400 and $408,900 (see two proformas above), with a portion of this
eventually paid back by lot sales.
5. Does this land actually connect the Saw Mill Hills and Mineral Hills Areas?
Yes it directly connects to one protected section of the Saw Mill Hills. There is a short
road section between it and Mineral Hills
6. What is the City’s land acquisition strategy for this area? Are other parcels
available or soon to become available?
This purchase helps land lock (although that is NOT the reason for this purchase) other
land in the Saw Mill Hills. As such, although we want other parcels, they are not going
to be developed anytime soon. We will purchase them as sellers are prepared to sell,
without worrying about completion from developers over the next decade.
DAR
1. The Northampton CPC requires a permanent preservation guarantee from all
historic preservation projects we fund. Is there a current preservation guarantee
on the House? What type of guarantee does the DAR propose with this
application?
Jack Horner told me that since the chapter house is on the National Register, we could
worry about a deed restriction later. We don't have one now because we can't afford
an attorney to draw one up.
7
2. Does the work on the flagpoles qualify as historic preservation?
I guess it could be debatable whether the flagpoles, one flying the American flag,
could be considered "historic preservation".
Valley CDC Predevelopment Loan Fund
1. Prior to site control, my assumption is that this would complement the Initial
Feasibility Assistance of $7,500 from CEDAC. Is this correct?
CEDAC IFA funds are only available after site control is obtained. The Valley CDC
Predevelopment Loan Fund would be used prior to site control. Once site control has
been acquired, the Predevelopment Loan fund would not be used on that project
again.
2. Would applicant object to a condition that “the funds be used only for projects
where the predominant beneficiaries of the housing will be households with
incomes below 80% of area median”? This will allow Valley CDC to have the
flexibility to develop mixed-income and mixed-use projects, providing that the
primary beneficiaries are LMI households.
Valley CDC would agree to this condition.
3. Is it reasonable to assume that all the properties you spend CPA
predevelopment $$s on will be proximate to public transit or bike lanes/paths?
Yes. Properties that are not “reasonably” close to public transportation would not meet
the states sustainability goals or the needs of residents within our developments.
4. Since Valley has specified a goal of $100,000 for the predevelopment fund, do
you anticipate this as a recurring request?
As Valley CDC develops a track record for the initial request for $25,000, the agency
does anticipate requesting additional increases to the fund through CPA. The greater
the amount in the fund will allow the CDC to increase the number of projects within its
pipeline, thereby increasing the capacity of the agency. As Valley CDC’s pipeline
increases, it may be possible for funds to be set aside from future housing projects as
detailed in Valley CDC’s Strategic Plan.
5. Is $25,000 a sufficient amount to assure Valley the financial strength to act
strongly in today’s market?
The short answer to this question is yes. However, the present market and its future
condition is unknown. This initial amount will allow the CDC to begin to “fill the pipeline”.
As the predevelopment loan succeeds and the number of projects in the pipeline
increases, it will be important to increase the fund amount in order to include other
potential new projects in future years. Even if the loan funds are paid back to the fund
8
when a project succeeds, a fairly large project with an extended predevelopment
timeline prior to site control could tie-up the full amount fairly quickly. On the other
hand, two to three small projects could move forward at the same time. So the answer
does depend on what and when opportunities are presented. Today’s market also
brings uncertainty to the availability of state housing funds as well as CEDAC’s
predevelopment and acquisition loans. Although a stagnant housing market provides
more opportunities for the CDC, a slow down in state money could present the need to
increase the predevelopment loan fund as well as its scope to beyond site control
activities. Valley CDC views the allocation of $25,000 for the predevelopment fund as
an extremely positive first step in increasing Valley CDC’s housing development
capacity.
King Street SRO
1. Since the applicant has site control, is there a reason why CEDAC can’t provide
all of the predevelopment funding?
CEDAC will be providing both an acquisition loan and a predevelopment loan. The
submitted CPA application “CPA Fund Budget” projects paying down the acquisition
loan and paying for some predevelopment expenses. Use of CPA funds will reduce the
interest to CEDAC for its acquisition loan and predevelopment loan. It is also
acceptable for us to allocate all of the CPA money (minus the $25,000 for VCDC staff
and overhead) toward the CEDAC acquisition loan rather than as listed in the
application for the “CPA Fund Budget”. Either option will reduce the cost of carrying
interest payments to CEDAC prior to a state funding loan closing.
2. What due diligence will the applicant be able to complete before acquiring the
property? What is the backup plan if Valley CDC acquires the property with a
CEDAC acquisition loan but then cannot obtain necessary funding or permits?
Our due diligence prior to acquisition will include an appraisal, environmental review
which includes asbestos and lead testing, and a zoning review with Northampton
Planning staff, and preliminary designs. CEDAC as acquisition lender is cognizant of
funding priorities at the state level and how this project will compete with other similar
projects across the state. We are confident that DHCD would fund this project if
CEDAC provides an acquisition loan. CEDAC will do its own due diligence prior to
approving the acquisition loan to ensure they can expect repayment. Additionally, the
state has prioritized funding to this type of project. If the state, however, does not fund
the project during our first submission, it is typical to resubmit the application a second
time. However, applications are funded based on readiness to proceed. Valley CDC
would not submit the application before all necessary due diligence is 100% complete
and documented. Valley CDC’s track record since 2001 is stellar – it has had its last four
projects funded during their first submission.
Worst case scenario -- if state funding for affordable housing were no longer available,
Valley CDC would be forced to sell the building and repay the acquisition loan to
9
CEDAC.. Fortunately, Northampton is a desirable market and CEDAC considers the
market as well when considering acquisition loans.
3. The language in the application, as I understood it, indicated that while the
acquisition price is listed at $400,000, only $250,000 of this relates to the current
value of the building and $150,000 is to compensate the seller for the demolition
it completed. Is this correct? If so, does the additional $150,000 paid to the seller
for demolition actually lower construction costs by Valley CDC by $150,000?
No. The acquisition price, which needs to be confirmed by an appraisal, is $400,000.
The language in the application is Valley CDC’s perspective on the value of purchasing
a building that has been gutted. The demolition value is based upon recent demolition
costs at our School Street project. We would see a savings of approximately $150,000
under the demolition construction line item. On the other hand, the construction
number in the submitted budget should remain the same to cover the additional
expense of potentially installing an elevator in the new project.
4. According to the development budget, Valley CDC will be asking for almost
$200,000 per unit in state subsidy (combining HOME, AHTF, CATNHP and HIF). As I
understand it, DHCD has set a limit of $100,000 per unit in state subsidy. How is
this reconciled?
It was Valley CDC’s understanding that this new officially unannounced policy of the
Patrick administration pertained to only “state bond money” as noted on our submitted
budget to CPA. We believe our incomplete understanding is due to not submitting a
One Stop application in the last year. Valley CDC staff and our CEDAC representative
have had recent conversations with DHCD about these limits and the inclusion of
federal dollars (HOME $) in this limit as the state tries to stretch both state and federal
housing resources. DHCD expects to exceed that limit for SRO and/or homeless units.
We will reconcile this shortfall by possibly seeking additional funding through MHP or
FHLB’s Affordable Housing Program. Although, MHP typically funds “family housing”, we
are hopeful the state’s priority to fund homeless housing will modify this position. If not,
we will need to apply for FHLB funds previous to submitting a One Stop application to
DHCD. These types of issues are “par for the course” at this stage of the development –
we remain hopeful.
5. Please provide the rent schedule. Are there some project-based Section 8 units
figured in? For the units without project based subsidy, what is the rent, and what
income is needed to afford the rent?
See Attached.
10
An individual would need approximately $16,800 in income to afford a unit at
$420/month if they were spending 30% of their income on housing.
6. What is the amount of CPC funding needed prior to construction loan closing,
that may be lost if the project does not proceed to construction?
We see the largest risk is before a funding commitment from DHCD (and not the “loan
closing”). Valley CDC will utilize the $25,000 for staff and overhead previous to a DHCD
funding commitment. In addition, we would prefer the flexibility of using CPA money to
pay down the acquisition loan ($65,000 projected in our CPC application) in order to
reduce monthly interest payments owed previous to a DHCD loan closing. Other
predevelopment costs will also be paid down by CPA after a funding commitment is in
place
7. By what approximate date will you know whether this project is a “go” or not?
Firstly, Valley CDC is still doing its due diligence regarding acquisition of the property. It
would estimate that acquisition financing would be approved (or denied) by mid-
December. Secondly, state funding is dependent on funding round schedules. Worst
case scenario if we are funded on the first round would be late 2009, early 2010. Best
case scenario is late summer 2009.
8. With the elevator, will all 8 units be handicapped-accessible?
There are many levels of accessibility. Only one unit will be made “completely
accessible” (Group 2B).
9. Do you project any common spaces?
Because of space limitations, at this time - with the exceptions of egress - we do not.
11