OPD Project Answers
Northampton Community Preservation Committee
Questions and Responses to OPD coordinated applications, Round 1 2012
For all OPD applications and those coordinated by OPD:
1)Please prioritize the Planning Department applications.
In order of priority for the Office of Planning and Development:
Broad Brook Gap (Conservation Commission and OPD)
Beaver Brook Bridge Restoration (OPD and Bicycle and Pedestrian)
Connecticut River Greenway (OPD)
Main Street Streetscape Park (OPD)
Conservation Fund (Conservation Commission)
2)Would it be possible to phase small amounts to some of these projects over several
years?
Broad Brook Gap: NO
Beaver Brook Bridge Restoration: NO (possible, but the overall project cost would be far more
expensive if segmented)
Connecticut River Greenway: YES (do southern leg first)
Main Street Streetscape Park: YES (do initial design first)
Conservation Fund: YES (totally scalable)
3)Recognizing that you have submitted these projects to the CPC in the past, have any
aspects of the proposals changed? Do any of your answers to the questions previously
posed by the CPC need to be updated?
Broad Brook Gap: New project
Beaver Brook Bridge Restoration: YES, the bridge condition generally continues to worsen over
time
Connecticut River Greenway: YES, did initial feasibility of planned route (in application) AND
exploring extending southerly leg further south.
Main Street Streetscape Park : YES, extending scope to wider area (see application)
Conservation Fund: YES, new projects this round and all existing fund expended or committed.
Connecticut River Greenway
1)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were
to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the
project can be segregated. If not, please state so explicitly.
Yes: We could do just the full design from Damon Road to River Run (leaving out the
feasibility for the next section north). If the Hatfield connection were omitted from this stage,
the CPA request would be reduced to $160,000.
2)Can the construction of the Damon Road through the boathouse to the River Run
roadway portion be completed before the construction of the rest of the trail is fully
funded, or does it all have to built together? What is the distance of this part of the trail?
YES, that section can be built first. The distance from the Lane/boathouse site to Elm Court
Road in Hatfield is about 1.2 miles.
3)The explanation of the MassDOT “design phase” is difficult to understand especially
when different segments of the rail trail will be handled somewhat differently. Does
25% as referred to in the application mean that design for at least 25% of the rail trail
length has been completed? Or does it mean that 25% of the design work (qualitatively)
is complete for the entire project?
25% means that the alignment for the entire project has been exactly defined, so that the big
picture questions are all addressed. For those of us who are laypeople, 25% plans look like the
entire project is fully designed. What happens from then on is the actual construction drawings
that design retaining walls, address wetlands and permits, land acquisitions, materials,
construction methods, etc. 25% refers to a guess that 25% is done at that stage.
4)The timeline provided is difficult to follow. Please clarify whether you are you seeking
funding for the entire design through Year 4, or just that necessary to submit the 25%
design for federal and state funding? In that respect, how much funding is needed to
achieve 25% design vs. 100% design?
We are requesting the full budget to 100% design for the boathouse loop portion of the trail, and
25% design (feasibility) for the northern section of the trail to Hatfield. If we don’t sign a
contract for the entire project it gets far more expensive since it is very hard to change
engineering firms. If the entire CPA request is granted, the project will be funded (including
the $25,000 match shown in the budget) through the end of year 4. The biggest leveraging will
come with construction dollars once the design is complete.
5)Please explain the difference between the “conceptual design” referenced in the
application and 100% design? In other words, what specific work would the CPC fund?
100% is full design for the portion that we know will be built same day. 100% design means
that a project is ‘shovel ready.’ Conceptual is for the portion where right-of-way and stream
crossing issues create challenges and allows us to go far enough to assess these issues and enter
into land negotiations.
6)Will the funds requested be used for the design of the boathouse facility, or just the
associated rail trail?
NO. The projects are related and in terms of match the boathouse project’s $100,000 funding
(from outside grants) match the project but we are not asking for any CPA money for boathouse
design in this application.
Main Street Streetscape Parks
1)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were
to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the
project can be segregated.
YES, we could do conceptual. This project is totally scalable.
2)Please clarify, in terms of acres or square feet, the reduction in the amount of impervious
surface as a result of the proposed changes.
This will vary based on the layout chosen for construction, but the paved area directly in front
of City Hall represents approximately 1,500 square feet of impervious area.
3)Please provide any evidence corroborating the claims about crosswalk safety.
The city hired Nelson/Nelson, of the foremost traffic planners in the US, to identify ways to
make Main Street safer. This project is their conclusion. Their report is available at
http://city.northampton.ma.us:8080/weblink8/0/doc/248612/Electronic.aspx. In the
alternative, ask anyone who works in City Hall how many close calls they have had, and
witnessed, and you will quickly get a non-scientific sense of the problems.
4)What is the perspective of the DPW and Northampton Police Department regarding the
proposed changes? What coordination has occurred between OPD and these
departments?
The project has been discussed before Transportation and Parking Commission (which includes
the Police Chief and DPW Director) and the entire Commission was extremely supportive. For
any project like this, the devil is in the details (turning movements, vehicular constructions, etc)
and the requested funding will allow us to address those details.
5)How much funding would be necessary to complete just the design stage?
$50,000 for the minimum phase of design. Full design can be higher depending on what the
final solution is.
6)CPA funds would be used for design and basic layout, and “additional funding will be
sought from other sources for construction”. What are these “other sources”? There is a
reference on page 5 to “National Endowment funding”. Please explain.
We will look for whatever grant funds we can obtain. For example, the City’s former economic
development director applied for National Endowment for the Arts funding for the project. It
was not funded, but we will always be looking for a variety of funds to move the phases that we
hope CPA funds into full design.
7)There is a conflict between the statement that the park will make the street safer, and
that it would be possible to “sit in the road between City Hall and Crafts Avenue
without fear of being hit by a car.” Please clarify.
There is a point 10’ south of the mailbox that you can sit in and probably (I wouldn’t let my
daughter do this) never be hit. Cars can, and sometimes do use this pavement, but don’t need
to so they could avoid the person there. For perspective, the eastbound travel lane in front of
City Hall is the same width as Route 91, including the shoulder and breakdown lane. The cost
of that wider crossing, however, is wider crosswalks on Crafts Avenue and Main Street, where
cars do travel, and the longer distance a pedestrian must go through heavy traffic, the more
opportunities for crashes.
8)Why has the City identified these parks as priority for pocket park development, ahead
of small parks in other parts of the city that would benefit blighted areas or also serve as
traffic calming measures?
We are working on projects like this in various places in the city using various means, CPA,
traffic mitigation funds, etc. Next month EPA is flying a team into Northampton to focus on
green street infrastructure including our Pavement to Parks program. Our top priority is
places with major traffic benefits, a majority of low and moderate income persons, and
especially effective parks benefits, all of which apply here.
Broad Brook Gap Acquisition
1)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were
to grant you less than the amount requested. If so, please explain which aspects of the
project can be segregated.
NO. This project is a lumpy project.
2)The purchase and sale agreement has been signed – is its finalization dependent on
getting a CPA grant?
We signed an Option. The seller is committed but we can back away if we don’t’ get funding.
3)Can any of the money in the Conservation Fund be spent for this project?
Those funds are all committed. We are using about $10,000 from that fund for soft costs that are
necessary before the project gets very far (and are not included in the CPA budget request).
There are not additional funds available.
4)Please describe the conservation values associated with this parcel in greater detail.
How much of it is forested vs. agricultural or other use/habitat type? Which rare
species or habitats are present? Does this parcel contain any unique features that are not
found in other already-conserved parcels that comprise the FLCA?
The parcel is primarily forested, with several small maintained fields. The exact rare species is
not known at this point (The state’s program does not publish this data) but different species of
salamanders, turtles, as well as several vascular plants are all possibilities. The parcel’s mix of
upland forest, riverine area, and permanent and temporary wetlands create habitat for a wide
mix of plants and animals. One of the most important features of the parcel is Broad Brook
itself, and some spectacular views of the Brook and surrounding marsh area are possible from
the site. The parcel also includes the ‘Middle Path,’ a well-established trail at FLCA that beins
near Cooke Avenue.
5)Please describe any existing encumbrances or rights to the real property that have the
potential to devalue or defeat the purpose for which acquisition is sought. Has an
Environmental Documentation Report or Title Report been developed yet?
NO encumbrances. An environmental site assessment is underway (this is the CPA
Conservation Fund funded project. Title report is much later in the project since title defects
are easy to fix (by friendly eminent domain).
6)When discussing the option of less than full preservation (i.e. absent the LAND grant), is
the entire parcel initially purchased? If so, from where do those additional funds come?
We would use one of two approaches.
The first, our preferred approach, is that we find buyers for those out parcels before we take
title and our closing is then a three way closing (i.e., seller, city, and out parcel buyers). We
have done this several times (e. g., Turkey Hill, Sylvester Road, Ryan Road). The second is
finding a non-profit who would lend us the funds. We have had such contingency
agreement s in the past (twice with Mass Audubon and once with Trustees of Reservations).
It is not very desirable since we have to pay interest costs and their legal fees, but it is a
viable back up option.
7)When discussing the option of less than full protection (i.e. absent the LAND grant), the
application is phrased in the passive voice. These sections therefore make it difficult to
determine who is responsible for subdividing, marketing and selling interests in the lots
adjacent the road or developing interest in a green cemetery. As you envision the
process, what entity takes ownership of these responsibilities? If it is the City, can you
please provide examples where this approach has been used before? And what
difficulties, if any, have been encountered?
We have done the developing lots many times, although never a green cemetery, and have a
wide variety of approaches. If we had to do that here, we would figure out which approach
works best. For example:
- The city does the permitting and the seller keeps the now more valuable building lot,
discounting the selling price for the conservation land to match (e.g., one project on
Turkey Hill Road, a previous lot on Coles Meadow Road, and last year on the Bean
Farm)
-The city does the permitting and finds the lot buyers, but the buyers are technically
buying from the current seller at the same time that the city is purchasing our open
space (e.g., Ryan Road, another part of a project on Turkey Hill Road, Sylvester Road)
-The city does the permitting, buys the land, and then sells the land to buyers after we
take title (e.g., Westhampton Road)
-The city does the permitting, buys the land, and then sells the land to affordable
housing developers after we take title (e.g., another portion of the Westhampton Road
project and Garfield/Verona).
8)If a portion of the parcel must be developed, please explain what happens if the
responsible party is unable to sell lots or there is a shortfall in the amount needed to
make up for funds that would have been provided by the LAND grant.
We have gone this limited development route over a dozen times and have never had a
problem. Obviously it is hard to predict how long it takes to sell a lot or the exact selling
price, but we build this uncertainty into the process. The overall answer is that the
fundraising (as opposed to CPA and grants) has to absorb any shortfall, but while we try to
get full price for lots, we are all too aware of the time value of money and our budget
projections anticipate a discounted price to move the lots quickly.
9)Please explain whether funding provided by the CPC will be used solely for acquisition,
or whether it could be used for other costs itemized in the application. For instance, will
soft costs be covered by the applicant or through the Conservation Fund, to which the
CPC has previously contributed?
The CPA funds being requested now would be for both purchase price and soft costs, except
for the soft costs we are currently incurring most significantly the environmental site
assessment.
10)Please provide a copy of the LAND grant application. Is the LAND grant contingent
upon CPC funding? What is the timeframe for learning if that application is successful?
The LAND grant application has not been released yet (we anticipate it will be due in July)
so we have not completed that yet. If we don’t get this CPA funding we don’t think we can
fundraise enough to make a LAND project successful, which is why we are asking for CPA
funding now. We anticipate hearing about LAND in October or November and closing in
December, but timelines may shift.
11)Your application notes that this parcel provides new opportunities for trail connections.
Please explain how you envision this parcel being used by the public? Have trails or
access points be developed on the parcel? Will access to non-sensitive areas of the parcel
be guaranteed to residents of Northampton?
One of the oldest (several hundred year old) trails in Northampton is Middle Path Road,
which extends from Cooke Avenue to Coles Meadow Road just south of the Hatfield town
line. A wonderful section of this road, now a trail, runs the length of this property, with a
great spur down to the waters’ edge. These will all be recycled as trails, with one new trail
cut out to Coles Meadow Road on the property. Public access will be allowed on the parcel.
Beaver Brook Bridge Restoration
1)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were
to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the
project can be segregated.
We could split the project, but it would be much more expensive in the long run. The
bottom half of the bridge desperately needs work. The top half could wait a couple of years.
The problem is that mobilization costs can be high, so separating the two projects would not
be cost effective.
2)Has the condition of the bridge changed in the intervening years since the 2006 OPD-
contracted Bridge Inspection Report? Has the condition of the bridge remained the
same or worsened? Do any changes in its condition suggest a greater urgency for
restoration or the type of work that needs to be completed?
There has been no structural failure yet, but there is definitely more missing and crumbling
mortar, so the price for the project is definitely escalating significantly faster than inflation.
3)Please explain the status of the Williamsburg Rail Trail and OPD’s request for funding
for paving and the connection to Williamsburg. Will the recreational purposes
identified in the application be fulfilled if the bridge is repaired but the trail is not
paved? Does the bridge provide any passive recreational use absent the rail trail, such
as greenway access? Can the rail trail be completed without the bridge component?
There is currently a rail trail/greenway that crosses the bridge and extends about 600 feet
into Williamsburg. This section of the trail is on old railroad cinders, but it is still
extensively used by pedestrians and hybrid bicycles. The hope is to improve this trail and
connect with whatever trail Williamsburg eventually builds between Haydenville and
Williamsburg villages, but the trail can be used even absent these improvements. The
project into Williamsburg is not feasible if the bridge is not repaired and fails. The cost of a
new structure would be more than we could realistically get in a grant, especially if we
wanted to, as we probably would, figure out some way to preserve the ruins of the bridge if
it failed.
4)Recognizing that lack of maintenance created the current problems, please detail the
City’s level of commitment to maintain the bridge should the restoration be completed.
Aside from vegetation clearing, what maintenance will be required? Which City
Departments or partnerships are involved? And what level and duration of
commitment has been formally agreed to? Have they provided any written support for
the project?
The bridge was well maintained during the time the railroad was in use. The lack of
maintenance was from circa 1965 until last year when National Grid and the Catholic
Church shared ownership rights and neither party had any interest in maintaining the
structure. As soon as the city took ownership we started maintaining it, cutting back almost
50 years of vegetation from the bridge. Once the requested rehabilitation is complete the
bridge only needs control of vegetation and inspections. If the project is completed it
should be twenty years before repointing is needed, and that will be a maintenance instead
of a capital item. These items fit in the yearly work program the city does (a combination
of DPW and Planning) and are easy to keep up with.
Conservation Fund
1)Please explain the basis for the amount requested. Is $300k the amount of a typical land
protection project? Is the $100k requested intended to cover one acquisition or
potentially contribute to many?
These would cover many acquisitions. The largest amount we spend of CPA funds is
$20,000 per purchase and some have been as low as a $125 recording fee. While we come to
CPC for large purchases for specific application, for every large parcel we purchase 5 or 10
small parcels and the fund covers those purchases and allows us to leverage donations from
individuals, from partner organizations, and from NGO, State, and Federal grant sources.
The fund is completed scalable, i.e., we can spend as much or as little as we get. The dollar
amount is what we anticipate needing for projects we would like to focus on in 2012.
We have been extremely successful at moving through our list of parcels, and have been
able to implement and endow all of the projects. Because the Conservation Fund only has
enough money left to meet existing commitments and costs, we have stopped making offers
on new parcels, which will create a lull in our acquisition program when the projects we are
currently in the middle are completed. We would like to have the program recapitalized so
we can start up these efforts again. We have been preserving an average of a little over 150
acres per year as permanent open space. It varies dramatically, but often our one big
purchase each year (2011-2012 is the Mineral Hills Bookends and we hope 2012-2013 is the
Broad Brook Gap) is about 2/3rds of our annual purchase and Conservation
Fund/partnership projects are about 1/3.
rd
2) In response to a question we posed during Round 1 of 2011, you provided a list of
potential 3 Party conservation or agricultural preservation restriction holders. To the
rd
extent that answer has changed, please amend as appropriate. Please explain if there
have been any difficulties in the implementation, endowment or enforcement of these
restrictions with the parties listed.
While it is the Commission’s preference to find suitable restriction holders for no cost, this is
often not possible. The Commission is working with the Kestrel Land Trust on restrictions
for many recent CPA-funded acquisitions, for a total cost of $30,000. We are excited about
this new relationship, but it has also reduced the amount of money available in the Fund for
new acquisitions.