Loading...
Complete Answers - Round 2 20141    Historic Northampton First, we wish to thank the committee for your lengthy visit on the 28th and for the thoughtful questions you are asking in this next stage of the grant process. Reading between the lines, we assume that you are looking for some way to prioritize the various aspects of this project and to spread it out over more than one grant cycle. None of the work that we are proposing is optional or a frill or can be very long delayed, but we do recognize the pressure on the committee to meet a variety of needs in the community, and we have given serious thought over the past several days to how we might structure our project over a longer period of time. We beg you, however, not to take our honesty and willingness to adjust and cooperate as any indication that our situation is not both very serious and very urgent. It is. If Northampton wants an institution to preserve its history, then it must help us now. Note at 3:15pm on Monday, October 6, 2014: There is new information this afternoon on the asbestos issue. This writer just went into the front Damon basement and found what appears to an untutored eye to be broken and friable asbestos covering the exhaust leading from the furnace to the chimney (photos attached). Because it is not in an obvious location, this was missed by consultants in 1992 and more recently. We will have Abide come and confirm that it is indeed asbestos, but it if is, it requires changing the entire sequence of plans, and it is not possible to do that in the next 30 minutes before this letter is due. October 7, 2014 email from Nancy Wexford - Today I had someone from Abide come and look at the Damon House problem. The asbestos is broken and fallen all over the floor and onto the items underneath it, but since they are going to be here next Monday, they are willing to clean that area up and make it safe enough for us to remove furniture from that basement. This is good news as it means that the schedule I was beginning to build is still do-able. I also spent two hours this morning with Kris Thomson, the restoration carpenter, inspecting all three houses in order to create a priority list for structural and water issues. He was startled by the extent of the Parsons House back wall separation and believes it has moved since he saw it a couple of months ago. He and Alicia Spence, the timber framer, are going to go back up into the attic—hopefully next Monday—and see if the weight of the roof has caused the rear plate to separate from the girt. If it has, this requires action urgently. Since the committee asked whether “the asbestos was on the Parsons boiler friable or otherwise in deteriorated condition such that it poses a current health hazard,” I took a good look at the Parsons boiler and at Shepherd House as Kris and I toured the properties. I attach four photographs, two of the Parsons boiler and two of Shepherd. The Parsons boiler is crumbling asbestos all over the floor and Kris was surprised any heating contractor would work on it. There is asbestos-covered pipe all over the Shepherd basement and it is damaged in many more places than the two examples I include here. Kris and I both feel that it is more than fair to say the asbestos in both houses is friable and deteriorated and very probably a health hazard. 1. Has a termite inspection been performed, and is there an active infestation? No, we have not had a professional termite inspection, but we are certainly willing to. We have relied on restoration carpenter Kris Thomson’s assessment of the damage he observed on the floor of the “buttery” in Parsons House, where insects had worked their way up through the floor into cardboard 2    boxes holding books. The book boxes were placed on the floor in December 2004. When we moved them in 2014, the bottoms of the boxes fell out and we found little tunneling patterns in the floor below them where the termites had eaten away the softer wood. Kris Thomson says that considering the continuing damp conditions and the nearness to the earth underneath, there has been no reason for the termites to leave, and that they are probably busily eating away at the joists of the kitchen and buttery floors as we write. Even if they left that particular location when we disturbed the books, they are likely to be in some adjacent area. 2. Have there been any puff-backs of the heating system in recent memory? The current acting director remembers one such incident about 1978, when she was costume curator at Historic Northampton. Most of the damage then was in the basement, which had not yet been set up for storage, so the effect was minor, but she remembers cleaning up soot that came through a vent in one of the second floor costume storage rooms. While the museum has not experienced one recently, a puff-back is not something we want to prove is a legitimate concern by having one. Puff- backs throw off greasy smoke and soot which is not easy to remove from anything, let alone museum collections. Museum collections require very gentle and specialized cleaning techniques. Techniques strong enough to remove greasy dirt can also prove strong enough to remove the object itself. We can’t just dry-clean textiles, for example, or throw them into the washing machine. In particular, we are concerned about the large and important collection of fragile early baskets in the front basement of Damon House, quite near the furnace. They are already in trouble because of the mold. Cleaning objects after a major puff-back would cost many hundreds of times the price of a new furnace, and we could never afford to have it done. It really makes more sense to intervene before we have the problem, and the more the boilers and furnaces age, the more risk we face. 3. Is the asbestos on the Parsons boiler friable or otherwise in deteriorated condition such that it poses a current health hazard? Our impression from consultants’ reports over the years is that it is in poor condition but not yet a health emergency (however, as noted at the beginning of this letter, the apparent asbestos discovered in Damon today may be in more dangerous condition). Consultants have been pointing out the need to remove it since at least 1992. These include: Leeke Conditions Survey Report 1992: Asbestos is listed as a health hazard under the heading “Life Safety” in both Parsons and Shepherd House, with the recommendation that we “Limit access to these cellar areas.” Baenziger, 2014: Water infiltration and moisture migration has been more common in the basements of the Parsons House and the Pomeroy House, and consequently Biological growth is much more prevalent there. The air in these two basements is also more likely to contain lead, asbestos, fiberglass fibers, and microbial contamination from the areas of open soil. While the basement of each of the houses directly influences the air quality in the useable 3    spaces above, it appears that the usual occupancy of the Parsons House may be somewhat less directly affected by the lowest level. Tilly 2014: Note that Tilly (Abide) says that it would be more cost-effective to remove the asbestos than to repair it. If we do not remove the asbestos now, we will continue to have people living and working directly over the heating system and exposed to anything that might start coming through the ventilation system as the asbestos continues to deteriorate. Not only that, leaving it as is might prevent us from having any professional work done to deal with the mold, which requires vacuuming and scrubbing and could therefore stir up any loose asbestos, as is pointed out in the document from EnviroTech: Envirotech, 2014: Envirotech’s Scope of Work does not include the identification, detection, abatement, encapsulation, or removal of asbestos or other similar hazardous substances. In the event that Envirotech encounters any such products or materials in the course of performing its work, Envirotech shall have the right to discontinue its work and remove its employees from the project until no such products, materials or hazards exist. Further, Envirotech shall receive an extension of time to complete its work and will receive compensation for delays as a result of such a situation. 4. Have alternative storage sites been explored in connection with the Parsons/Shepherd houses? Shepherd House houses the offices of the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities, and most if not all of the material in the Shepherd basement (there is very little there) will be disposed of whenever the basement can be cleaned. No outside storage is necessary. There are three basements in Parsons House: (1) Most of the material in the 1981 Parsons basement consists of exhibit platforms and will probably be disposed of. The old shutters can be stored temporarily in the barn. (2) The plan for the archaeological items in the 18th century basement is to replace their cardboard boxes with Rubbermaid type bins. The items themselves are not particularly fragile and they can be stored in the barn while work is done in the basement. (3) The basement under the Parsons ell is nearly filled up by the stairs, the furnace, the hot water heater and the bulkhead access. It is not a place where we store collections, though the tenant may 4    have a few things there. We do not foresee a problem with the few small items that might be saved from this basement. Damon House presents the biggest challenge in terms of emptying the space and storing the objects removed from it. Our plan is to use Parsons House as the primary holding area for items removed from Damon House and to use rented climate-controlled storage off-site only for the spill-over. This appears on the budget under Damon House as a $3000 expense. We are confident that, with volunteer labor, we can remove collection items from our houses (mostly from the Damon House), clean the basements in which they are stored, and then gradually clean the objects and return them to basements that are clean and dehumidified, and heated with cleaner and more reliable gas boilers. 5. Has the report been received yet from EnviroTech concerning the mold? Yes. You will find it attached to the same email as this report. The EnviroTech report is very organized and helpful. This firm works with many museums and is sympathetic to our situation and our very limited resources. The report was deliberately written to provide an itemized outline of all the steps that need to be done to deal with the mold (no matter who actually does them) and to separate the costs of dealing with each part of the project since EnviroTech understands that they will not be hired to do every step. If they were, the total cost would be $113,485. We are just beginning to work out how much of this we can safely do ourselves. Preliminary discussion suggests that we may be able to handle the work in both Damon House basements since no one lives there (valued at $62,395). The extent and timing of the work in Parsons (valued at $30,393) is difficult to predict because there is a tenant and because we are not sure yet how this project will interconnect with the other work needed on the house. The Shepherd basement, because of the tenants who work throughout the rest of the building, may have to be done professionally ($20,700). 6. Are there alternative solutions for Parsons other than completion of the basement? We have discussed alternatives with Kris Thomson, and they may be necessary, given limited funding, but this is not a part of the project that lends itself to infinite delay and we don’t have the money to do it at all on our own. There are two choices here: (1) We can take up the floor in the kitchen, buttery and west ell, and also the decking of the back porch to expose the floor joists, sills, posts and termites. After the termites are dealt with, the sill and the bottom of the posts can be replaced, the old joists can be documented and discarded and then replaced by pressure-treated joists spaced at standard intervals. Then a plastic vapor barrier can be laid over the ground (which is about 8” below the joists) and rigid foam board insulation suspended between the new joists. Then the floor boards go back on. We would also need to seal up the openings between the 1981 basement and the kitchen/buttery crawlspace so that the 1981 basement can be kept dry. The problems with this are that: (A) we lose the old framing members in order to get insulation under the floor (rather than insulating the walls of a basement as originally planned) 5    (B) the floors, sills and joists will still be inviting to termites because they are so close to the ground and very hard to keep dry (C) it will cost about 2/3 of the full requested project, and (D) we will have to do it all over when the sills rot out again, which they will, thus wasting all the money invested now. (2) The second alternative is to wait for one year. In this case, we would start action against the termites as advised by a professional. In order to help us reduce the dampness in the house in the short term, Kris would block up the openings between the kitchen crawlspace and the 1981 basement with foam board insulation allowing the 1981 basement to be dehumidified (that is difficult to do now without drawing dampness from the open ground under the kitchen). That should reduce the dampness rising from the basement to the first floor. The second step toward that same end would be to take up enough of the kitchen/buttery/west wing floors to lay a vapor barrier on the ground underneath them. This does nothing to address the structural problems at all, but could be acceptable if full funding could be available the next year, allowing the work to be done in 2016. 7. Can the work be phased? Yes, it could be phased over two calendar years, but any significant delay jeopardizes the collections, the houses, and the health and safety of the people who work in them. The work we are talking about is not optional. The following schedule is a first draft of an alternate two-year project timeline. It is subject to adjustment but will serve to suggest how this work might be broken down. This differs slightly in detail, timing and dollar amounts from the original proposal as we now have a better understanding of what we can do about the mold situation and what will have to be done professionally. The amounts that would need to be funded by the CPA are highlighted in green to suggest how amounts might break down over time, but the short deadline for these questions did not allow us to prepare a full and careful budget. Fall-winter 2014 – costs funded by other donors  Parsons asbestos removal and furnace - this is a financial priority and we have support from the Parsons Family Association to help us. They expect it to be done and work will begin October 13.  Termite inspection and probably first steps such as setting bait.  Detailed inspection of gutters, grading, bulkheads, exterior foundations and interior foundations to determine exactly where water is coming into the houses (scheduled for October 7).  Repair as many of those things this fall as we can possibly afford choosing those that get the most effect for our money – we will almost certainly need to raise outside money to do this. Repair focus definitely on keeping water out.  Purchase a dehumidifier for Parsons House to make the environment a saferone for storing the contents of Damon basement – we have a donation for this.  Move contents of Damon front basement (mostly furniture and baskets) into Parsons House. Wipe down the furniture to reduce mold density. Keeping the humidity low should prevent new growth.  Clean Damon front basement (hepa vacuum, Tyvek suits, respirators, Shockwave) 6     Clear overgrowth from Parsons House back yard to prepare for archaeological dig  Fundraising for archaeological dig Late spring – summer 2015 – Damon House  Remove oil tank and replace furnace in the front basement ($10,000) – this is a priority because the front basement will have been cleaned and empty. It makes no sense to put the collections back in and then try to remove the oil tank and change the furnace afterward  Repair coatings on walls of Damon front basement (no quote – can’t see walls yet)  Wipe down furniture once again and return it to clean storage in Damon basement  Nan Wolverton to come and guide a small group to clean the basket collection and return it to the basement unless better storage can be arranged  Correct grading problems in brick walkway along Education wing ($5000) Late spring – summer 2015 – Parsons House  Take up kitchen floor  Start archaeological dig under Parsons kitchen  As weather improves, extend the dig into the outdoor area behind the Parsons kitchen  When archaeological work is done under kitchen, cover the ground with plastic vapor barrier and close up the floor.  Undertake any water-related repairs not completed in fall 2014 Summer 2015 – Shepherd House  Asbestos removal in Shepherd ($2475)  Remove oil tank in Shepherd ($1200)  Professional mold abatement in Shepherd House ($20,700) o Contain area with negative air pressure o Remove all contents o Document and remove interior partitions and tree-trunk supports; replace with permanent steel posts o Vacuum, clean, remove mold, treat with Shockwave as described in Envirotech quote  Repair any newly discovered problems that are adding to water problem  Install new gas furnace & chimney liner in clean and empty basement ($6,355) Late summer – fall - winter 2015 – Damon Education Center (DEC) basement  Empty DEC basement (the one with thousands of small items) and put them in Parsons House, front rooms of Damon House, or off-site storage  Clean DEC basement (not as dirty a job as the front basement)  Gradually clean the collections from the DEC basement 7    Summer 2016 – Damon Education Center (DEC) basement  Remove oil tank and replace furnace in DEC basement - this could be done fall 2015 if funds available that early ($10,000)  Move clean collections back into the DEC Summer 2016 – Parsons House basement  Parsons basement project as described in the original proposal ($128,563) including o Replace sills and posts as needed o Excavate extension of basement o Build insulated walls inside basement to make space usable 8. Which of the building structures need the most immediate attention? We are so beset with problems on every side that the answer to this is not entirely clear. As of today, the most urgent problem is six windows in Damon House that are allowing the weather to enter the costume storage areas, but that will have to be addressed earlier than CPA support is available so we will do no more than mention it here. At first glance, Parsons House appears to be most in need of structural work. The basic frame of the house is failing in the center back section that sits on the ground. The dampness and closeness of the earth has caused the posts, sills and joists to rot and has also encouraged termites. We don’t know how much of the damage is due to damp and rot alone and how much to termites, but the bottom of the house is now weak enough that the back wall is being slowly pushed outward by the weight of the roof. Fixing this is not an optional frill, but on the other hand, it is unlikely to fall down tomorrow. If we can take some steps to remediate the dampness now, we might be able to wait one more year to fix the structural problem. Conditions at Shepherd House don’t look so bad at first, but it is much more heavily used than Parsons, and the fact that two basement posts supporting the first floor beams have already fallen over with rot is not a good sign. The beams appear to us to be supporting not only the floor above, but also the walls on the first and second floor. We’re going to take another look at this problem, but could not schedule a site visit with the contractor until Tuesday 10/7, after these questions were due. Support of the first floor and preventing water entering the basement are essential here. Rather than saying that one building has higher priority than another, it might be fairer to say that controlling water and damp comes first in the sequence of work done to the houses themselves. That is why those repairs are the focus of the work planned for this fall. 9. What are the immediate and short-term risks to the historic collections in the buildings’ present state? Are these resources in grave danger of degradation or loss? Yes, most of our collections are in grave danger. As noted above, the windows in the Damon House rooms where the textiles and costumes are stored no longer keep out the weather, exposing them to 8    insects and a LOT of dirt that blows in off the street and parking lot. The worst of the windows have now been removed, as you may notice when you drive by. As best we can tell, they had been painted to make them look pretty—for a while—but underneath they must have been rotting. As a result, all the shoes now need to be vacuumed, the dresses feel gritty, and moths fly out of the woolens when they are moved (and no, we can’t use moth balls). More grit and insulation is falling down the chimneys – one fireplace (thankfully with a cover) was found to have a pile of dirt 6” deep. The dirt that flies in the windows and down the chimneys and is churned up from the unvacuumed floors does not just leave textiles gray and dingy. Some dirt is greasy (puff-backs, exhaust from cars) and when you try to handle the object, you smush it into the fibers where it is nearly impossible to remove. Other dirt is gritty and cuts the fibers when the object is moved or rubs against an adjacent surface. Last week the acting director removed all the shoes and textiles from one of these rooms, as a first step in a thorough cleaning, and in the process observed noticeable abrasion, fiber losses, rips and holes that had not been present when she worked here 30 years ago. However, that pales before the urgency of the situation in the basement storage areas. When these spaces were set up in the 1980s, they were clean, organized, had dehumidifiers and were monitored frequently. Then in the later 1990s, this essential museum caretaking was abandoned. Now the floor of the front Damon basement is littered with mouse droppings (probably because holes in foundations and bulkheads were not looked for and repaired), surfaces are covered with black grime, and mold is spotting every single piece of furniture, because foundations, gutters and bulkheads were neglected, sump pits remained uncovered, and the dehumidifiers were allowed to die. In the back basement where many thousands of smaller items are stored, the glass and ceramics will be ok, but everything made of organic materials – leather and paper – is contaminated with mold. Mold is not just a surface blemish that can be wiped off. Its job in the world is to break down organic materials, especially cellulose, and its fibers grow deep into all porous materials where it gets a foot-hold, pulling in nutrients, essentially eating away at the substrate and eventually turning it to slime. We aren’t anywhere near the slime stage yet, but the mold will continue to weaken the internal structure of all our objects made of organic materials if it is allowed to continue growing. Another side-effect of the dampness is that the basements have seen infestations of crickets and other insects in the past, and it is nearly certain we will find silverfish and other paper predators eating the account books. The new board of trustees is dedicated to a fresh and thorough reassignment of priorities to keep Historic Northampton alive as a caretaker for Northampton’s history (past, present, and future). Thus, our museum buildings and the collections within them are our first priority. Most of our collections, and the buildings, are unique and irreplaceable, and each contributes to the story of Northampton as a whole. 10. What are the costs associated with securing the historic collections pending completion of work, or in the event not funded this round, until such funding can be secured? We are creating a priority list focused on water/dampness issues, and will focus our maintenance dollars there this fall. We do not yet have an estimate in dollar terms, but we know we need to repair bulkheads in Parsons and Damon (the Parsons bulkhead requires foundation repair), address window wells, gutters, overhanging tree limbs, grading between the Parsons House and the driveway and similar issues. These items were not listed in the grant because they can neither wait for nor depend on grant funding. 9    With regard to simple dirt, the Acting Director has already begun to clean many of the rooms (organizing contents, vacuuming, washing floors and woodwork, windows and sometimes walls, wiping down furniture, etc.) This work is nearly complete in Parsons House, and the first costume storage room is now empty and ready to wash down this evening. The first steps to protect the collections in the basement are to bring the relative humidity level down below 50% in all areas where collections will be stored because that will arrest the further growth of the mold. It won’t kill it, just buy time. This is already being done in both Damon basements with a pair of affordable mid-quality dehumidifiers. On this sunny day, RH is down to 44% in the front (worst) basement. The newer DEC basement is typically even lower in RH now that we have the dehumidifier. The glass cases in that basement have been opened to discourage microclimates with high humidity. With funds already raised from within the board for this project, we are about to purchase a high- quality, high-power dehumidifier for the Parsons House basement. Kris will temporarily close off the 1981 basement from the kitchen crawlspace so that this unit is not just sucking more moisture out of the soil. This will, we hope, bring make the first floor of Parsons House less damp and allow us to move into that relatively clean space much of the furniture from the front basement. As noted above, the plan was to move the collections now in the Damon front basement to Parsons as soon as it was dryer, but the discovery of damaged asbestos (apparently) in that basement throws all those plans into uncertainty until we can bring in an expert to help us figure out a new sequence of actions. It may be unsafe to work in Damon basement until the asbestos is dealt with—if that’s what it is--and I am not sure how it is to be done with all the collections filling up the space. I apologize that we are suddenly presenting you with an even more urgent problem and a less certain plan. This is only my 6th day on the job and nearly every day I uncover a new issue as I poke into more corners where no one has apparently ventured for years. I will be happy to update the committee as we learn more if that is acceptable. Please advise me how you wish to handle this. Jackson Street Elementary School Ms. Agna Playground Expansion and Outdoor Classroom  What is the capacity of the proposed equipment – will this be able to serve at least the same number of children as the dismantled playground? Yes. In addition to the increased number of physical play structures (purchased items, mounds, custom wooden structure), the expansion of the Ms. Agna playground will offer the Jackson Street and wider community the following: 1. A shed with loose play items. These items will enhance creative and athletic-related and small/large group play. Teachers, staff members, and volunteers can expand or contract the number of play items used, depending on the need and interest of the students. 10    2. The playground expansion will use the asphalt between the school and the playground for additional play space by painting in games such as four-square, hop scotch, around the world, and other popular games. 3. The Ms. Agna playground expansion will allow students to access the adjacent wooded area. Since classes are now consolidated in the back of the school, there are sufficient staff resources to oversee students playing in the woods. Staff, volunteers, and contractors worked over the summer to groom paths to allow for easy and safe access.  Is there any phasing of the project that could allow the project to get started with plans to complete the project with a second round of funding next year? To employ best practices regarding playground construction (remove broken structures and reconfigure others to make room for expansion), we will need to do a significant amount of excavation. The necessary large machinery will make the playground off limits during the time of the construction and then again while the green spaces are re-seeded. Further, since we’ll need heavy machinery to complete the project, to phase it in, means we’ll need to rent machinery twice, thus potentially incurring added expense. Since the school and surrounding community rely solely on the Jackson Street playground, we are loath to risk phasing lest we “take the playground out of commission” multiple times over the next year and a half and put the students and community at a significant disadvantage. As it is, we do not expect to complete work on the Ms. Agna expansion until the fall of 2015, given foundation deadlines and the work to be accomplished to raise the necessary private funding. The Kindergarten play space at Jackson Street is entirely inadequate. As soon as we complete the Ms. Agna expansion, ßvolunteers will get to work overhauling the Kindergarten space. Therefore, any deadline on the Ms. Agna playground, moves that work further out into the future.  Please itemize the equipment to be purchased with the $97k identified in the project budget. Please see the attached itemized bid. You will note that the total (before the discount) is $111,337. This represents both the original $97,000 line item in the JSS budget and the $15,000 line item that represented the handicapped accessible swings in the original budget. In the days since we submitted the plans, further due diligence has led us to a newer, more workable, and less expensive handicapped swings. We invested some of the savings in a larger spinner and in replacing the zig- zag balance beam. Nonetheless, the total is less than projected.  What existing playground equipment needs to be repaired? Initially, we imagined that the zig-zag balance beam (being relocated to a spot next to the swings, in parallel to the school) would need significant repair. After further due diligence, we understand that this piece is beyond repair and must be replaced. We project it will be replace by the We-saw. 11    The stumps are the other pieces that need to be repaired. Right now, they are quite rotten and the worst have been removed on an as-needed basis. To ensure the safety of all concerned, we must remove, repair, and replace all the stumps.  What is the basis for the installation estimate of $14k and why cannot some of this cost of this, along with erection of the $35k wooden structure not be defrayed by enlisting volunteer builders? This appears to be a common practice elsewhere. The full installation price of the purchased equipment would run between 35% and 45% of the total cost ($111,337), or approximately $39,000. The $14,000 line item represents a significant reduction of the full installation price for the purchased equipment and includes the build costs of the wooden structure. The amount breaks down as follows: the labor of two technical directors (@$3,000); two paid carpenters to assist with technically-heavy work on the wooden structure (@$4,000); the rental of heavy machinery with paid operators (@$3,400), repair/replacement of wooden stumps (note: need hard-wood logs custom cut (@$250); the rest of the funds on necessary miscellaneous tools and building materials that cannot be borrowed, water/refreshments for volunteers, etc. So basically, thanks to volunteer labor, what would have been approximately $50,000 in construction costs (for the purchased items and wooden structure) is estimated to cost $14,000.  Did the applicant secure other cost estimates for the quoted $20k for excavation and mulching. This appears excessive. The playground committee requested initial bids from three landscaping companies. Beyond Landscaping was the only company to respond. Beyond Landscaping has a proven track record of working with the community, having completed work for the YMCA and other local institutions. The excavation work necessary is significant. Meeting the standards regarding the play mounds and fall zones, is both labor and resource intensive. We have come to understand recently that the YMCA afterschool program has not been able to use the Ms. Agna Playground because it does not meet code. It is our intention to ensure that the expanded playground be open and accessible to all – so that all children can play outside on warm afternoons afterschool.  How will long term maintenance be assured? The application quotes the Supervisor of School Maintenance as stating “that the playground committee can count on this office for any needed advice or guidance.” But this is far from a binding commitment or even acknowledgment that the School Department will be responsible for upkeep and to avoid benign neglect. Central Service’s offer is help the school committee bring the project to fruition, which arguably also does not include long-term maintenance. Please see the following email from Dr. John Provost, Superintendent of Northampton Public Schools. It was originally received by Jo Comerford. In addition to Dr. Provost’s response, it should be noted that Central Services maintained the wooden structure for decades. In these last years, the structure required extensive maintenance. The expanded Ms. Agna playground will prove much less labor intensive. 12    ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Provost <jprovost@northampton-k12.us> Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:37 AM Subject: Re: Timely: JSS-related question from CPA committee To: Jo Comerford <jo.comerford@moveon.org> Cc: Gwen Agna <gagna@northampton-k12.us>, Tracy Harrity <tharrity@northampton-k12.us>, Ann Hennessey <ahennessey@northampton-k12.us>, Pam Hannah <phannah@northampton-k12.us> Hi Jo, The school department will accept full responsibility for routine maintenance of the Miss Agna Playground at Jackson Street Elementary School for the anticipated lifespan of its component elements. JP Frank Newhall Look Memorial Park Fountain Restoration 1. The budget calls for 4 months of project management at $8K per month. How many people are included in that funding estimate? 2. Some of the estimated costs for engineering services seem rather high (e.g., progress photos = $3600; Telephone $3600). Did you seek other estimates for this work? Please understand that the budget submitted to the CPA is not a construction bid. Marr Engineering, a professional construction estimator, not a contractor bidding on the project, developed the submitted budget. The estimator uses numbers from past projects and regional construction data to create this estimate. The categories for line items in the General Conditions Division reference standard categories in the construction industry and are costs common to any construction project. The estimator determines the construction time period, looks at the size and difficulty of the project, and comes up with an estimate for each line item. Project management costs are derived from this calculation. Progress photos are a common part of complex construction projects like this. They provide documentation of the construction and are distributed to all members of the team. They are compiled into a notebook at the end of the project and can be used as a reference if there are any construction flaws in the future. The cost for project photos is basically the labor for the construction supervisor to document the construction process for legal purposes. Telephone costs are the costs for the contractor to set up phone and Internet connection for the duration of the project. Project managers need to email and fax drawings and documents throughout the construction process. This is a common construction cost. 3. The project also calls for $71K in soft costs that I assume are labor costs. Please provide labor rates and estimates of time required. These costs are labor for the design consultants. See the attached document for labor costs from design consultants. 13    4. Presuming, as the application states, that this feature is integral to the Park, why were trust funds not used for regular maintenance or rehabilitation earlier? The routine maintenance of the fountain has been a part of the Park’s annual operating budget. The Look Park Fountain has had routine scheduled maintenance done to it annually over the past 86 years but with New England weather and the style of construction, some degradation was inevitable. Over the course of this time the Park had successfully repaired and patched the bricks and secured the tiles but recently time has finally caught up with the fountain and the structure is now in need of a complete restoration. Most of the damage to the fountain is from years of moisture getting into the structure and the subsequent freezing and thawing. The Fountain has reached a point where maintenance cannot keep up with the deterioration and the many issues with it now require more intensive repairs. The new construction of the wall, using better, long lasting materials and meeting today’s building codes will insure the fountain is prepared for the harsh New England weather. In addition, there will be a maintenance plan developed in conjunction with the architect and engineers in order to take routine maintenance steps to check and seal any areas which may put the structure at risk. 5. What does the $15,000 lighting allowance cover? Is there any evidence that the original fountain or surroundings were lit? There is no documentation of site or fountain lighting from the original design. Sometime over the last 20 or 30 years the Park installed 2 floodlights to light the fountain from above. They also have outdoor outlets at the fountain to light their special holiday displays. Electricity, outlets and lights were included in the estimated budget to continue this tradition. We also feel that if we reconstruct the fountain, it should be lit at night to highlight the unique qualities of the architecture and design. The public uses the park at night and many thousands of cars pass by the park in the evening hours. It is a special feature in Northampton, and should be highlighted after dark. Lighting for the fountain would be all LED. We would install lights inside the fountain to illuminate the water spray. We would illuminate the carved stones that show the name of the park. We would provide permanent electrical outlets for special holiday displays placed on the ground in front of the fountain. 6. The cost estimate refers to a “prefab” fountain, which seems to undermine the claim that efforts will be made to restore/rehabilitate this site with an eye to its unique history. Please explain. We are in the process of pricing a duplicate fountain bowl to match the original terra cotta bowl. We would dismantle the bowl, ship it to a cast stone manufacturer and they would use the original to make a mold and reproduce it in modern cast stone materials. This material is a concrete product, is constructed to high tolerances, and is able to withstand freezing weather. Ballpark pricing is being prepared in the coming weeks for this fountain element. We are also pricing duplicate cast stone steps for the project. Thomas Douglas Architects 14    Architectural hourly rates o Principals: $95.00 per hour o Project Architects: $85.00 per hour o Draftsman: $80.00 per hour o Interns: $25.00 per hour Connecticut River Greenway  How much of the acreage is intended for the community garden, and how much for the organic farmer? All of the new land being cleared for farming on the northerly side of the fields is for a community garden, approximately 0.6 acres. As in all community gardens, the use will grow over time and if there is some of this land not in use we may make it available for a farmer, but the community garden will always have preference for the land. The land available to our tenant organic farmer will not change as a result of this project. In a separate non-CPA project, a portion of that farmers rent is in labor to clear a different swath of land and bring it into production. This land will be available for the organic farmer. The total land for the organic farmer is approximately 16 acres.  What impact will the use of herbicides have on the organic farmer? We have no intention of using any herbicides in preparing the land for community gardens. As part of our commitment to empowering a traditionally disenfranchised area, we are leaving it to the community gardeners to adopt their own rules about whether they want to be organic or not, but no broad application of herbicides will be used. We are keeping the farm road/trail between the community garden and the organic farmer’s crops and will be able to maintain a wide enough to ensure that the farmer can meet organic farming standards.  What is the likely cost increase if herbicides are not used? We will not be using herbicides for the farmland, so there is no cost for that. For removal of invasive plants far from the farmland, 1) many of the invasives can be removed mechanically, 2) some of the invasives can be removed with organic methods (e.g., goat grazing) at added cost, but for some invasives there is no point in treatment if you can’t use herbicides since treatment is impossible without them. Our focus is to use the most organic method possible that will achieve results.  Is the Connecticut River Greenway Community Gardens and invasive plant removal project called for in the 2013 ecological assessment report (only the 2014 Forest Stewardship and 2011 Open Space Plans are mentioned)? The Ecological Assessment is currently underway. The invasives present at the site are so pervasive that they are recognized as a concern by everyone involved with the project, including the organic farm and the forester hired to conduct the removal. 15     Will the Planning Office or the Conservation Commission keep a running account of invasive removal in Open Space by cost and location (for this and all other open space requests, including recent past and tracked into the future)? Invasives removal has been done on a limited basis as funds, usually through Forest Stewardship implementation grants, become available. This includes $7,000 at the Mineral Hills Conservation Area in 2011, and $16,000 at the Beaver Brook/Broad Brook Area in 2012. Additionally, Broad Brook Coalition was awarded $8,300 in CPA funds for invasive removal work. This does not include volunteer invasives removal efforts conducted by management partner organizations, such as annual weed pulling at Fizgerald Lake by BBC.  The project proposes land clearing up through a couple of years of cover crops. Is a comprehensive plan for a community garden under development by River Run residents? PVPC has created a strategic plan to provide some ideas and approaches for the residents. The residents are working with the city on getting funding to covert the overgrown area into a community garden and has identified the steps for that (shared in our application) but they have not done a comprehensive plan. The nature of neighborhood organizing and empowerment is that community participation will grow dramatically with each success (we have already seen that in the steps to date) and instead of doing a comprehensive plan, which is not an excitement building project, we are working with the neighborhood on a series of action steps (e.g., site visit, work days, etc) to develop their involvement. A comprehensive plan will be developed in one or two years when the site is ready for plots and, by that time, the residents have developed their final governance structure for the project.  The application states repeatedly that the project will serve the immediate community, focusing heavily on River Run. But River Run already has its own community garden that it established on its own, and which its residents tend. What is the benefit of an additional garden? There are a few benefits. First, the River Run community garden is very small and not capable of meeting all of current demand, much less the demand that will develop with more and richer soil. Second, some River Run renters and even some owners want to have a greater role in the governance structure and the decision making of their community gardens than they can at their current site with the rules it operates under. Third, a larger community garden on the river will provide a better sense of community and a connection to the youth who often visit and use the river itself.  How would members of the public access the community garden? What entity would be responsible for the garden? There are already a number of informal trails from River Run to the property. Whether these trails remain informal or get formalized will be up to the gardeners and the River Run Trustees. In addition, the city holds an easement through the Drozdal Funeral Home property. This easement is for maintenance use so it cannot be used for general public access but can be used for access days that we will organize as needed a few times a year for gardeners to bring in heave supplies during the growing season. Users of the community gardens will organize their own governance structure and be responsible for that model. The city has a 30-year model of this exact approach at the Burts Pit Road Community Garden and so we have faith we can replicate that. 16     Is the CPC award essential as a match for the state grant? Could the other forms of in-kind contributions serve as match? The CPA award is being used as the cash match for the DCR Forest Stewardship Grant. Additional in-kind match includes labor from Enterprise Farm, staff time to oversee the project from the Office of Planning and Sustainability, and volunteer time to create the garden from River Run residents. If the CPA award is not made, the state grant will still serve to remove some invasives, but we will have no funding for the community gardens.  What are the adjacent farmer’s perspectives on the invasive species and community garden proposal? Has the farmer or the homeowners association (or homeowners) provided letters of support? Enterprise Farm is extremely supportive of the project and has been working collaboratively with both the Planning Office, Healthy Hampshire (one of our partners in this project) and the project leaders from River Run. Enterprise has offered to continue working on the garden going forward. For their rent of their farmland, they are both clearing brush piles within their farmed land that will allow them to expand their operations and burn the brush piles from the land cleared for the community gardens. Enterprise Farms sees the gardeners as being extra eyes on the property that will reduce some of the historic abuse (drinking parties, dumping, etc) that have sometimes been a problem for everyone. River Run residents have provided a letter of support.  Please make the referenced Stewardship Plan and relevant portion of the Open Space Plan available to the Committee. These documents have been added to the application folder in the online file cabinet.  How does this project tie in to the area acquired for the boathouse and associated park, as well as access? The community garden space is in close proximity to the boathouse park, but is separated by the stream that was formerly the Northampton-New Haven Canal. We have cleared a trail from the community gardens site to the south side of the canal and another trail to the north side of the canal. Long-term plans include a bridge across the canal but this has not yet been funded. Seth Thomas Clock:  Why has location for the restored piece not yet been selected? We have now selected a site, as one of the key gateways into Pulaski Park from Main Street.  What will be the process for selecting the site? The process was incorporated into the Pulaski Park planning project. We offered the clock as part of the park project and the offer was accepted with the plan to move forward on the park. The park project will be funding the electric conduit and connections to the clock and the concrete foundation that the clock will sit on. The project funding being sought is to purchase and restore the clock. 17     How will long term maintenance of the piece be assured into the future? The clock will be restored as part of this project, if funded, so that on-going maintenance will be minimal. Maintenance will become a city responsibility as part of the overall park project.  The letter of support from the Northampton Historical Commission concludes with its unanimous agreement that “the Cemetery” is significant to the history, etc. of the city. Please clarify. Historic Commission staff used the same template for support of this project as the Cemetery and missed changing that segment. The Commission unanimously and enthusiastically supported both projects. Right-to-Farm Signage  How many signs are anticipated. We would like to install six signs (eight if other funding becomes available).  What is the thinking about where the signs will be located? Is it possible to locate signs at the main entries into the downtown, thus ensuring maximum visibility and reducing costs? We considered the gateways to the city and/or downtown but there were several problems. First, these are the areas with the greatest proliferation of signs and so the signs would not be visible, could add to aesthetic sign overload, and actually create problems where drivers tune out signs, including traffic safety signs. Second, we are, as a separate project, installing a gateway sign on Bridge Street into downtown and possibly future locations, some of which will include a pastoral scene, and think that these locations are best for just the agricultural vision. Finally, the focus is on signs at gateways to farmland, the area where it is important to remind residents and visitors that they are newcomers to a 360 year farming tradition. Sign locations planned (based on no limit to funding, reducing actual installations from there) are: TWO signs: Hockanum Road and Old Ferry Road gateways to Meadows and historic Meadows farmland. TWO signs: Spring Street and Meadow Street gateway to Grow Food Northampton farmland and Spring Street farmland FOUR signs: at farmland clusters on Burts Pit, Park Hill Road, West Farms/Sylvester Road, and North Farms Road.  Please clarify whether the sign project actually preserves farmland. It appears that it is intended to notify the public that the land has already been preserved for agriculture. The signs will be placed in locations that include both permanently preserved farmland, and lands that have no protection. Recognizing the commitment of our local farmers and communicating the message that farming is important will help to protect these areas. Raising awareness of farming is one small and inexpensive step to reduce some of the significant vandalism, damage from disrespectful visitors, and other problems of disrespect from some abutters and some visitors. 18    Saw Mill Hills Open Space  Is this property actively being marketed? If not, does the current owner have any plans to do so in the near future? The property is under an Option from the City so it is not currently being marketed. The property has had great stewardship from the current owners, but they are well into retirement and it is critical to have a transition plan before it is marketed and the price skyrockets.  What is the status of any agreement with the current owner? The city has a fully executed Option for the property with the owners, binding on them but with the city not having any obligation to exercise the Option. The Option expires March 31, 2015 if not exercised before then.  Do we know if the Saw Mill Hills Reutener property has invasive plant problems? Based on Laurie Sanders’ ecological assessment, the area is generally free of invasive plants.  Was the property considered in Planning Office’s recent ecological assessment of open space? Could such an assessment be appended to the previous project report? The ecological assessment included in the application will be used as a basis for adding this parcel to the overall assessment that was funded through the CPA.  How is this parcel any more unique or desirable than the adjacent parcel that was recently acquired using CPC funds? Why can’t that parcel serve to connect existing trails? Both this parcel and the parcel acquired using CPA funds in 2013 have a trail and ecological connection to the rest of the Saw Mill Hills. Existing trails cross these parcels, as well as already- protected portions of the area, and creation of public access here will bolster the accessibility of the entire area. If we just use the parcel recently acquired to the south, we would have to extend the trail on that property to the road, which will require a significant stream and wetlands crossing. Certainly doable from a permitting standpoint, but more expensive and more impacts than ideal. The new property has all the trails we need so no trail work (other than blazing and trail maintenance) is required.  For how long will the current owner be obligated to maintain the pastoral field along Sylvester Road? How will they be bound legally? What entity will be responsible for this obligation and its costs should the landowners fail to undertake the required work? The current owner can drop out of maintaining that property whenever they want, but they then lose all rights to maintain the property and they like the pastoral field for their own viewshed. If the property owner stops maintaining the property then 1) the Conservation Commission (through planning) will take on this responsibility, 2) neighbors might volunteer, 3) or will allow the forest to grow up. That decision, when necessary, would be made in consultation with the neighborhood. 19     The application mentions that the parcel would be suitable for hunting. What is the Conservation Commission’s current policy and what action would be necessary to establish a hunting season on this parcel? Hunting is prohibited on all conservation properties unless specifically authorized, and the Commission currently allows hunting on a limited number of parcels. If hunting were proposed here or elsewhere within the Saw Mill Hills, it would require a vote of the Conservation Commission at a publicly advertised meeting.  Are there not currently opportunities for parking along the road given where the adjacent property is located? A parking lot is located at Mineral Hills on southern Sylvester Road, but that is several miles from this location. Rocky Ledges and narrow road shoulders effectively prohibit parking for access to the Saw Mill Hills in most locations, although there are some areas where a car, especially with an adventurous owner, can pull off in the shoulder. This will be the first formalized opportunity for vehicle access in the area.  Please explain this acquisition relative to the overall the amount of land protected (both pristine and non-pristine) in relationship to current master planning and existing open space plans. In other words, how close is Northampton to reaching or exceeding established goals? Open Space, Recreation and Multiuse Plan (2011-2018) target status: Category Target Status High ecological value 25% of city 15.3% of city Neighborhoods access to open space All walkable neighborhoods within walking distance Mostly achieved. Have not quantified status. Farmland 100% Approximately 25% (permanent protection) up to approximately 90% (if zoning protection is considered) Total protected conservation, park, recreation, and working lands (forest and farm) No specific target 23.7% of city Pomeroy Terrace National Register Application  Explain what state and federal grants might be made available as a result of listing, particularly in connection with the cemetery. Inclusion in the State Register of Historic Places, which comes automatically with National Register listing, provides eligibility for the state Preservation Projects Fund. In 2014, $780,000 was distributed around the state for historic projects.  Please describe Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s experience with NHRP applications and any success it is has in preparing and submitting applications. 20    The staffperson who will be the lead on the project is currently on maternity leave so an exact number was not able to be provided, but both she and the agency as a whole have experience with the National Register process and have completed several successful nominations.  The CPC application identifies that the content of a past NHRP application was deemed insufficient. It states that work remains to be done. Please specifically identify that work that remains to be completed. Work remaining to be done includes finalization of the district’s boundaries, completing ‘Form B’ inventories for any properties within the district that do not currently have them, completion of the nomination form, including any updates and research necessary to tie the story of the neighborhood together with a narrative that will satisfy both MassHistoric and the National Park Service, submitting a draft to MassHistoric and making any revisions necessary, and holding a final neighborhood meeting.  Page 2 of the CPC application identifies the Bridge Street Cemetery as a key component of existing plans. Please identify which of the listed plans speaks specifically to the cemetery, and discuss the overlap, if any, of this proposal with that submitted by City of Northampton for the master plan for the cemetery. The Cemetery . Both Sustainable Northampton and the Open Space, Recreation and Multi-Use Trail Plan address the Cemetery specifically, and National Register listing of significant historic properties generally. National Register listing is a tool that recognizes the significance of properties to the community, state and nation, and allows  The application appears to contain some incomplete response on pages 3 and 4. Please use this question/answer session as an opportunity to complete those responses. Full answers in application on CPA website, with a summary of key points below. Leveraging additional funds: We are not aware of any grant or other funding source that can pay the cash expenses of this project (the PVPC labor). We are, however, leveraging city staff time and neighborhood volunteer time, from the work that has already been done for community tours and meetings to work that will be done to support PVPC. Preserve historic resources: National register listing has three primary benefits. First, it means that no federal or state dollars or permits can be issued without an assessment of their impact on the historic resources. Second, it makes it much easier for income producing properties (i.e., rental) to get federal historic preservation tax credits. Finally, and perhaps most important albeit nebulous, a national register district raises the status of the district and makes property owners much more aware of the historic resources and more sensitive to those resources in their own work. In some areas (e.g., downtown) this has led to eventual local regulations, but whether or not that happens here is not as important as the value from a historic district to property owners and investors.  Please provide a more helpful estimate of when PVPC will begin its work if funds are awarded. The response on page 3 of the application suggests that his work may not be a priority for that entity. PVPC work will begin within 60 days of award of the contract and will be completed within an additional 90 days after that. The second phase, follow up to MHC review, will occur within 90 days 21    of MHC comments. We cannot predict how long it will take MHC and the National Park Service to conduct their review. We know that can take a long time so we are expecting this complete project could be up to three years.  The Budget on Page 5 does not itemize the work left to be done to complete the NHRP application. Please explain how the $4,375 will be used- number of hours, type of work. The detailed PVPC budget is: Budget Items- Pomeroy Terrace Hours Total Phase I: completion of nomination Labor Costs: Fieldwork 4$280 Photo preparation 4$280 Section 8 of nomination 24$1,680 Labor Total: $2,240 Direct Costs: Travel $25 Photography/printing/copies $200 Direct Cost Total: $225 Phase I Total Cost: $2,465 Phase II: follow up to nomination Labor Costs: Response to MHC comments 8$600 Powerpoint preparation 8$600 Presentation to State Review Board 8$600 Labor Total: $1,800 Direct Costs: Travel (to Boston, incl tolls) $110 Direct Cost Total: $110 Phase II Total Cost: $1,910 Total Project Cost: $4,375  1 Redevelopment of Northampton Lumberyard 1. Please confirm that the present plan is to have 8 units for households at or below 30% of AMI, and 52 units for households at or below 60% of AMI. Yes, our budget projects eight (8) apartments rented to households earning 30% or less of the AMI (Annual Median Income). We can expect an award of up to 8 Section 8 PBA (Project Based Assistance) from DHCD (Department of Housing & Community Development). DHCD requires that at least 10% of the units be made available to households earning at or below 30% of AMI. That would be 6 units for this project; Valley CDC has proposed 8. More than 8 units would trigger Davis Bacon/prevailing wage requirements and drive up costs by at least 20%. The balance of the approximately 60 apartments will be made available to households earning 60% or less of AMI. From a practical point of view, these rents, set by HUD, will serve households earning between 50% and 60% of AMI unless the household has a Section 8 voucher. 2. Please provide more information concerning the design challenge created by the drainage conduit. The City of Northampton currently has an operating stormwater drainage conduit dating from c. 1846 that runs diagonally under the Northampton Lumberyard property. This conduit is part of the City’s stormwater management system. It carries the Market Street Brook underground from the Industrial Park until it exits at Hockanum Road. The conduit under the lumberyard is a 4’ wide by 7’ high brick arch and wood plank conduit. We have had discussions with the City’s Stormwater Manager as well as the City Engineer. Since the conduit runs diagonally across the lumberyard, it is impractical to design around its location and so we determined, and the City has agreed that we will be able to replace and relocate the stormwater conduit. The City requires a 15’ easement on either side of the new conduit and our site design (with input from our civil engineer) will incorporate those required easements. This would include relocating the conduit so that it runs parallel to the railroad track with a 15’ easement on either side of the new conduit. Our site design has proposed that parking will be located adjacent to the railroad so the City retains access to the conduit in the future. A rough estimate of the cost of relocation/replacement will exceed $150,000. 3. Please provide more information concerning the requirements imposed by the previous ownership by the railroad company. A portion of the lumberyard was formerly owned by the railroad company. In the Commonwealth, a building permit cannot be issued by the city without the consent from the Secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) under MGL 40 Section 54A. We have been in regular contact with the Director of the Rail and Trail Division of DOT regarding the redevelopment of the lumberyard. When our site plan is ready to be reviewed, the appropriate DOT staff has agreed to review. In our discussions with DOT, there was agreement that it made sense to have parking abutting the railroad property. A building permit would not be applied for until several months before closing on all the financing. 4. Do you anticipate difficulty obtaining approval for the building permit from either the current owner or operator of the rail line?  2 We do not anticipate difficulty obtaining approval for the building permit as per conversations with DOT. Valley CDC will have a better sense from DOT when we submit our preliminary site plan within the next month. 5. Originally we discussed the distinguishing characteristics of both the affordable housing developments planned for the immediate area. Northampton Lodging would provide studio and one-bedroom units and the Lumber Yard would provide larger units. Yet, more than a quarter of the proposed Lumber Yard’s 60 units are one-bedroom. How has that demand been gauged and does it factor into an overall understanding of the total added units? Seventy-five percent (75%) of the approximately 60 apartments are two and three bedroom units which we expect will be occupied by 2-4 person households. Overall average household size continues to decrease both nationally and locally. The most recent market study (March 2014) that we had commissioned was for our Parsons Village apartments in Easthampton. That report indicates that 75% of renter households (40% of the overall population) in Easthampton are comprised of one and two person households. The breakdown was 45% for single households and 29% for two person households. For Hampshire County renters, the number of one and two person households is 73%. When Valley CDC developed its 98 King Street Enhanced SRO in 2011, the market study that was conducted indicated that 82% of renter households in Northampton (46% of the overall population) were comprised of one and two person households. The breakdown was 53% for single persons and 29% for two person households. Our proposed market area of Northampton and the surrounding communities in Hampshire County indicate a strong need for smaller units. HAP’s redevelopment of Northampton Lodging is a preservation (or replacement) of 59 existing units of housing with some additional market rate units. Valley CDC and HAP have agreed to engage a consultant to conduct a joint market study for the DHCD funding application. We are confident based on prior market studies that there is ample need for the variety of units projected. 6. There is only a 5% construction contingency; is that enough, particularly considering the possibility of moving an underground tank (my understanding is that ECS did not locate all those indicated on record), land adjacent to the railroad, evidence of heavy metals contamination? Valley CDC had ECS conduct both a Phase I and Phase II Environmental study for the entire property. ECS has determined that there are no underground tanks and no contamination on the site. DHCD guidelines for new construction expect a 5% construction contingency. 7. It would appear that in the timeframe of requesting letters of support (early September) and the grant application the proposed units went from 50 to 60; was that just a miscommunication or a design change?  3 Valley CDC had estimated early on that the site could accommodate between 45-60 units of housing. When we began asking for letters of support in August it was not clear to us where we would land with the number of units. Site design just started in earnest in early September. We expect the site as well as the design will be able to accommodate approximately 60 units. 8. Please provide a schematic of the building and site design. Valley CDC will be able to provide a site plan after we complete the technical review process with the planning staff, appropriate city department staff and boards/committees in anticipation of seeking site plan approval and we receive positive feedback to move forward with our design. That meeting is scheduled for October 21st. 9. What is the basis for the $500,000 request? In particular, what costs do those funds offset? If that amount is selected simply to demonstrate a local match, please explain why that amount is appropriate, especially in relationship to other of our prior awards. The redevelopment of the lumberyard site is complex with the design and relocation of the stormwater drainage conduit; additional design issues to offset the proximity to the railroad (sound and vibration reduction); and complicated title concerns including railroad issues. All these issues increase our third party consultant costs. DHCD in its funding review of projects is extremely interested in the amount of local support when determining which projects will be funded and when. The more local support that can be leveraged thus allowing the state to contribute less and assist more projects statewide would be a great advantage in getting funding for this project. Valley CDC has not determined what specific costs would be offset by the CPA funds, except to say that the CPA funds would only be used for costs related to the development of the affordable housing and would only be used when the project is completely funded. Valley CDC has received CPA awards for two other housing development projects in recent years: $225,000 for the creation of 10 Enhanced SROs at 98 King Street and $250,000 for the preservation of 11 SROs at 16 N. Maple Street, Florence. These awards average $22,619 per housing unit. Valley CDC submitted these projects to DHCD in the same funding round. These projects were awarded the first time they were submitted and in the same round because they had the appropriate zoning, had ample local financial and community support and were shovel ready. 10. The application refers to affordable housing restrictions for AMI of between 30-60%. Does that mean that there will be no units below 30%? Please respond also with respect to the quoted criterion identified in P. 3 of the application – referencing AMI below 50% or 30%. The proposed project expects to provide eight (8) units for households earning 30% or less of AMI. These types of units are considered Extremely Low Income (ELI). Tenants living in those units could have lower incomes but the unit itself is restricted to <30% AMI. A larger portion of the financing will be coming through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. Tax credit units are structured to serve households with incomes no higher than 60% AMI so someone making less than say 50% AMI may not have enough income to afford the unit unless they have a Section 8 Voucher.  4 11. The cover letter to the application states that the project budget is almost $20 million, but the hard and soft costs add up to just $17 million. Please explain the difference in these figures. Yes, the project budget for 60 units is currently at just under $20 million and in addition to the hard and soft costs noted here, also includes other development costs including capitalized reserves, a commercial lease up deficient reserve, developer overhead and fee and syndication fees. 12. Will parking be provided to residents as an extra cost, or part of the rent? How will parking be apportioned among residents and commercial lessees? No residential tenants will pay for parking. This property is located in the Central Business (CB) zone. The provision of parking is not required under CB. Valley CDC has not yet determined the usage of the parking though we have asked our architects to plan for .7-1 parking space per residential unit. We think the provision of some parking is a good compromise from a marketing perspective – providing some parking while also having ample bike racks on site and access to public transportation, walking and bike trails. Provision of parking will also alleviate the potential for our tenants to park in adjacent neighborhoods. We expect to develop a parking plan that would accommodate both residential and commercial tenants. 13. Page 5 of the application has a section entitled “Ongoing Maintenance” that deals largely with VCDC’s selection of property manager. But it does not explain how it has estimated and will reserve sufficient funds to deal with maintenance over the long haul. Please do so. Valley CDC submitted both a development budget and a 21 year operating budget with our application. The operating budget has trending for expenses (and income) which are estimated to increase at 2%-4%/year depending on the item. Additionally, the development budget includes a $200,000 capitalized replacement reserve and the 21 year operating budget indicates annual contributions to that reserve at $325/unit per year starting in year 1 and increasing 3%/year through year 21. 14. Page 7 of the application states that the AHR is “typically” recorded in first position. Do you anticipate a need to deviate from that practice? Are your lenders already aware that CPC grants have been structured to require that result? It is typical in LIHTC deals that the permanent lender (both for construction and permanent financing) is in first position. Next in line is the Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement and then the Affordable Housing Restriction including a CPA restriction. Fourth position would include all the soft debt from DHCD and other lenders. 15. Please explain the basis for the amount of residential rents estimated in the operating budget? Provide a spreadsheet or calculation if necessary. Are these set at the low, high, or maximum of state/federal guidelines for affordability? The projected rents are set at LIHTC rents which are calculated at 30% of 60% AMI based on household size minus utility allowances. Rents for the 60% units in our operating budget include heat and hot water, but exclude electricity and electric cooking (tenant’s responsibility). The rents for the <30% units are set at FMR (Fair Market Rent) for Section 8 Project Based Assistance minus electricity and electric cooking but includes heat and hot water.  5 16. The bulk of the rentals are reserved for AMI of 60%. Few are reserved for 30% or 50%. And there are no one bedrooms apartment reserved for less than 60% AMI. Please explain how this mix was determined. [0 = 1BR for 30 or 50%, 17= 1 BR 60%; 7=2BR at 30%, 0=2BR at 50%, 31 = 2BR at 60%; 1 = 3BR at 30%, 0=3BR at 50% and 4=3 BR at 60%) Development of an affordable rental development under the LIHTC Program is designed to serve households earning 60% of AMI. Successful development of such a project includes the delicate balancing of sources of funding to undertake the project as well as the earning of sufficient income during operations to allow borrowing of permanent debt to make the project financially feasible, cover the annual costs of operations, allow for annual increases in those expenses over a 20 year term, and maintain ample reserves for replacement of major components in future years. There is limited rental assistance available to serve extremely low income (ELI) households. This rental assistance allows the owner to collect rent comparable to the 60% households to operate the building while allowing the ELI household to reside in the property. To accommodate more ELI households without rental assistance would require setting rents at what a household could actually afford (without rental assistance) which adds stress to the operating budget. For example a 3 person ELI household at 30% of AMI ($23,200) would be required to pay monthly rent of $580/month minus a utility allowance. Those lower rents would reduce monthly operating income which would then lower our ability to borrow permanent debt during the development phase, thus possibly making the project financially infeasible. In financially designing developments we attempt to provide the limited rental assistance to where we think it is most needed and that is with households in the 2 and 3 bedroom units and therefore we have not projected any rental assistance for any of the 1 bedroom units. 17. What are the market rates being charged for the commercial spaces? How many commercial spaces will be available? Commercial rates are conservatively projected at $15/square foot + NNN. We are projecting two commercial spaces: one space on Pleasant Street currently projected at approximately 1200 square feet and one space on Holyoke Street currently projected at about 2,000 square feet. Valley CDC expects to move its administrative offices to the Holyoke Street commercial space. 18. Please explain the relationship of the following entries in the operating budget: Payroll: Maintenance and Repairs, Repairs contract; Replacement Reserve. When answering, please keep in mind that the Committee considers the wherewithal of that applicant to ensure maintenance over the long term. All DHCD funded LIHTC projects are highly regulated with several layers of long term compliance including oversight of tenant income eligibility, care of the physical asset, and proper financial management via regular review of financial statements and annual financial audits. The payroll: maintenance and repairs line item refers to staff employed by the property management company and assigned to the site. Repairs contracts refer to third party contracts including elevator, sprinkler and fire alarm systems, electrical and HVAC work. Please also refer to #13. above regarding long term maintenance and capital needs.  6 CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 413-587-1570 Fax 413-587-1576 Edward S. Huntley, P.E. Director Pg.1/3, M:\Parks and Playgrounds\Pulaski Park\2014CPA\Response_CPC.doc Memorandum To: Community Preservation Committee From: James R. Laurila, P.E. City Engineer Copy: Wayne Feiden, Director, Office of Planning and Sustainability Mayor David Narkewicz Date: October 6, 2014 Re: Pulaski Park – Application Questions Please find responses to questions posed about the Pulaski Park grant application. · Can the Park design without the overlook be used to secure the PARC grant? The PARC Grant that was submitted in June 2014 was for state funding of the Park renovation without “the Overlook”. A future PARC grant application, maybe next year, would be for funding of “the overlook”. · The $1,800,000 estimate for park renovation lacks detail. Many of our current round grant applicants put great effort into detailed budgets; not so for the Pulaski Park project. The design of the renovations to Pulaski Park is still underway and detailed cost estimates are not currently available. The budgetary number was provided by Stimson Associates and consistent with budget numbers provided to the state in the PARC grant application. · If the design is completed as proposed, with the mid-block sidewalk remaining, what will the city commit in the way of safety improvements for that crossing (a HAWK signal, lighted departure points on both sides of the road, raised walk table or center refuge island)? An unimproved crosswalk at that location is worse, from a safety perspective, than no crosswalk because it indicates to pedestrians that cars will stop when in fact people crossing from the park through stopped traffic are not visible to the traffic accelerating from the Elm/Main Street intersection. Pg.2/3 The mid-block crossing is proposed to be moved southerly to the North end of the New South Street Bridge. At this proposed location the crosswalk is past the metered parking spaces on the West side of the street southbound offering greater pedestrian visibility. In addition, vehicles traveling northbound will be restricted to one lane due to the bridge width and lane configuration. With this proposed crosswalk location two vehicles northbound lanes cannot exist that currently occurs in the existing mid-block location. The Mayor has asked the DPW to move this forward and DPW is currently requesting pricing from contractors to implement this change. Please see the attached plan. · Please explain why the funds from our prior $194,000 award did not cover the schematic, design or construction development for the “Overlook” especially when that aspect of the Park was presented to the public and the CPC. The scope of services agreed to by the City and Stimson was for renovations of the park only. At the time the scope and fee were negotiated the concept of “the overlook” did not exist. It was only after the public input meetings began did the expansion of the park take to take shape and receive community support. · Please provide any correspondence between DPW and Stimpson Associates detailing how the Overlook aspect of the park design would be handled, vis- à-vis the funding that had already been provided. The discussion with Stimson Associates related to the out of scope nature of “the overlook” was verbal. Essentially we discussed the fact that the scope of the overlook design was outside of the contract scope and the City’s understanding that this was the case. These discussions led to the funding elements included in this application. The $54,000 fee for design development and construction document preparation is about 13.5% of the construction cost. This percentage is consistent with the percentage used for the design of the park renovation in the first CPA grant. · Please explain in detail what appears to be significant increase in the proposed construction cost from 1 million to 1.4 million, and to 1.8 million (not including the Overlook). What elements of the schematic and construction design have increased the price tag so considerably in less than a year? The main difference for the budget increase is that the construction budget of $1.45 million dollars presented in the CPA grant that was awarded is for a design that is different from the current design. In the previous CPA grant application it was stated that: “The construction budget will be updated based on the new design that will evolve with community input to be solicited during the contract work.” We acknowledge that a detailed cost estimate for construction of the park renovations is not yet complete and available. · Please make available to the CPC the draft/preliminary and final reports/designs from Stimson Associates under the previously awarded grant. Pg.3/3 Information provided by Stimson in the three workshops and related data are posted on the DPW website. The final design is currently being worked on based on the public input received during the workshops. · Why is the Landscape Architecture Subtotal for the Overlook an additional $129k? That seems relatively high compared o the overall cost of the park planning that ran $194k and included considerable public comment. Here, the Overlook appears not to consider the need for the landscape architect to reconcile the same degree of competing uses. The additional $129,000 is divided into several tasks: Design Development/Construction Documents (“Overlook”): $54,000 Bidding assistance: $10,000 (assuming 2 public bids, $5,000 per bid) Construction Administration/Observation: $65,000 The budget for bidding assistance and construction administration/observation is for the park renovation and “overlook” expansion. Bid assistance and construction services were not included in the first CPA grant scope that was awarded. · Please provide a copy of the PARC grant application to the CPC for our review. A copy of the application is attached. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 413-587-1570 Fax 413-587-1576 Edward S. Huntley, P.E. Director Pg.1/3, M:\Cemetery\Bridge Street Cemetery\ResponsetoCPC.doc Memorandum To: Community Preservation Committee From: James R. Laurila, City Engineer Copy: Ward 3 Neighborhood Association Date: October 6, 2014 Re: Bridge Street Cemetery - Questions Please find responses to questions regarding the grant application for the Bridge Street Cemetery. The responses were prepared by Jim Laurila, except as identified below. · Please describe further the construction funding sources which are under review, and any funding limits imposed by each source. The cemetery is eligible for placement on the National Historic Register. If it’s placed on that list it will be eligible for state grants for a Massachusetts Historic Preservation Grant. Having a master plan completed for the cemetery will enhance the chances of receiving future grant support from the state. · Please provide some general estimate of total project cost (understanding that the requested CPA funding is designed in part to help determine this). The total cost of implementing a multi-year master plan could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. · Was an RFP for the work issued? If so, please provide information as to why the selected form was chosen. An RFP was not used to select Martha Lyon Landscape Architecture, LLC (MHL) for this work. MHL was identified as a uniquely qualified, local landscape architect with specific expertise in historic landscapes and cemeteries. MHL rates and fees were reviewed and are suitable for this type of work, in our opinion. MHL also offers the benefit of teaming with Reid Bertone-Johnson from the Landscape Studies program at Smith College. The work performed at Smith comes at no cost to the City, clearly a benefit to this project. Pg.2/3 · What City entity is responsible for the care and maintenance of the cemetery? Which City Department or Office is applying for the funding? Does the City agree that the cemetery is in disrepair an that certain features are dilapidated? Public works, parks and cemeteries division is responsible for the Bridge Street Cemetery. The Department of Public Works is the applicant. The DPW does all it can with available resources to take excellent care of the City’s cemeteries. However, there are historical aspects of the Bridge Street Cemetery that require research and changes to grounds that would be beneficial. Many grave stones require rehabilitation and improvements to fencing, access, plantings, and other landscape elements all would benefit from some the master plan to be prepared by MHL if grant money is provided. · Please provide evidence of the historic resources have deteriorated or are in need of restoration. The application the need for a preservation plan without identifying what warrants rehabilitation or preservation. (This response provided by the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association.) Our application included a number of photos of the conditions at the Cemetery. Some of them show the very poor condition of the headstones. A short walk through the cemetery will reveal that there are between 250 and 300 such stones, especially but not exclusively in the oldest part of the cemetery which abuts Bridge St. A local young man completed an inventory of such stones a few year ago for his Eagle Scout project. The DPW has the list he compiled. The cemetery also lacks an easy way for people to locate individual graves. We hope to create a map with names that would be posted on-line. The fence is also in very poor condition. Many neighbors hope that this study might result in more public access points to the cemetery, which is now only at the vehicle gate on Parsons St. almost to North St. · There are numerous mentions of the need to assess and potentially replace the fence surrounding the cemetery. This is listed is the first action throughout the application. What is the historic relevance of the fence? (This response provided by the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association.) We are sure that the cemetery had a number of fences over its long history. The earliest ones were probably wooden. We have found photos of an older “blacksmith” fence that surrounded the cemetery until it was removed many years ago and replaced with the current chain link fence, which is very unattractive. If the cemetery had an attractive and historically appropriate fence this would clearly demonstrate our remembrance of the people who are buried there. It would also make the cemetery much more attractive to both visitors and residents. This is particularly important since the cemetery is on a gateway road into our City. · If this project could only be partially funded, would the applicant’s preference to focus on rehabilitation of headstones/memorials or landscaping? Pg.3/3 No priority has been set yet for rehabilitation. Ultimately, it may be that improvements are selected based on the availability of funding, or that improvement are phased over time as financial resources allow. · As this cemetery serves the entire Northampton community, why have representatives of the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association been selected to be members of the Phase I “Committee” created to review the scope of work, objectives, schedule, and identify the location of historic resources. Should participation be open? And should the Historical commission play a role? The enthusiasm of the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association is what has driven the preparation of this grant application. They have been assisted by DPW, who endorses this application. DPW will work with the Board of Public Works to identify the composition of a committee that will serve the City well for this purpose. (The following response is provided by the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association.) We welcome the participation of any individuals or groups on the Phase 1 Committee. This would include veterans groups, neighbors, families who have loved ones interred there as well as groups such as Historic Northampton and the Northampton Historic Commission. There may also be state wide or regional groups that could offer expertise and support. The Ward Three Neighborhood Association was the group that originally expressed concern about the condition of the cemetery and reached out to the BPW. We understand that the cemetery belongs to everyone and welcome broad public participation. The proposal calls for several public meetings to solicit input from the public. We also know that the Board of Public Works welcomes such a process.