Community Preservation Committee Responses (2.23.22 CPC Questions).pdfO’Connell Hawley LLC
800 Kelly Way
Holyoke, MA 01040
1
Community Preservation Committee Responses (3/2/2022 Meeting)
1. Would you provide the reasons for declining the City's offer to purchase the property?
In terms of the rationale for declining the City’s offer, it was primarily based on the anticipated
incompatibility of the proposed end use (a Resiliency Center) with the overall development
project, including the initial phase of 12 townhomes, which were just nearing completion at
the time of the offer. OH LLC has viewed this property as part of a larger, integrated
development; so to change the development focus at this location would mean a significant
change to the project as a whole. Further, the surrounding neighborhood, particularly on the
north side of Hawley Street, is entirely residential, and the new use would have a much more
“public-facing” presence, which would likely change the role that the Hawley St./Phillips Pl.
intersection has historically served. In OH LLC’s view, this intersection has been a clear
transition point from the City’s main retail core.
2. Understanding that they are only preliminary at this time, would you provide a development
and 5 year operating budget.
Future operating budgets have not been established yet. Unfortunately, a number of the
assumptions that influence long-term budget planning are dependent on the amount of funding
made available. For example, the level of repairs/maintenance, staffing and property insurance
premium will change based on the amount of capital available for the building envelope repairs.
It is also different than a “community housing project” in that funding (and success) for those
projects is directly connected to internal operations. OH LLC is confident that with the scope
of work being proposed, and OH LLC’s successful track record of long-term asset
management, will ensure the preservation of the building envelope and exterior.
A preliminary development budget has been included as part of OH LLC’s answer to Question
9. below. As mentioned in the narrative section of the application, the Sources & Uses schedule
includes project soft costs, hard costs and land purchase price allocation. For purposes here,
and because the funding has not been approved, all CPA funds (if any) will be treated as
“Equity”.
3. The roofing quote indicates a slate roof is proposed to be replaced with shingles. The Inventory
Sheet indicates that there is red ceramic roofing tile. What is/are the current roofing materials,
and with what are they being replaced?
The red ceramic roofing tile is located on the bell tower. Our current evaluation suggests that
this section is in relatively good shape, and will not need to be replaced. The main roof (located
above the sanctuary space) is red slate, and the small “bump-outs” are made up of varying
materials, including slate, asphalt shingles and metal. Everything besides the bell tower will be
replaced with asphalt shingles. Unfortunately, it is OH LLC’s understanding that red shingles
are not currently being manufactured, so we would likely need to use an available alternate
(e.g. charcoal grey). The larger issue of product availability is more fully discussed in the
answer to Question 8. below.
4. Could you elaborate on the window replacements, particularly as to the leaded glass windows
and the small arched colored windows? Does the rose window, which the application indicates
will remain, require any work? Do Pella windows conform to historic standards?
O’Connell Hawley LLC
CPC Responses
2/28/2022
All existing stained glass will remain, but the extent of work for the central rose window has
not yet been established. Some of the required work will undoubtedly be covered by the
masonry scope, but based on visual inspections and the interior condition of the surrounding
area, it does not appear to be extensive.
The windows currently priced are not “historic”. Pella does make windows to historic
standards, but OH LLC has attempted to balance a number of competing concerns (i.e. cost,
function, visual appeal, historic accuracy and energy efficiency) and believe it’s reached an
appropriate compromise. As the CPC may already know, the Diocese deconsecrated the church
prior to OH LLC’s purchase and removed the main and largest portions of stained glass.
Additionally, when the building was originally constructed, there were no considerations made
toward eventual repurposing, so there is very little opportunity for minor repairs. The windows
have been chosen to mimic the architectural look of the period; but full replacement will be
necessary in order to maximize marketability and natural light exposure.
5. What are the anticipated rent levels? Is there any possibility of a 2 unit affordable housing set-
aside? Even with a partial offset provided by CPA funding, the current cost of construction
requires the entire project to be market-rate, with no possibility of a 2 unit affordable set-aside.
Early market research suggests that average rents are likely to fall between $1,800 and $1,900
per month.
6. Have you engaged the services of a historic preservation consultant?
We have not engaged the services of an historic preservation consultant, but would be open
to retaining one, if that became a condition of approval.
7. How was the land acquisition cost apportioned?
The land was internally valued at $235,000.
8. On page 4 of the application, OHLLC states that the redevelopment shall confirm to the
applicable standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior. Can the applicant be more
specific? Has an assessment been performed by the structural engineer, GNCB, and if so does
an assessment report/historic structure report exist?
The statement was made as a general acknowledgement to the “The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings” document that has been
incorporated into prior preservation restriction agreements with the City, rather than an attempt
to draw attention to one specific section or requirement. OH LLC will work in good faith and
cooperatively with the City in identifying the features that contribute to the overall historic
character of the building, and those areas that hold less significance, and have already been
repaired or replaced by the original (and sole) owner multiple times throughout the years.
The materials and products being proposed also reflect current market conditions. COVID-19
and other international events have strained supply chains and led to extreme backlogs in the
construction industry. In some cases, products have been placed completely out of production.
In order to prevent further deterioration, OH LLC has offered options that are reasonably
available and replacements that match the scale and look of the original components.
O’Connell Hawley LLC
CPC Responses
2/28/2022
An historic structure report has not been commissioned. However, OH LLC’s structural
engineer has performed a visual inspection and noted that with the repairs being proposed here,
the building’s proposed future use is possible.
9. What is the overall breakdown of the $4,535,000 budget?
10. Are you asking for the exterior restoration work to be paid for entirely with CPC funds? If we
were to provide partial funding, where would the funding come from to make up the
difference?
Yes, OH LLC is asking for the entire amount to be funded through CPC funds. If the CPC was
only able to provide partial funding, the balance would need to be filled through a combination
of additional equity and construction financing, which threatens the viability of the project.
11. $473,750 of the proposal is for masonry. Can you provide a more detailed description of the
specific work that will be done?
The scope of work includes a full repoint and complete cleaning of the masonry, which will
help ensure longevity of the building. It is in OH LLC’s opinion that a partial repointing
approach would only result in further deferred maintenance. The mortar is now extremely
porous and the extent of water infiltration is unfortunately not localized to a single –or even a
few– area(s).
12. The building will not be open to the general public, correct?
Correct. The building will not be open to the general public.
Total
70% Loan-to-Cost $3,174,500
30% Loan-to-Cost $1,360,500
Total $4,535,000
$230,000
$207,500
$3,717,476
$248,000
$45,000
$87,025
Total $4,535,000
Land Purchase Price Allocation
Project Overview - Construction Budget
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS:
Construction Loan
Equity
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS:
Site Work/Landscaping and Environmental Remediation
Hard Costs (including FF&E)
Architectural, Engineering and Interior Design
Professional Services (Legal, Marketing and Inspections) and Permitting
Other Soft Costs