CPC Questions and Answers - 2009 Round 1
Academy of Music Restoration Project
1. An MHC letter (dated 1/13/09) says it has reviewed the preliminary schematic plans for a
new marquee and other associated improvements and “in general is favorable to the
presented concept of a new modified fully reversible marquee design”, but expresses two
concerns. First, it would like to see a design alternative which would reduce the
projection from the main façade from 8 feet to 6 feet. Second, it would like to see a
design alternative looking at various typefaces and colors of light options utilized for the
marquee design.
a. Does the existence of an active preservation restriction give MHC final review
and approval of design?
b. Are the renderings we see by Douglas Architects in the application packet
those that MHC commented on, or were they re-designed after MHC's input?
If they were redesigned, have the new designs been provided to MHC and
have they signed off on a final design? If not, how will you address MHC
concerns?
Yes, because of the preservation restriction on the Theater’s deed, MHC
has the final design approval for any changes made to the façade of the
building. Their decisions are influenced, to a small degree, by the local
and regional historic commissions and by the support of other local
groups; however the design has to stand on its own as an element that
meets the guidelines spelled out by the Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The
following is a brief description of the preservation law:
Federal Review
“Any projects that require funding, licenses, or permits from federal agencies must be reviewed in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106
requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties.
“Section 106 review,” follows a specific process, which is guided by federal regulations (36 CFR
800). These regulations have created a series of steps by which federal agencies identify and
evaluate historic properties that may be affected by their undertakings, assess adverse effects to
those properties, and take prudent and feasible measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those
effects. In Massachusetts, these steps are taken in consultation with the Massachusetts State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The MHC is the office of the SHPO. Other interested
parties such as local historical commissions or Indian Tribes are also consulted.”
* What are the benefits of MHC review?
“ MHC review provides project proponents with the opportunity to ensure that their projects are
planned responsibly, so that development takes place without causing harm to historic properties
and important archaeological sites. Even where a project does not require federal or state
funding, licensing, or permitting, the consultation process can offer a forum in which to discuss
the issues and can assist the proponent in addressing community and preservation concerns. “
The following are taken from the Secretary of Interior's Standards for
“Rehabilitation”.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained
and preserved.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner
that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
As a point of information, we were very pleased to receive MHC’s letter
regarding our design proposal. We feel their criticisms were very minor,
and their “favorable” acceptance of our concept and design direction
was very good news for us.
The renderings submitted to the CPA are identical to the renderings
submitted to MHC. Because of the expense of architectural services
required to prepare new drawings, we have not yet submitted a response
to the MHC design critique. Our plan is to submit the following proposals in
the next two months:
MHC asked us to reduce the projection from the main façade from
8 feet to 6 feet. We will submit an alternative drawing showing the
reduced projection; however we will strenuously negotiate that the
projection remains at 8 feet as designed. We have been in
discussions with the Northampton Building Inspector, Tony Patillo,
about this issue. Our proposed 8-foot projection will give protection
to the exterior front steps and newly installed handicapped
accessible ramp. For life-safety reasons, Tony feels it is critical to
cover these areas and keep them free of snow and ice. We are
submitting a letter to MHC stating the desire to keep the projection
at 8 feet which will vastly improve the walking conditions in front of
the theater in bad weather. The consensus of the Academy Board
and Tony Patillo is that money for the marquee canopy will not be
well spent if it cannot accomplish this basic goal to provide cover
from the elements to the front entry and patrons as they enter the
building. This is a significant improvement over the old marquee and
will help to preserve the building façade and entrance
MHC asked for typeface options on the neon letters on top of the
canopy. We will submit an alternative design with the words
“Academy of Music” changed to a font that is identical to the font
that is cut in stone on the top pediment of the existing façade. This
is a minor concession, and one that we feel will make the new
marquee look more historic. The attached Artfx proposal shows a
modified design for the marquee letters (updated since the MHC
submission) which we will use. The other design ideas that are in the
Artfx proposal, such as the additional lights and different moldings
will not be used. Douglas Architects will remain the lead designer
and the design will remain basically unchanged.
MHC asked for “color of light options for the marquee design”. We
will submit an alternative rendering for discussion purposes showing
the sign board below the canopy with yellow LED lights and one
with the traditional white back-lit plastic panels with free standing
black letters on it. The former marquee of the Academy of Music
had individual letters that were put up by hand every time an event
changed at the theater. The Board of Trustees feels strongly that the
signboard should be an LED sign so messages can be changed on
a computer inside the building. This offers more flexibility for the
theater because it is easy and quick. An event advertisement can
be changed for long-term as well as unexpected and spontaneous
events. There is a significant labor savings with this technology
which enhances the financial well being of the theater. The small
staff can concentrate on other more important activities like
booking, advertising, and managing the theater. The submission to
MHC showed a red LED sign board because the color red is
commonly acknowledged as the most legible letter color. We will
present an alternative showing yellow LED lights, but our preferred
scheme is to keep the red lettering as proposed. This will coordinate
with the proposed red lettering for the ACADEMY OF MUSIC
identification signage above the canopy. We would like to avoid
the individual letter scheme because of the limitations listed above.
2. Support letters written in the first six months of 2008 speak to the importance of
replacing the marquee. Has the new design for the marquee been vetted with these other
organizations and individuals?
Yes, the new design has been vetted and all the organizations continue
to strongly support our application. Those organizations originally received
the black and white architectural drawings and have been given the
same renderings included in this application. At the March 09 meeting of
the Northampton Historic Commission, they positively reviewed the
complete package that was submitted to CPA and MHC. A new letter
has been drafted in support of this package. It is included here within.
3. In its letter dated 1/13/09, it is not clear if MHC offers a perspective on the restoration of
the original design and replacement of the front entry doors and other exterior doors. The
accompanying support letters were written in early 2008 and speak only to the marquee
replacement. Will the MHC’s opinion of the marquee project be impacted if the
replacement of the doors is not included?
We do not feel that the marquee project would be negatively affected
by delaying the door restoration project or completing it in phases.
However, it is important to note that the existing doors should be replaced
for a number of important reasons. This is not a maintenance issue; it is
work that is needed to preserve the stability of the building and the safety
of its occupants in addition to providing much needed help in energy
.
conservation for the building
The current front doors are not original to the building and they are shorter
than the originals. They are also literally falling off the hinges and have
reached the end of their life. The front doors were low quality doors
installed so that the old marquee could fit on the façade. When the old
marquee was installed, these doors needed to be shorter because the old
marquee projected down into the door heads. We are designing a new
marquee which is smaller so that it will be integrated more gracefully into
the existing façade and allow us to restore the doors to their original
design. We could keep the existing doors; however, they need extensive
work which would cost just about as much as replacing them with
historically appropriate doors.
The entire door project is desperately needed for two reasons- to protect
the public safety and to protect the long-term life of the building. Almost
all of the doors are long past their life spans. For many years the Academy
has not had the funds to do regular maintenance and the City has not
contributed anything toward required maintenance either. The doors are
falling off the hinges, have barely functional hardware (panic hardware),
and are allowing a significant amount of water into the building and heat
out of the building. There are large stains in the plaster interior that stem
from water intrusion through the door heads and sills. Many of the doors
are covered over in plywood, have been remounted on their hinges
many times and have completely rotted frames and no sills. These doors
represent a significant safety hazard to the theater because at least 800
people would need to exit through them very quickly in the event of a fire.
This is another issue that Tony Patillo would like to see resolved and
upgraded to protect the safety of the occupants. As we said,
preservation maintenance of the existing doors would cost almost as
much as replacement. Replacement doors with new seals, sills, frames
and hardware would have the added advantage of a longer life span
and thus help to preserve the long term financial viability of the building.
4. Are there other funds (for example, weatherization funds) that can be used for exterior
door replacement (both front and other doors)?
Not to our knowledge
5. If this project cannot be funded in its entirety, can the marquee be designed and installed
without replacing the existing doors?
Yes
6. Were matching funds explored, including discounted services from Wright Millwork and
Artfx Signs?
Yes- also, see below for Douglas Architects
7. Will you provide at least 3 bids for the proposed work?
We have received 2 bids for the Door Project. They were almost identical,
so we did not feel the need to include both in our application. If the
project is funded, we can (and will) get other bids for this part of the
project (since Douglas Architects has completed the basic construction
documents).
As for the marquee, we cannot obtain 3 competitive bids for the project
at this time. There is a significant expense involved in putting together a
set of complete construction documents to put out to bid. This is a major
commitment of time and money required to fund the architectural and
engineering services. Over 200 hours of time have been devoted pro
bono so far by Douglas Architects just to get to the point we are at. If this
work had been done at standard architectural rates, these hours would
represent roughly $18,000 of pro-bono work. This is a significant amount of
money that has been donated to the Academy for this project and unlike
the Mass Cultural Grant, this figure has not previously been listed as funds
acquired for this project.
There will be more pro bono services provided by Douglas Architects for
the remainder of the required permitting and approvals from MHC;
however, the Academy of Music needs a source of funds to move
forward with the future architectural and engineering construction
documents required for bidding. We can update the CPA and the city
on bid proposals once they become available. The City can release the
necessary funds based on actual bid numbers.
8. Please provide additional information that will make the project budget correspond to the
proposals and provide the reasoning behind the choices made. For examples: (a) the
budget lists Message Board: $29, 565; the proposal lists Electronic Message Center:
$28,500, followed by three options. It would appear that the first and third options were
selected. Is this correct, and if so, what is the basis for the selection? (b) What would be
the arguments for and against the optional lighting listed for the marquee?
The Artfx proposal lists options for the electronic message center (sign
board). The options for Wifi data connection ($725) and on-site software
training ($340) are essential items needed to effectively use the new
signboard. Wifi data connection will allow us to make changes to the
signboard graphics wirelessly from the Academy office, and avoid the
costly direct wiring that would be required through the historic interior
structure. This option would preserve important interior elements and save
money as well. Since this would be proprietary software running the sign
board, the Academy staff needs the software training to make the
electronic message center functional. These costs, added to the base
cost of $28,500 comprise the budget of $29,565.
Optional lighting refers to two types of fixtures:
1. The “Tivoli lights around underside” are the lighting needed for the
underside or ceiling of the projecting canopy. There are two 100-
watt floodlights screwed to the face of the brownstone façade that
currently light the entry to the building. These new Tivoli lights (low
voltage, small light bulbs) would provide the required lighting at the
front entry of the building and be in keeping with the historic type of
lighting needed to blend with our historic façade. We have not
included this option in the pricing for the marquee; however we will
need to install some type of lighting for this area.
2. The Optional interior illumination for “Music Drama Dance” is not an
option that we will take. This was a suggestion from Artfx on added
design elements for the marquee, which they suggest may make
the marquee more historic looking.
9. On p. 6, the application refers to changes in the Academy’s operating policies aimed at
bringing it to financial security. What have been the results of these changes thus far?
What confidence can we have that CPA funds are not being requested to shore up an
enterprise that may in the long run not be sustainable?
The new business strategy has not only strengthened the Academy's value
to the community; it has also put it on a firm financial footing. One
important measure is our net cash position, defined as cash on our books
less accounts payable due to vendors. On June 30, 2007, the end of the
2007 fiscal year, the measure was a negative $27,100; that is, our payables
exceeded our cash by that amount. As of the end of last month our net
cash was a positive $45,000 representing a $72,100 positive swing vs. June
2007. This improvement was achieved even as we mounted, in
collaboration with our resident and rental companies, possibly the richest
program of live performances the Academy has ever seen. Moreover, in
our most recent fiscal year ended in June 2008, the Academy brought in
approximately $65,000 in net ordinary income as compared to a loss of
approximately $11,000 in the previous year. While the fundraising
environment this year presents headwinds for the Academy as well as
most other non-profits, the Academy has a cash position as well as donor
and patron support sufficient to ensure its long-term viability. Moreover,
we have instituted a $1 facilities surcharge on tickets at Academy events,
taking effect in our next fiscal year, which provides another secure
revenue stream that we estimate at $20,000 to $30,000 annually.
Northampton Heritage Resources Survey
1. When completed, how will the Heritage Resources Survey be available to the public for
review?
The Survey is a technical product prepared by a consultant and
would be reviewed by the Historical Commission. We anticipate that
the completed Survey will be available to the public online on the
City’s website. Some copies of the Survey could be printed and
distributed for public use at various libraries and City offices.
2. Why did two of three consultants contacted decline to submit a bid? Will an attempt be
made to secure more bids?
There are a limited number of qualified consultants located, or willing
to complete work, in western Massachusetts. One of the consultants
declined to bid without being told how much money would be
available; the other declined because the size of the project was too
large. Bonnie Parsons, Historic Preservation Planner employed by the
PVPC, is highly qualified and experienced; she has done most of the
survey work in this area. The NHC was pleased that PVPC responded
to the Request for Bids and looks forward to working with them. We
did not see any reason to pursue additional bids.
3. Without ongoing funding, how will periodic updating be accomplished?
Without funding, any updating would be done on an ad hoc basis by
volunteers. This could be accomplished only with a substantial
voluntary time commitment for training and supervision by qualified
members of the Historical Commission.
4. If this project is not funded in its entirety, which is a higher priority—creating new form
B's or updating existing ones?
The purpose of this project is to complete a comprehensive and
professional quality survey of the heritage resources of Northampton
that will be a useful tool for the City’s property owners and decision
makers. Simply updating the existing Form Bs, while helpful, would not
result in the type of comprehensive survey necessary to be most
useful. If full funding is not available, the completion of the
comprehensive, City-wide survey should be completed first along
with new, state-of-the-art Form Bs for any identified properties. A
follow-up project could be the updating of existing Form Bs. The
project will be much less useful, however, until both phases are
complete.
5. Were matching funds (in addition to the NHC $1000) explored, including discounted
labor from PVPC?
No other sources of matching funds were explored. The only other
available relevant funding source is the Massachusetts Historical
Commission’s Planning and Survey Grants which are highly
competitive; they fund only 4 to 6 out of 50 to 75 applications and
give priority to communities where no survey work has ever been
done. PVPC is a regional partner with qualified staff with fixed hourly
rates. Discounted labor would not be an option.
6. Regarding the project budget is it necessary to create "printed materials" or could they be
electronic?
The project would provide all data in electronic form that would be
available on the City’s website. Any printed materials found to be
necessary could be produced from this electronic data source.
7. Regarding the project budget, is it necessary to pay for the consultant's travel expenses?
Travel expenses are normally considered part of the cost of
undertaking this kind of work. Such costs are budgeted either in the
consultant’s overhead costs or are broken down as an individual line
item. Since a substantial portion of the consultants work would be to
drive up and down all the streets in Northampton to conduct a so-
called “windshield survey,” it is appropriate to include transportation
costs as a line item.
8. How did the NHC come to its assessment of what should be the scope of this project?
Members of the Historical Commission reviewed the existing survey
data and determined that it was neither comprehensive nor in
keeping with current standards. It was determined that both issues
need to be addressed and, therefore, the scope of the project was
designed to reflect this.
9. Appendix 4 cites criteria for the evaluation of heritage resources, and references the 1992
Historic Preservation Plan. Could you educate us more fully about what criteria are used
in determining which structures are recorded on Form B?
Simply, any structure that meets one or more of the criteria listed in
Appendix 4 of our application (p. 21, note iv) should be recorded on
a Form B. These criteria are based on those used to determine
eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and are
commonly used (since the 1960s) by communities throughout the U.S.
and Massachusetts as a standard basis for determining the
architectural and historical significance of properties within a given
community.
10. How do the criteria relate to the “windshield survey”?
The criteria provide the basis for determining which properties need
Form Bs. During a drive-by or windshield survey, a knowledgeable
consultant can identify properties of architectural significance.
Although data is often approximate, Assessors’ records provide some
data such as age of construction. The proposed Survey will help to
more accurately identify historic and/or significant buildings or sites.
Determining cultural or historical significance cannot simply be done
in the field and requires additional archival research.
11. How does the Elm St. Historic District relate to this project?
All properties in the Elm St. Historic District have completed Form Bs as
a requirement for submission to be a district, but none of these Form
Bs have been updated since the district submission. However, they
are slated for such action with the recently approved CPA grant.
Therefore, Elm St. Historic District properties would not have to be
reviewed for our Survey, but the updated and new Form Bs would be
integrated into the other collected data in our proposed
Northampton Heritage Resources Survey.
DPW Open Space Preservation Project
1. What has the impact been of similar signs in other communities?
The use of river signs and drain labels has been a recommended practice
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, and many local watershed
organizations for many years. These signs and labels are a recognized and
recommended tool to raise awareness of waterways throughout the
country. The U.S. EPA recommended Tributary Signage to “increase public
awareness of local water resources” as part of a guidance document on
public education for municipal stormwater management programs. We
are aware of examples of river signs in this area in the towns of Hatfield,
Whately, Williamsburg, Goshen, and many communities in the Westfield
River watershed. In a conversation with Russ Cohen of the Massachusetts
Riverways Program, he mentioned that he has worked with many
communities to install river signs and drain labels, recently including Acton,
Grafton, and Westport. The impact of these signs and labels is simple but
not easy to quantify:
1. People see the signs and learn or are reminded that there are
important rivers and brooks all around the city.
2. People see the drain labels and learn that all the water collected
by the drains flows directly to a nearby waterbody.
3. These are the starting points for the next steps of education about
why and how everyone can help protect these rivers and brooks.
The Northampton DPW has been implementing an ongoing
Stormwater Management Plan that will continue to include
educational outreach through the DPW Website, printed materials,
school projects, and workshop (see attached).
2. Have there been studies that indicate a measurable benefit to installing these signs &
labels?
Although the installation of river signs and drain labels is widely
implemented by many local watershed groups and communities, we are
not aware of a study that describes a “measurable” benefit by installing
the signs and labels. The bottom line measurable benefit would be
cleaner rivers and brooks. Pollution from stormwater or non-point pollution
is a problem that originates in small amounts throughout the community
and can only be solved with the understanding and help of many people.
A first step in educating the community is highlighting and celebrating the
many rivers and streams throughout the City. The Sustainable
Northampton Plan specifies in Goal EEC-5: “Safeguard and improve the
quality of the City’s surface waters to ensure use for safe public swimming,
recreational fishing activities, boating, and drinking” and describes one
strategy: “Pursue a long-term plan to improve the health of
Northampton’s rivers, streams, brooks, wetlands and open water bodies
by taking actions that address water quality.” Educating the public about
what water bodies are in the city, how the stormwater system works and
interacts with natural waterways, and how to protect these water systems
from pollution are all parts of the long-term Stormwater Management Plan
that the DPW has been implementing under a permit from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
3. Are there written estimates for this sign/label production? (three preferred)
See attached.
We would prefer to maintain the design of the existing drain label which
was from das Manufacturing, Inc. whose price was either competitive or
less than other label options.
4. Were matching funds explored for this project (including creative matches like volunteer
labor for installation of drain labels, or vendor discounting)?
Matching funds were not proposed for this project, but there are many
related activities that will be implemented by the DPW that complement
and increase the effectiveness of installation of signs and labels such as
educational outreach to homeowners and businesses. We can include
some of these items in the budget to clearly show that the installation of
the signs and labels is part of a larger program to clean up the stormwater
system in Northampton most of which is being paid for by the City. One
example that would tie in directly to the sign and label project would be
the writing and printing of door hangers that give simple tips to
homeowners about the stormwater system and how to reduce their
impact on the water resources around them. These could be distributed
at the same time drain labels are installed in neighborhoods.
We did not include volunteer labor in the application, although we have
used volunteers and will continue to use volunteers, DPW staff time is still
largely required. Volunteer labor has been used in the past to install drain
labels (high school students and Broad Brook volunteers) but we have
found that DPW oversight is still necessary to ensure proper installation of
the labels and in locations involving higher traffic roadways, DPW staff
must be present and in many cases must install the labels for safety and
liability reasons. The installation of the river crossing signs must be done by
experienced DPW employees.
5. Should the signs on the river crossings be more explicit in order to achieve the goal of
water protection? E.g. Name of waterway/watershed followed by "Fragile watershed" or
"All pollutants drain to watershed"?
The design of the signs has been discussed at both a Northampton
Conservation Commission meeting and a meeting of the Broad Brook
Management Committee. The feedback at these meetings was to keep
the signs simple and to the point realizing that most people passing by will
be in cars. The plan was to include the name of the river or brook and the
watershed with a simple graphic. There was a specific request to not have
an image of a mill. The signs currently are proposed to be 18 by 24 inches
which does not leave much room for additional, readable messages.
Most of the signs we have seen from other communities are very simple. In
a recent conversation with Russ Cohen of the Massachusetts Riverways
Program, most of the signs that he has seen say only the name of the river.
We can explore a more explicit statement and/or a natural image to push
the point and we would be happy to present design options again to the
committees named above, the CPC, and to others to determine the best
design.
6. What is the reasoning behind the request for support of staff time and the dollar amounts
arrived at for installation costs?
The installation of river crossing signs and drain labels is outside of the
normal tasks to operate and maintain roads and the municipal drainage
system and therefore we are requesting the support of staff time to
implement this open space preservation task. The dollar amounts were
calculated based on past time and equipment costs to complete the
tasks as follows:
Installation of river crossing signs: $60 labor + $22 equipment cost = $82 per
sign
$82 x 30 signs = $2,460 (say $2,500)
Installation of Drain Labels: Approximately 100 hours labor x $16 =$1,600
Equipment (vehicle) cost = $400
$1,600 + $400 = $2,000
Conservation Commission Fund
1. The application states that the Conservation Fund was created under the Massachusetts
Conservation Commission Act. Beyond the money awarded by the CPC to this fund in
the last round, are there additional monies in the Fund?
There are additional funds, but right now they are all committed.
Currently we have the following (these funds increase from time to time as
fund raising and grant writing opportunities arise):
A. A revolving fund that allows us to purchase land (soft costs and
hard costs) in the Meadows from Hockanum Ferry Road to Old
Springfield Road and then flip that land and sell it to US Fish and
Wildlife Service for inclusion in the Conte National Fish and Wildlife
Refuge, with the money we get going back to the fund.
B. Privately raised funds remaining from the Turkey Hill/Mineral Hills
purchase dedicated to certain safety improvements (i.e. fencing)
at the Turkey Hill Quarry and for a forest stewardship plan.
C. Funds remaining in the Saw Mill Hills Linkage account to pay for
necessary habitat restoration that was identified as part of the
management plan provided when we acquired the property.
D. Funds we a required by law to hold in escrow to support past
eminent domain takings against claims from property owners.
E. Funds for rail trail improvements from fund raising dedicated to this
purpose that the Conservation Commission agreed to hold but are
committed to such projects and is supporting the almost $14 million
dollars of rail trail projects we currently are overseeing.
F. The last remaining uncommitted funds from previous infusions of
cash are committed to a series of soft costs and hard costs to
match $50,000 we are receiving in city capital improvement funds
to purchase a tax title parcel in the Saw Mill Hills and one or two
parcels in the meadows.
2. Applicant proposes being able to apply the funds to particular projects, of up to $20,000
in soft costs, up to $20,000 in hard costs (I assume this refers to the actual cost of land
acquisition or the cost of acquiring a conservation restriction on land), and hard costs of
over $20,000 with the CPC approval. Assuming acquisition costs more than $20,000,
and that the applicant may have to go through the CPC approval process for the excess
funds, how does this expedite the Cons Com’s ability to acquire these open space
parcels?
Our request is that although CPC would need to approve expenditures
over $20,000 they would do this in a single meeting. That reduces the lead
time from a minimum of six months (the current CPC cycle, although it
could be much longer depending on when a project comes through) to
one month. One month almost never kills a project while six months easily
could.
3. How would the applicant respond to the following alternative if it were proposed by the
CPC?
a. The CPC awards “X” amount for soft costs, and the Cons Com can submit
disbursement requests for soft costs on various projects that cumulatively do
not exceed this amount;
If the payment is guaranteed, that is we don't have to wait for CPC
approval but simply the funds will stay in CPC accounts instead of the
Conservation Fund that is not a problem at all. If approval is necessary for
soft costs, the most time sensitive aspect of any project that would make
some purchases impossible. For example, this spring, we have received
$50,000 in city capital improvement funds to allow us to pay the back
taxes in support of our purchase of two or three tax title parcels that we
had identified for inclusion in conservation holdings (one for Saw Mill Hills,
one for a permanent agricultural preservation restriction, and one for
eventual inclusion in the Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge). These funds will
be available on April 1st, but ONLY with the condition that they all are
spend by June 30th and that we find other funds for appraisals, title
search, survey, and acquisition cost to the extent that the parcel value
exceeds the value of the back taxes. We have budgeted $5,000 for this.
Without these funds, and our own source will be exhausted with this
purchase, we would have to pass on the entire $50,000 and give up these
two or three great parcels.
b. The CPC awards an additional amount that the Cons Com can use for “hard”
costs associated with acquiring land or acquiring preservation restrictions.
The Cons Com can choose to use these funds as either all or part of the
amounts needed for the acquisition, or for the payment on options necessary
to secure the necessary time to secure acquisition funding. The Cons Com
would be able to submit disbursement requests for these hard costs on various
projects that cumulatively do not exceed this amount.
Same answer, and same example purchase. If no CPC approval is
required (below $20,000), it doesn't matter to us whether the funds are
stored in CPC accounts and pre-approved for spending or moved over to
the Conservation Fund. That is more an administrative decision.
c. The Cons Com can submit requests for specific projects (hard and soft costs)
to the CPC, and if necessary, use the Conservation Fund money to cover both
the soft costs and the hard costs of securing an option on the land sufficient in
duration to accommodate the CPC review process. If the CPC approves
funding for a specific open space acquisition project, then this CPC project
funding can be used to replenish the amounts expended from the Conservation
Fund for this property. If CPC for the specific property is not forthcoming,
then the Cons Com can decide whether to pursue acquisition with other funds-
but in order to get to this point it has been able to use Conservation Fund
money rather than have to come up with other money during this pre-
development period.
The lack of pre-approval is a problem because there are no longer
discretionary funds left in the Conservation Fund to allow the Conservation
Commission the ability to pursue a project or bargain in good faith for
land. If CPC provided a capital infusion to the Conservation Fund (e.g.
$40,000) and then used this approach for larger purchases (e.g. above
$20,000), this could work.
d. At any time, the Cons Com can come back to the CPC for additions to the
Conservation Fund, for soft costs and/or hard costs.
Again, the issue is preapproval from CPC and City Council and the length
of time and the uncertainty. We have always received much better
prices from sellers when we can virtually guarantee that a project will
proceed.
4. The applicant states that under Chapter 61, the City has 120 days to decide whether to
match another offer under a right of first refusal. If it exercises this right, how many
additional days does it have to close on the acquisition?
It is our understanding that our 120 days is to actually exercise our right of
first refusal, i.e., to actually close.
5. Can you give the CPC a detailed report of how the $10K CPC allocation into this fund
was spent?
The first round $10,000 CPC allocation was spent directly and indirectly.
a. Indirectly, our first priority was being ready for the $50,000 in tax title
money that we requested last summer and hoped would be
coming in March. We held the CPC funds until we knew we had
other funds for these purchases (which we didn't know until we
closed on the Saw Mill Hills Linkage and knew exactly what its costs
were). In doing so, this $10,000 ensured that we could give
commitments (appraisal and title searches) to get ready for these
funds. We didn't specifically draw on CPC funds for this, but we
could of easily and if for cost accounting purposes there was some
benefit, we would be happy to do change how we charge our
expenses.
b. Directly, the property paid for soft costs (appraisal and title search,
approximately $3,000) and hard cost (a portion of the land
acquisition, approximately $7,000) for a key parcel in the Mineral
Hills Conservation Area that expands the conservation area north
and west and reduces the size of the gap between the Turkey Hill
portion of the conservation area and the Chesterfield Road portion
of the conservation area.
6. Specifically, did you emphasize the following criteria discussed during the 2008 Round 3
application process and, if so, how?
All of the CPC criteria would apply, but we would emphasize four key
criteria:
*Cost of waiting for CPC grant rounds—that is would the project either
collapse or be more expensive if we waited for normal CPC grant rounds.
WF: This was one of the big unknowns. The parcel we purchased was an
estate lot with no known heirs, but on two previous occasions (one along
the Mill River and one in the Fitzgerald Lake area) we have gone after
such parcels only to be beaten by abutters. In this case, the parcel was
absolutely key to filling the gap and to creating an unbreakable barrier
that development can never cross. If the abutter to the northeast or the
south had ever acquired the parcel, the two abutting parcels could be
linked and development of both parcels would be more likely at some
point in the future.
*Cost of the project—we tend to do projects only at below market prices,
because we have so many opportunities to do so, unless the criteria for a
project are so compelling.
WF: We purchased this property for typical undevelopable back land
values (i.e. $1,000 an acre). This is not below market but back land prices
are so much higher (many times higher) when connected to a potentially
developable parcel that
*Leveraging of other funds—To what extent is will the project leverage
other funds (including seller bargain sales)
WF: Directly, this leveraged $3,000 in final Conservation Fund money to
pay for the acquisition cost not covered by the CPC funds, not to say
approximately 20 hours of staff time to put the deal together. In directly,
in guaranteeing funds for the tax title project it leveraged $50,000 in city
capital improvement funds (funds that will be paid back to the city
treasurer when the taxes are paid, but will buy land along the way)
*Likelihood of success—we almost never spend any soft costs until we
have a signed option, and we have never in 20 years not eventually
closed on a property we has under option. As such, we do a fair amount
of staff-level due diligence before proceeding, and we would do the
same with CPC funds and expect the same from our partners.
We did not spend a penny on this purchase, soft cost or hard cost, or
more than 5 hours of background staff time, until we know that we had
the full funding for the project, including CPC funding.
Saw Mills Conservation Area Expansion Project
1. Please explain how this fits into broader effort to create an ecologically sustainable Saw
Mills Conservation area.
This is a key purchase to tie together the bulk of the Saw Mill Hills
Conservation Area with the new Saw Mill Hills linkage property. It fills
approximately 50% of the gap. Protecting this parcel will prevent it ever
from being improperly logged, with the resulting erosion, and thereby
protect the integrated Saw Mill Hills Conservation Area. We have not
done a detailed habitat assessment, but the habitat is certainly right for
cliff nesting birds and coyote dens, so we believe that there is a high
likelihood for both.
2. Will the public have access to the property?
Yes, generally. The City will own the land, subject to Conservation
Commission regulations. The default position on land owned by the
Conservation Commission is public access, but they reserve the right to
limit such access if there are habitat reasons to do so (e.g. nesting birds).
3. The boiler-plate narrative gives good reasons for open space preservation, but is so vague
and general that it is not useful in assessing the importance of this parcel. Could we have
information that explains the odd shape and location of this parcel and gives reasons why
the specific parcel is important for the preservation goals in this area?
Two key answers to this:
a. First, we wanted to provide an unbreakable link in the eventually
buildout of the Saw Mill Hills Conservation Area, hence it needed to
extend the entire north-south access along the grantor's property.
b. Second, we wanted to protect the entire cliffs, both for their scenic
beauty on the top of the cliffs, for their habitat potential on the
cliffs, and because even though the line is odd it provides a clear
definition on the edge of the conservation area.