Proposal Questions - 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?
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?
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?
4. Are there other funds (for example, weatherization funds) that can be used for exterior
door replacement (both front and other doors)?
5. If this project cannot be funded in its entirety, can the marquee be designed and installed
without replacing the existing doors?
6. Were matching funds explored, including discounted services from Wright Millwork and
Artfx Signs?
7. Will you provide at least 3 bids for the proposed work?
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
1
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?
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?
Northampton Heritage Resources Survey
1. When completed, how will the Heritage Resources Survey be available to the public for
review?
2. Why did two of three consultants contacted decline to submit a bid? Will an attempt be
made to secure more bids?
3. Without ongoing funding, how will periodic updating be accomplished?
4. If this project is not funded in its entirety, which is a higher priority—creating new form
B's or updating existing ones?
5. Were matching funds (in addition to the NHC $1000) explored, including discounted
labor from PVPC?
6. Regarding the project budget is it necessary to create "printed materials" or could they be
electronic?
7. Regarding the project budget, is it necessary to pay for the consultant's travel expenses?
8. How did the NHC come to its assessment of what should be the scope of this project?
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?
10. How do the criteria relate to the “windshield survey”?
11. How does the Elm St. Historic District relate to this project?
Conservation Fund Project
2
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?
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?
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; and
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.
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.
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.
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?
3
5. Can you give the CPC a detailed report of how the $10K CPC allocation into this fund
was spent? 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.
??
Cost of the project—we tend to do projects only at below market prices, because we have
so many opportunities to do so, unless the criteria for a project are so compelling.
??
Leveraging of other funds—To what extent is will the project leverage other funds
(including seller bargain sales)
??
Likelihood of success—we almost never spend any soft costs until we have a signed
option, and we have never in 20 years not eventually closed on a property we has under
option. As such, we do a fair amount of staff-level due diligence before proceeding, and
we would do the same with CPC funds and expect the same from our partners.
Saw Mills Conservation Area Expansion Project
1. Please explain how this fits into broader effort to create an ecologically sustainable Saw
Mills Conservation area.
2. Will the public have access to the property?
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?
DPW Open Space Preservation Project
1. What has the impact been of similar signs in other communities?
2. Have there been studies that indicate a measurable benefit to installing these signs &
labels?
3. Are there written estimates for this sign/label production? (three preferred)
4. Were matching funds explored for this project (including creative matches like volunteer
labor for installation of drain labels, or vendor discounting)?
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"?
4
6. What is the reasoning behind the request for support of staff time and the dollar amounts
arrived at for installation costs?
5