Loading...
Answers to Committee Questions - Greenway, City Hall Park, Conservation Fund Northampton Community Preservation Committee Questions to Applicants from Committee Members, Round 1 2011 Conservation Fund Application 1) You state that “all fee acquisitions funded in whole or part through CPA contributions will have conservation or agricultural preservation restrictions placed up on them.” What third party entity will hold these CRs or APRs? The third party entity will vary depending on the project. The options are: 1. Acquisitions near or affiliated with Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary would be held by the MassAudubon Society, Inc. We already have this arrangement for two large acquisitions we did with MAS. 2. Acquisitions that are part of the Broad Brook Greenway/Fitzgerald Lake Conservation Area would most likely be held by the Broad Brook Coalition, Inc. We already have this arrangement for one conservation restriction and are working on three additional CRs with BBC. 3. Acquisitions related to APR projects might have CRs held by the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture. They are currently considering this request. 4. Acquisitions on municipal town lines are likely to be jointly held with our abutting town. We already have one arrangement like this with Westhampton, are discussing a second similar CR with them, and a similar arrangement with Hatfield. 5. The Kestrel Trust is available for any CR or APR, but that requires that we fund their permanent stewardship endowment. We totally understand the reason for this, but since we are simultaneously funding our own endowment for new conservation land, this double funding is a challenge. 6. The Conservation Commission supports the creation of Conservation Northampton, a new not-for-profit land trust, to hold CRs and an entity of last resort to comply with the CPA requirements for an outside holder of CRs. CT River Greenway Application 1) The timeline is not clear. Do the first three listed tasks take consecutive years or is it estimated that all three tasks will be completed in year one? Does task 4 take two years for completion or will it be completed in year two? (etc) TASK (timeline subject to change) Estimate completion end of Due diligence, preliminary design, project ID # 2012 Purchase right-of-way 2013 25% design accepted by MassDOT 2014 100% design 2015 Advertising to build 2016 Complete construction 2017 NOTE: If the project is phased, different sections (see below) could move faster or slower. 2) Map: how many miles long is the dark line indicating the “proposed link”? and is the green line identified as the Connecticut River Greenway a bike trail? The Connecticut River Greenway multi-use (a/k/a bike) trail has three sections: Elm Court to River Run access road 1.3 miles River Run access road 0.2 miles Damon Road to Norwottuck Rail Trail 0.3 miles 3) Is this the highest-priority project for moving Northampton’s bike paths and their connections forward? (For example, is it higher priority than getting across King St?) This is the highest priority project for currently unfunded projects. Two projects higher in priority are rail trail off-ramp at North Street/Edwards Square and the Norwottuck connection under the railroad tracks. Both of those projects, absent some calamity, have funding commitments in place already. 4) It would be helpful to have a clearer picture of what this path would eventually link to on the Hatfield end. Currently, the plan is to end at Elm Court in Hatfield. This is a very quiet street with very safe riding opportunities from Elm Court to Elm Street to the entire network of relatively low volume roads in Hatfield. Hatfield obviously could add bicycle lanes or create a scenic byway, but regardless of what they do this is a logical and safe terminus. (See plan on next page for context.) City Hall Park Application 1) How will this plan improve sight lines and ease of turning for cars turning from Main Street onto Crafts Avenue and from Old South Street onto Main Street (if at all), and how will it otherwise improve auto safety? Safety improvements are one of the two key benefits of this project (along with creating a pocket park): 1. Main Street Pedestrian Improvements—shortening the length of the crosswalk significantly, moving it away from a blind curve, and narrowing the width of Main Street and therefore the average speed traveled will all dramatically improve pedestrian safety and reduce the risk of crashes. 2. Crafts Avenue Pedestrian Improvements—shortening the length of the crosswalk, narrowing the street and especially the entrance geometry and therefore slowing average speeds will improve pedestrian safety and reduce the risk of crashes. 3. Old South Street at Main Street—benefits at this intersection will be negligible. Cars driving at slower speeds will have some benefit, but the gains here are marginal. 2) In the budget there is no line item for landscaping. Is this included in construction costs? Yes, but it is important to note that construction estimates are very early and subject to change and the design moves forward and community input is incorporated into the design. 3) The one letter of support for this project is signed by the applicant. Is there evidence that the project has broader community support? This project has been extensively discussed and supported during the creation of the Open Space, Recreation, and Multi-Use Trail Plan. It was presented at three public hearings and over twenty public meetings on the plan, including the presentation before City Council that was televised. The plan, with a City Hall pocket park as the example of a parks to pavement program, was, to the best of our knowledge, adopted and/or endorsed by more city citizen boards than any plan in Northampton’s history, including City Council, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, Recreation Commission, Youth Commission, Transportation and Parking Commission (T&PC), the T&PC Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee, and Agriculture Commission. 4) The application indicates that ”CPA funds will be used for design and basic layout, and additional funding will be sought from other sources for construction.” Does that mean that you won’t be coming back to us for additional funds for this project? What other sources could be used for this funding? What is the level of assurance that CPA funding will actually be leveraged sufficiently to complete the project? The budget is very preliminary and we might well come back to the CPC, but we fully understand that there is no commitment that the CPC will provide any additional funding. The current funding request is to design the project working with the community on a design charrette to design a pocket park that meets the community needs, to move curbs and replace sidewalks to allow the current sidewalk space to become park space, to go as far as the construction as the funding allows, and to leave the space in a form that is a benefit to the community even if future phases will improve the space. Additional funds will be required, but until that the design is complete and we pursue other grants, we don’t know what the gap is, but we believe we will be far enough along that if no additional CPA money is provided, the improvement will still be dramatic. We are pursuing other funds, some of which might support a design phase and some of which might support a construction phase. For this reason we are asking that the CPA budget be flexible enough so if design money comes in elsewhere, we can use more CPA money for construction or if construction money comes in elsewhere we can use more CPA money for design. We are looking at a combination of funds including National Endowment funding and other grants. The CPA would, we hope, be the first dollar in which provides less of a solid budget but allows us to leverage other grants and allows us to create a participatory design charrette process. 5) This seems to be the first phase of a multi-phase project. Can we get a better picture of the entire project? We can define the outline of the park and streetscape improvements, based on taking over the roadway bed that should not be roadways. The rest of the park will be designed using a community design charrette. We do not want to make any assumptions as to the full outcome until we do that. 6) This seems like a great little project. But are we getting too far out ahead of the necessary public engagement? Could we see some indications of support from the public and from relevant boards and committees? As mentioned above, the project is part of the Open Space, Recreation, and Multi-Use Plan adopted and/or endorsed by the City Council, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, Recreation Commission, Youth Commission, Transportation and Parking Commission (T&PC), the T&PC Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee, and Agriculture Commission. Their support is documented in the adoption and endorsement of that plan (their letters are included in the plan). Such endorsement does not mean that they are committed to any design details, but want to move forward on the parks to pavement approach. We agree that public engagement is critical, which is why the only details we are committing to is the outlines of the park and streetscape area that is available and a community design charrette based design, and building what comes out of this process. This creates a less specific detail for CPC, but we hope creates more confidence that the public process will create a great design.