The URL can be used to link to this page

Answers to Committee Questions - Round 1 2010 Childs Park Application Answers to Committee Member Questions 1.Contractor’s estimate includes a condition that they be allowed to pump water into the storm drain on Elm Street. Will the City of Northampton provide permission to do this? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward S. Huntley" <nhuntley@hampdpw.org> To: "David Murphy" <david.murphy8@comcast.net> Cc: "Doug McDonald" <dmcdonald@nohodpw.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Childs Park Pond As discussed earlier, the DPW will allow the draining of water into the storm system as long as it is not heavily sedimented. Contractor should use best management practices to achieve this by the use of silt bags or other devices prior to discharge. 2. There are no conservation commission restrictions regarding dredging the pond? No-This is a man-made structure, and is not connected to any natural water sources. We will not be removing enough material to need any permits. The material will be composted by our staff and used in other locations in the Park. 3. Is there existing wildlife in the pond? If so, what are the plans to deal with this? No known wildlife. As a result of sedimentation, the pond is essentially ‘dead’; one purpose of the dredging is to enable restoration of the fish habitat. Upper Roberts Meadow Application Northampton Community Preservation Commission Answers to Committee Member Questions Upper Roberts Meadow Application (New question) “How does the project fit into the CPA historic preservation category?” We believe the dam fits CPA's definition of "historic resources" found on page 2 of the full description of the Act and as defined by M.G.L. Chapter 44B Section 2: "A building, structure, vessel, real property, document or artifact that is listed or eligible for listing on the state register of historic places or has been determined by the local historic preservation commission to be significant in the history, archaeology, architecture, or culture of a city or town." Much has been learned in the past weeks about the dam and the history of the resultant reservoir location - the Roberts Meadow community, which was so greatly impacted by its construction and the City's purchase of surrounding land for its watershed. It is our understanding that there are more detailed records about the dam's construction which remain in the hands of the Northampton Board of Public Works. To date, we have not been able to access these records and cannot provide a full defense of our goal to preserve the dam. Also, significant primary source materials regarding the dam, including the farm and structures it displaced, etc. exist only at the Hampshire Room at Forbes Library, which has limited hours. Online sources are also proving to be valuable. Much like Quabbin, this dam and reservoir mark what once stood in that very location. Most notably, the recollections of David Hoxie, a Roberts Meadow resident throughout the mid- and late 19th century, included the history of the Robert's Meadow community, which included a city school, manufacturing facilities, etc. and describes the local families and, generally, everything that preceded the construction of the dam: "The bark mill proper was provided with two wheels and one stone for grinding bark both for this plant and for other similar plants. Bark was ground and freighted away at a price per 100 bushels . . The stone used for grinding is now to be seen at the foot of the present dam owned by the city." Based on recent findings using primary sources, The Friends have sent a request for a Demolition Review to the Northampton Historic Commission. 1)Does fitting the “Historic Designation” criteria have any implications for preservation We believe it may. If this site is placed on the Historic Registry, we may be able to spare the dam for this reason alone. The National Historic Registry designation could grants this site a very real value. Designation may be a stamp of approval that would sway others to recognize that this site deserves preservation. The Friends cannot claim that such a designation may have an actual dollar value, but it could keep the wrecking ball at bay should there be laws that would protect newly designated historic sites; inspire local donations; and make it easier for The Friends to find future partners for related projects. 2)What parts of the CPA funds would need to be spent up-front regardless of the outcome of the study or the decision about keeping the dam? (The application indicates that you will need only 1 Upper Roberts Meadow Application $10,000 in ’10, but does not indicate overall how much could be “conditioned” upon other benchmarks being met?) Since CPC has kindly accepted our amended application, the portion regarding the $10,000 has been changed, however the following is the proposed breakdown on how much would be spent: There will be two simultaneous expenditures that will get underway as soon as funds are granted: First, the $500 for postage, copying and Historic Registry pursuits as it will help to give this site a tangible ‘value’ as this designation is understood as important in the community. This could have significant implications if this is placed on the Historic Registry, as the dam may be spared for this reason alone. Second, the $25,000 Dam vs. Embankment study to determine which portion is in need of more imminent repair. This is important in that the study could give the dam a temporary reprieve, change the timeline, and slow this project down so there is adequate time for discussion and a chance to involve officials who can influence the Office of Dam Safety. If the first study can prove that the embankment needs to be repaired first, The Friends and the BPW will petition the Office of Dam Safety to allow the City to repair the embankment first, and repair the dam at a later date to give The Friends more time to secure funds and continue their efforts to save the Dam and Reservoir. This works on multiple levels, as the cost of embankment repair should be minimal when compared to a full dam repair. Embankment repair may address public safety and save the community money. In the worst recession in our lifetime, this point should not to be overlooked. Most importantly, however, embankment repair will leave the dam temporarily intact. Last summer (2009) Senator Stan Rosenberg suggested that we make this embankment determination and BPW’s Terry Culhane is now interested in pursuing this question. Should this study determine that the embankment is of more concern than the blocks, Senator Rosenberg has offered to use his influence with the Office of Dam Safety to obtain permission to postpone a major dam repair until a time when the City can more easily afford this project. In addition, the City will have time to apply for dam repair grants and, should micro-hydro prove to be feasible, the City could apply for FERC permits during this time, making that project a part of the timetable. 3)The applicant provided a budget for the $100,000 in CPA funds, and states that “we will access only $10,000 for consultant fees before 2011.” If CPA awards $100,000, and stipulates that $10,000 will be made available immediately, and the balance of funds will be disbursed only if conditions x,y,and z are met, please outline what these conditions would be? In other words, how can the CPC be assured that nothing above the $10,000 in CPA funds will be disbursed until the necessary pieces (other required funding, permits, findings, etc.) are in place? This issue has changed with our amended application. 4)When does the applicant expect a reply from the MA Historic Commission to its challenge to the MHC’s determination on its historic consequences? If the applicant does not succeed in its challenge with MHC, what are the implications for the project? 2 Upper Roberts Meadow Application After weeks of attempts, and not hearing anything back from MA Historic we dropped it and began conducting more research on our own. We have contacted the Northampton Historic Commission and have asked for a Demolition Review. Initially, this project appears to meet the CPC definition of historic resources and we will continue to pursue Mass Humanities for technical assistance for the Friends to help guide us through the process of placing the dam on the National Historic Registry. 5) What exactly has to be completed to the City’s satisfaction by June 30, 2010, to prevent the removal of the dam? According to Mayor Higgins at our November meeting, we need to have either 100% of the funds in hand or pledged ($625,000) or have definitive proof that adequate hydro power at the site exists. 6) The proposal states that removal of the dam will result in a "silt covered likely rip rap lined swamp". Whe determined what the river will look like after dam removal? This comment should have been in quotes, as it was from the micro-hydro and dam expert Robert Craig, based on his experiences in Michigan. He said that depending upon how much silt is left behind when the water is removed, it can take as long as 10 years for the layers of silt to fully dry. He also noted that it can take several years for the area to cease smelling of rotting vegetative matter; however his greatest concern is the invasive species that could take hold during that period of time. 7)Has there been a study that has examined the ecological benefits to the dam's removal? No. 8)What are the yearly maintenance and inspection costs should the dam stay and who would pay for them? Please note that these figures have changed several times since May of 2009. The lastest estimate we have included: $2,500 dam inspections every two years $1,000 routine maintenance (i.e.: brush removal and mowing) annually $25,000 stone re-pointing every 25 years $500,000 dredging to take place at some point in the next 50 years. The funds are to come either from future micro-hydro income, additional fundraising, or the ratepayers. The Friends are not convinced that the dredging should be included here, as it has been over 70 years since the last dredging was done by the City. 9)There are numerous references to the hydro electric potential of the dam, but they seem extremely vague and theoretical. Are there more details on this? 3 Upper Roberts Meadow Application Our pro bono engineer worked with us to prepare for the January 20 presentation tabling his th work on the hydro.  Is there a detailed budget for installation of hydro? i.No. Earliest estimates are $600,000 for the unit and powerhouse. These estimates are based on similarly sized projects.  Exactly what would the output be? i.Using GZA’s estimated figures (data taken from Mill River instruments and adjusted downward accordingly), There could be a 30 kW dam. This figure is then multiplied by hours per day and then by 365 days per year. (30 watts x 24 hours x 365 = 262,800 watts.) ii.GZA estimates that this is the equivalent of 14 houses, however another engineer questions this and thinks it may be the equivalent of powering 30 to 40 conventional homes at 2005 average home usage. Like other alternative energy sources, these rates are not 100% stable, but fluctuate according to times of drought and low water. When water moves faster or the flow is greater, like wind power which actually shuts off, the units don’t spin faster, they are built to maintain one speed to protect the units.  When can we expect the green energy hydro consultant’s feasibility report and recommendations? i.Obtaining our 501c3 has taken longer than we expected and delayed our fundraising, but we must have Robert Craig, micro-hydro expert, here at the start of May in order to meet that June 30 deadline with time to spare. Mr. Craig th expects a report to take a week to produce. If necessary, we will schedule the hydrologist simultaneous to that visit so they can work together. 4 Northampton Community Preservation Commission Questions to Applicants from Committee Members Conservation Fund Application 1)How can we ensure that some CPC funds will be used for substantial purchases rather than for a large number of very small tracts? Response: The Conservation Commission priority has been to acquire parcels with the biggest ecological bang. Often this is large parcels, but small parcels adjoining existing conservation areas or as part of a link for connecting conservation areas are equally important. For this reason, they have not targeted either types of purchase. As a practical matter, the funds are used for purchases large and small. Examples of substantial purchases using FY2010 Conservation Fund $20,000 was spent as a deposit to start the Bean/Allard acquisition. Without the Conservation Fund, this project, which will eventually leverage over a million dollars in funds from outside the community, would have never begun. $9,888 was spent on soft costs for the Beaver Brook/Broad Brook acquisition. Without the Conservation Fund, this project, which leveraged $375,000 in outside funds, would have never begun. Examples of small track purchases critical to open space purposes using FY2010 Conservation Fund $9,098 was spent on Meadows Conservation Area—Bleiman track, a small parcel with valuable farmland, valuable vernal pools, and a portion of the historical Mill River. This parcel is adjacent to protected Massachusetts Audubon Society and near the Conte Fish and Wildlife National Refuge. $8,678 was spent on various Mill River Greenway tracks, all small parcels but part of a long term effort to protect all of the unprotected and undeveloped buffer along the Mill River and a great opportunity to tie a number of ecologically protected areas together. 2)Please provide an itemized account for how the previous awards of CPA Money to the Conservation Fund have been used, and the unused balance in the fund. Response: All funds received to date have been either spent or legally committed (e.g., offers accepted and/or consultants hired but bills not yet paid). There are no funds available to start new projects or move forward on existing opportunities. A full accounting of all FY2010 funds (two rounds) follows on the next page. ÚÇîðïðøÖ«´§ïôîððç¬±Ö«²»íðôîðïð÷»¨°»²»ÝÐßÝ±²ò´»ª»®¿¹» Þ»¿²ñß´´¿®¼Ú¿®³Ü»°±·¬ø®»ª±´ª·²¹º«²¼¬¸¿¬©·´´½±³»¾¿½µ÷üîðôððð Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²º®±³±«¬·¼»¹®¿²¬ôÒÑÌÝÐßüçèðôððð x3Ë.11Ë111 ÌÑÌßÔüîðôðððüïôêííôííí Ó»¿¼±©Ý±²òÞ´»·³¿²«®ª»§üëôèçë ¬·¬´»¿¾¬®¿½¬øÞ´»·³¿² ßÒÜ Ê»²¬«®»®Ú·»´¼Î±¿¼÷üëëî Ð®»ß½¯«··¬·±²¿»³»²¬øº¿®³°´«»½±´±¹·½¿´÷üïôïðð ß½¯«·¬·±²½±²¼·¬·±²ø½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²÷¹¿¬»ô¸¿§·²¹üïôîêí ½´±·²¹½±¬æ°®±°»®¬§¬¿¨üïí ®»½±®¼·²¹º»»üîéë Ê¿´«»±º°®±°»®¬§ø¼±²¿¬»¼÷x3/Ë444 ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌÝÔÑÍÛÜÑËÌÌÑÌßÔüçôðçèüïëôððð Ú·¬¦òÔ¿µ»Ý±²òß®»¿Õ·²¹Í¬ò¿°°®¿·¿´üïôïðð ¬·¬´»¿¾¬®¿½¬üííë «®ª»§üïôîðð ®»½±®¼·²¹º»»üíðð Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²üîðôððð x//Ë444 Ì·¬´»·²«®¿²½»üìéë ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌÝÔÑÍÛÜÑËÌÌÑÌßÔüîíôìïðüëëôððð Þ»¿ª»®ñÞ®±¿¼Þ®±±µÝ±²¿°°®¿·¿´ø¿²¼®»´¿¬»¼³·´»¿¹»¿²¼³¿·´½±¬÷üíôðíç ¬·¬´»¿¾¬®¿½¬¿²¼¬·¬´»·²«®¿²½»üíôïðë Ø¿¦¿®¼±«¿»³»²¬øîïÛ©ñ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ·²°»½¬·±²÷üíôïîç ®»½±®¼·²¹º»»üíçë Ð®»ß½¯«··¬·±²¿»³»²¬øª»®²¿´°±±´÷üîîð Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²º®±³±«¬·¼»¹®¿²¬ôÒÑÌÝÐßüïçðððð x1./Ë444 ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌÝÔÑÍÛÜÑËÌÌÑÌßÔüçôèèèüíêëôððð ÚÔÝßÍ«´´·ª¿²´¿²¼©¿°¬·¬´»¿¾¬®¿½¬üïíí Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²ø¼±²¿¬»¼÷üîðôððð ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌËÒÜÛÎÉßÇÌÑÌßÔüïííüîðôððð Ú´±®»²½»Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±²ß®»¿Î»½±®¼·²¹º»»üïîë Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²ø¼±²¿¬»¼º®±³Ý·¬§÷üïððôððð ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌÝÔÑÍÛÜÑËÌÌÑÌßÔüïîëüïððôððð ÚÔÝßÆ·³³»®³¿²ãíê¿½®»¬·¬´»¿¾¬®¿½¬üïôìéë ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²øüëððñ¿½®»÷üïèôððð ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌËÒÜÛÎÉßÇÌÑÌßÔüïçôìéëüð Í¿©Ó·´´Ø·´´É»¬ïè¿½®»Î»¹·¬®§±ºÜ»»¼ø®»½±®¼·²¹º»»¼»»¼¿²¼«®ª»§÷üîðð «®ª»§üíôççë ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²øº±®»¨¬®¿´¿²¼¿º¬»®±¬¸»®ÝÐß¹®¿²¬÷üëôððð ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌÝÔÑÍÛÜÑËÌÌÑÌßÔüçôïçëüð Ó·´´Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§í´±¬Î»½±®¼·²¹º»»üîðð íð¿½®»Ì·¬´»¿¾¬®¿½¬ø¬©±°¿®½»´÷üïôïéì Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´îïÛ¿²¼»½±´±¹·½¿´¿»³»²¬üíðð Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²ø»²½«³¾»®»¼÷üéôððì ïÝÔÑÍÛÜôîËÒÜÛÎÉßÇÌÑÌßÔüèôêéèüð ÛÈÐÛÝÌÛÜ×ÒÝÑÓÛÎ»º«²¼±ºÞ»¿²Ü»°±·¬üîðôððð Ü»½»³¾»®îððçÝ±²»®ª¿¬·±²Ú«²¼üïðôððð Ó·´´Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§í´±¬÷Î»½±®¼·²¹º»»»²½«³¾»®»¼÷üîðð Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²ø»²½«³¾»®»¼÷üïîôççê «®ª»§ø»²½«³¾»®»¼÷üêôððð Ú·¬¦òÔ¿µ»Æ·³³»®³¿² Î»½±®¼·²¹º»»ø»²½«³¾»®»¼÷üîðð Ú·¬¦òÔ¿µ»Ý±²òß®»¿Í«´´·ª¿² Î»½±®¼·²¹º»»ø»²½«³¾»®»¼÷üîðð Ý±²²Î·ª»®Ù®»»²©¿§î´±¬Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±²¿²¼±º¬½±¬üïðôìðì ÚÇïðÝÐßÝ±²»®ª¿¬·±²Ú«²¼ÝÔÑÍÛÑËÌø¿´´º«²¼¿®»»¨°»²¼»¼±®½±³³·¬¬»¼÷üïïðôðððüîôïèèôííí 3)Outside of the CPA funds, have other funds been sought and received to build up the Conservation Fund? Response: Three separate fundraising efforts are underway to complement CPA funds: 1.Projects funded from the Conservation Fund often receive outside donations and grants. Some of these funds go directly to project costs and some come through the Conservation Fund, but these funds are almost universally for specific projects and do not allow a buildup of working capital. The projects that CPA funds have funded in the FY2010 Conservation Fund have (for several projects) or will (in the case of Bean/Allard) leverage over two million dollars. 2.Donations have been sought and received for the permanent Northampton Conservation Fund held at the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts ($1,000 in 2009 and $50,000 to date). This is an endowment fund and the principal is owned by the Community Foundation and can never be tapped, but the income from this fund does come into the Conservation Fund and can and has been used to complement CPA dollars. 3.Donations have been sought and received for a revolving project Northampton Open Space and Bicycle Projects Fund held at the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts. These tend to be for specific projects where donors for a variety of reasons (legal, tax, type of asset, confidentiality, and preference) chose to give directly through this fund. This fund rises and falls with specific projects but the conservation side of the funds (we track conservation and bicycle donations separately) currently only has a balance of $1,000 above the fund minimum. 4)Describe the anticipated uses of this fund in the coming year. Response: On behalf of the Conservation Commission, we have made offers or are negotiating to purchase the following parcels of land (generally described to avoid upsetting sensitive negotiations). Based on our experience, we expect other opportunities to come up during the year. The FY2010 Conservation Fund is fully expended or committed. If CPA refunds this for FY2011, we expect to move forward on the following: Saw Mill Hills Conservation Area expansion (2 properties)—24 acres Conte Wildlife Refuge/Meadows Cons. Area-- 20 acres Meadows Agriculture Preservation Restriction- 20 acres Mineral Hills Conservation Area expansion-75 acres Fitzgerald Lake Conservation expansion—35 acres Connecticut River greenway (2 properties)—30 acres West Farms Conservation expansion—40 acres We are currently in opening discussions for some larger parcels as well but these projects are more speculative at this point.