Loading...
CPA questions and answers round 2 2018Applicant Answers to CPC Questions – Round 2 2018 ServiceNet King Street Armory Has a more developed exterior scope of work been put together? What is the basis of the repointing estimate? Was an envelope assessment undertaken? Our Supervisor of Facility Services, Tom Gross, conducted a full assessment of the scope of work for the exterior of 131 King Street. As a result of his inspection, we solicited scope of work and estimates from contractors we’ve worked with in the past. We received an estimate for brick repointing from Sullivan and Narey. Only 1/4 of the building needs to be repointed after much brick work done between 2008 and 2011. The estimate includes environmental precautions for the potential release of silica dust in the old mortar. R.P. Masiello did a complete assessment of the windows and provided the estimate included in our application. Arthur Cole Painting inspected the wood trim around the windows. Their estimate in our application includes scraping, reconditioning and painting of trim. The roof has been maintained and is in good condition. See more information below (#5). Insulation is not being considered at this time. See answer #4 below. Are interior plan alterations being considered? We plan to paint and carpet and repair floors as needed. Much of this work can be done by our maintenance staff and the only expense will be materials. There will be no alterations of the floor plan or distinctive historic features. The narrative describes restoring/replacing wood carved fireplaces, door trim, glass, etc. But these costs are not represented in the budget. The costs for interior decorative work were not included in our budget because they will be completed in Phase 2 of our work on the Armory Building. Our first efforts will be focused on exterior and interior mechanicals. Has there been any consideration of insulating the building? What is the current state of insulation? Yes, over the years we have worked on insulation of the building as much as possible without compromising the beauty of the building. Insulation was blown into the attic over the front section of building. The back section of the building (the former gymnasium) has fiberglass batt insulation installed over the suspended ceiling. This back section is poorly insulated and we’ve considered redoing the insulation but there are logistical issues that have prevented this work thus far. There isn’t any insulation on side walls of the office spaces because of the desire to expose the original brickwork. What is the state of the existing roof? All flat sections of the roof are rubber and were redone 25 years ago. Patching of the rubber roof has been done as needed. The roof over the old gymnasium was re-shingled 15 years ago and is in good condition. Has there been a study of what accessibility requirements might be triggered by the suggested work? No elevator is in the budget. One might think accessibility would be of paramount importance for this use. An elevator is not in the plans as it is not necessary to the work done in the building. Most office space in the building is on the first floor. Clients and program participants only visit the first floor spaces. The second floor is for administrative activities only. Since administrative space spans both floors, an employee request for first floor office space can easily be accommodated. We have started to plan and get estimates for making the rear office area handicap accessible. We have a drawing of a proposed ramp for the back entrance to make it accessible. An estimate for the ramp was not available in time to be included with our application. The building already has two handicap accessible bathrooms. What will be the basis of decision for using modern or historic replicated windows? This is clearly a big budget item. The current budget number seems unlikely to hold. The primary basis for our decision to use modern or historic replicated windows is financial. The estimate is low because we based it on installing the same windows recently installed on parking lot side. We plan to use wood/aluminum modern windows that will match the period of the building. If the actual cost of the windows increases beyond the estimate given by Masiello, we will have to spread the installation of new windows out over several more years. What work was undertaken in the previous $2,500 bathroom renovation? Paint, floor, lighting, mirrors, new ceiling tiles. This only cost $2,500 in materials. Time of staff is not included in the cost listed in our application. The project timeline notes that the budget does not include the possibility of lead and asbestos. Is testing for the presence of lead and/or asbestos planned?  If this results in a large budget increase, what are the plans to cover these costs? Testing for the presence of lead will be conducted before work is done on the windows, however, the contractors included the cost of working with lead-based paint in their estimate. The contractors have to assume that there is lead present in the older paint. The window caulking will also be tested for lead, but the estimate does not include precautions for lead in the caulk. If there are cost increases because of lead in the caulk, we will have to spread the number of windows replaced out over several years. What will the replacement windows look like?  Have any estimates been made as to the cost of replacement with historically accurate windows? They will look as historically accurate as possible. If the CPA prefers we have windows that are historically accurate, then it will cost more money. We have researched images of the building but not much is available. We think that the windows we are proposing and have estimates for will approximate what we sincerely believe the windows looked like. The windows will be similar to those in Holyoke and Greenfield Armory buildings. The windows in the Holyoke Armory building appear to be 3 over 1 pane. The Greenfield Armory’s windows are 4 over 4 panes. Holyoke Armory: / Greenfield Armory: / What is the owner's ability to absorb more of the cost itself, such as through increased mortgage financing or fundraising? We have already factored mortgage financing into our proposed budget. While fundraising is a possibility, it would most likely have a very small impact on our ability to complete the work proposed for 131 King Street. We would have to stretch the project out over more years in order to absorb more of the costs. Also, we might have to consider using lesser quality windows. The interior cosmetic work would wait indefinitely. The proposed $3,000/year annual maintenance/repair budget appears low.  What is the basis for this number? We have an in house maintenance department that takes care of the building. This cost is not included in the proposed $3,000 annual maintenance budget. ServiceNet has six maintenance staff. We generally roll this cost into our overall operating expenses. We don’t allocate the cost of maintenance for each building. If we did the budget would be around $18,200. How does this project differ from any other privately-owned building that is not open to the public?  The Armory Building is used for three social service programs: DMH funded Adult Clinical Community Services, EOHHS funded Innovative Care Partners, and The Zone (peer led program for individuals with serious mental illnesses). The building is not open to the general public but it is open to our service recipients. Program participants and clients use the first floor of the building to meet with case managers, therapists or peers. We are considering moving our early intervention program into the building. Because of this unique set of uses, we need to meet state licensing requirements for provision of DMH, DDS, DPH services in this building. Privately-owned buildings not open to the public do not need to contend with such requirements. In addition, the Armory Building is a uniquely historic structure, similar in style and age to the Northampton City Hall Building. The Armory Building is the northern gateway to Northampton center and a visible landmark of the city’s past. Why has maintenance been deferred?  Lack of funding?  Low priority? Maintenance has not been deferred. We have kept up with basic needs of the building, but we are not able to spend money on historic integrity of building. Within our mission we maintained functionality of the building. Major maintenance and repair completed over the past 25 years: $20k year for 3 years on repointing in 2008-2011 Solar cells up in 2018 Repair of roof 6 years ago Roof redone 15 and 25 years ago MassSave audit was completed in 2017 and as a result new lighting was installed and portions of the electrical system were updated to code Please provide detail as to how the work will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards After reviewing the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, we will meet the standards as best we can within the constraints of limited funding and our mission to serve people in the community. Accessibility Improvements Can you provide more specifics on the sites where this work will be done? – the application only mentions three by name – Fitzgerald Lake, Bates Avenue and Blackberry Lane.  Picnic tables and pads at every significant recreation area (Arcanum, Vets Field, Sheldon Field, Agnes Fox, Maines Field, Florence Fields, and Connecticut River Greenway Riverfront Park). Trail gap repairs along the MassCentral/New Haven and Northampton Canal Rail Trails (formally called Manhan Rail Trail when CPA funded it) between King Street and Easthampton Road and at Broad Brook Greenway/Fitzgerald Lake. Concrete wheelchair ramps at MassCentral Rail Trail at Prospect Ave, North Elm Street, Hatfield Street, Straw Avenue, Chestnut Street, Keyes Street, North Maple Street, and Bardwell Ave. This work will also serve as a match for work on the adjacent Bates Avenue, even though no CPA funds will go into Bates. Accessible water fountain and wheelchair charger at Pulaski Park How were the quantities for the budget items calculated? We calculated materials and quantities based on the above projects and past bids and the MassDOT average means prices. A lot of the work seems to be maintenance related, are CPA funds able to be used for this purpose?  Items that appear to be maintenance would include asphalt path repair, repairing pavement gaps, remedying construction damage. Work is proposed as capital improvement and repairs in order to make the areas and facilities compliant with state and federal access codes. This type of work is an eligible CPA expenditure as Rehabilitation and Restoration of Open Space and Recreational properties. There is no limitation on CPA funding on this purpose for recreational facilities, but open space expenditures are limited to those acquired or created with CPA funds, of which there are many. In addition, because these funds are requested as matching funds for a state grant we applied for, we can always use CPA funds only on some projects but they will still work as matches for other projects. Finally, using the city’s classification system, these are all capital projects not maintenance. Parsons Brook Pine Barrens What invasive species are to be removed? A detailed assessment has not yet been performed, but species noted include oriental bittersweet, tartarian honeysuckle, phragmites, knotweed, and Japanese barberry. While infestations are not widespread, with large areas of the property mostly free from invasives, the areas in which they are located, mostly around the property edges, have high concentrations. The letter from the NHESP only cites one ESA listed species.  What other habitat maintenance (if any) will be required? Once the property has been acquired, we will work with NHESP to identify the most appropriate habitat improvement measures. If a controlled and planned burn is the most effective and beneficial treatment, periodic burning may be needed as to maintain transitional open areas. Site visits have also revealed possible rare plants, which we will document moving forward. Can the soft costs associated with this acquisition be covered by the conservation fund (that CPA supported last year)? Those funds are already committed to other projects and are not available for this project. (One of those other projects is the hazardous waste environmental site assessment that is currently underway and therefore was not included in our Parsons Brook soft cost budget. Burts Bog Trail Will the project include any resting spots/nodes along the .75 mile trail length?  This might encourage more users. Yes. It will include a large number of benches. We are describing this property as accessible on steroids, which means both benches for all users including mobility impaired and a hard edge to make it accessible for vision impaired. Will interpretive signs be placed?  If so, how many and what is the interpretive plan? Yes. We will use three interpretive signs, one each at the Woods Road, Burts Pit, and Sandy Hill entrances. Signs will provide wayfinding and natural and human history interpretation. Given that the precise alignment of the trail has not been determined, how was the budget compiled for use of concrete vs. asphalt?  How many stream crossings are included?  Are there wetlands that will be traversed? Wetland have been mapped previously. We will be able to thread the trail away from existing mapped wetlands, although we will need to cross some small riverlets. We made assumptions based on the 11 miles of paved trails we have built recently about how often we need culvert crossing. We have not yet designed the trail to be turtle friendly but our budget was built on conversations with our turtle consultant so we have a sense of the parameters. Village Hill   Will the funds be applied to the North Commons portion of the project, or might they also be used for the 35 Village Hill Road portion? The request for $300,000, if approved, would be applied to North Commons. Last year's commitment of $50K from the CPA has been applied to 35 Village Hill Road.    Have bid documents been prepared for the Village Hill Road portion of the project?  Design documents are at a 70% level and we are advancing them in anticipation of a bid process in December-January. If not, has there been a third party cost estimate? Western Builders has estimated the project at 40% drawings.    The application contains various funding LOIs for the Village Hill Road portion, but not for the North Commons portion.  What is the status for the North Commons portion? LOI's of a similar nature will be requested as we prepare for the next competitive LIHTC funding round, which we expect to submit to DHCD in February.    Will there be any project-based rental assistance? We are requesting a total of 14 Project-based Vouchers from DHCD: 4 from the Commonwealth's HUD 811 program to support the 4 CBH units proposed for North Commons, and 10 MRVP's to support FCF units.    What commercial income is anticipated for the Village Hill Road site?  $18 /SF Forbes Library 1. Has anyone looked at whether the existing window profile will support 1" IGU if double glazing is used? We do not believe the existing window profile would support a 1" IGU double glazing.  We have shown 7/8" deep glazing, so that there can be an internal film of UV blocking film in between two layers of glass, the 1/2" air space, and then another panel of glass. 2.Please provide the estimate/bid referenced, as well as documentation of the comparison between replacement and restoration. We have attached our latest bid for this project from this spring, as well as the bids from the previous summer.   We never recommended replacement of the original windows, but we did get prices early on for replacements, which I attach.  3.Please provide the window specifications sections 086000 and 086010 listed in the TOC