Round 2 2019 Applicant Q&AHistoric Northampton:
Please prioritize the different projects
In terms of prioritizing the projects, this is difficult as we eliminated all but our highest priority
projects for this application. The proposed activities on the Shepherd barn and Parsons House
are top priorities for multiple reasons--preservation, public access, and community benefits.
The Shepherd House porch, meanwhile, is failing and its repair and restoration is an urgent
need. Of the four projects, we could delay the picture framing system and postpone proper curation of framed artwork.
In terms of ranking and scheduling, our priorities are:
1. Repair & restoration of Shepherd House porch
2. Preservation assessments of Parsons House & Shepherd Barn
3. Repairs to both Parsons House & Shepherd Barn to allow public access
4. Construction of an art rack system
The advantage of working concurrently on the Parsons House & Shepherd Barn is that the team
of experts will be on site and from the perspective of time and money, this is the most efficient
approach.
It seems as though the contractors have already been picked. Is that correct?
Does that mean work will not go out to bid?
Since we began at Historic Northampton in 2016, we have worked with multiple contractors and
solicited bids from a variety of local contractors. The contractor team we've assembled for these
projects--Douglas Thayer, Alicia Spence and Wade Clement--have all worked closely with us on
various projects and were consistently the low bidders. They are experts, their work is top
quality, and they're resourceful and inventive when it comes to solving problems. They are also
excellent team players and have worked collaboratively with each other. Finally, they all have
volunteered time and materials to Historic Northampton and care deeply about the
organization's mission.
Habitat for Humanity
Has the success of the previous small house project on Glendale been measured, and if so are the results available?
The best way to answer your question was to go back to the grant we submitted for the previous
project on Glendale (the homes on the shared drive) to see what criteria we had indicated as
defining success and then respond to where we see ourselves at this point. Here’s what we have
to share:
Q. How will the success of this project be measured?
We will measure success of this project by asking the following questions:
• Were we able to complete the project on time and on budget?
We knew going into this project that there was much to be learned and many variables to
Pioneer Valley Habitat using modular construction for the first time. We underestimated the
completion time of the partially finished modular home and may choose, should we again
choose modular, to request a more finished modular box. Despite underestimating the total time
to complete, we did succeed in increasing capacity by building two at a time and using pre-
fabricated construction.
As we previously reported, the initial estimate we received from the factory was not honored and
was in fact significantly inflated from the original quote, so we needed to revise our budget.
Fortunately, many community partners, including the city of Northampton CDBG fund, stepped
in to fill the funding gap for this important pilot project. Additionally, we switched the third
home on the site from modular as originally intended to be a stick frame build to save costs,
which fortuitously created a learning opportunity. We will have final numbers before the end of
2019 on our costs on the modular homes and will be able to compare those numbers once the
control home (the stick build) has been completed in 2020.
• Were we able to find eligible homeowners who complete the purchase of their
home from Habitat after completing sweat equity?
Yes. We are on track to complete the sale of the two modulars during the month of October
2019. The third family, for the stick build home, has been selected and is currently helping in the
construction of their home.
• Does a hybrid model of partnering with a modular home company and using
volunteer labor meet budget goals and goals of community engagement?
We’re still hoping for greater development of the modular industry to include more simple,
affordable, high performance options to reduce price through increased competition. The
Glendale Rd project was in fact the first pilot from the state of Massachusetts ZE-MAHI grant
program administered by the Department of Energy Resources, so there will be even more data
available in the future as other projects across the state come to completion. Recently,
representatives from this project presented to a meeting of state Habitat for Humanity affiliate
Executive Directors, so there may be more opportunities to blend the modular build idea with
Habitat’s community build model.
Forbes Library:
Has the Conway School of Landscape Design been contacted regarding the possibility of providing student interns to assist with a landscape plan?
We are familiar with the Conway School of Landscape Design and the work they have done for
area non-profits and would certainly be interested in having them be part of the planning
process. Because of the amount of community involvement and scope of the plan we are seeking
we anticipate it taking the better part of 6 months which exceeds the duration that students can
work with us. I see us asking students to develop plans for a particular aspect of the project.
Rocky Hill Greenway:
When will we be notified about the land grant?
WAYNE: We have received the LAND grant!
Could the first phase of the ecological restoration wait to be funded at an additional time?
WAYNE: In theory yes, but there are three major reasons we would prefer not to:
1. The earthen dam mechanical building and controls create liabilities to the City
and we would like to remove them as soon as possible.
2. Invasive plants are quickly coming in the formerly mowed areas of the golf
course, meaning that the ultimate conversation costs will rise.
3. We are applying for a major state grant for master planning the entire site, and
need matching funds for this grant.
What's the status of site control?
WAYNE: We hold an Option to purchase the property, meaning that we are not
committed to purchasing but the seller is committed to selling.
Is there an established deadline for site acquisition?
WAYNE: May 1, 2020 (the LAND grant runs to June 30, 2020, but we need to close
and get canceled checks back from the bank by that time to meet the grant
requirements).
The application does not include any financial contribution from the City towards the
acquisition or restoration of the Pine Grove parcel. Is it usual for the Office of Planning and
Sustainability to expect CPC funds to account for all the City’s contributions?
WAYNE: City contributions to open space purchases in general come from eleven
sources:
1. Community Preservation Act funding (CPA is a kind of city funding).
2. Matching grants that we bring in by leveraging our time and CPA grants (LAND,
Land and Water Conservation fund). In this case, that is 64% of the purchase price
(but not including soft costs or improvements).
3. City staff time for project management, negotiation, fund raising, grant writing,
etc. Our rough guideline is that this is valued at 10% of project costs.
4. City outside legal counsel from city solicitor, our real estate attorney, and our
title searches. This funding comes from a city budget account and we never charge to CPA
or other funding sources.
5. Community fundraising from direct contributions and endowment earnings.
This year, most of those funds are going to four separate land acquisitions that have NO CPA
funding. We have done this deliberately as a strategy to reduce total project costs. CPA
projects are require to have conservation restrictions, which add significant costs or use up
fundraising capacity. To reduce costs we are asking for CPA for medium to larger projects
and focusing on fundraising on very small projects.
6. Partnership contributions. Partnership contributions are a major source of support. In
this case, Massachusetts Audubon Society is covering the costs of planning for a
conservation restriction required by CPA, the legal costs of the CR, and the stewardship costs
of the CR. In return for this significant donation (valued at $10,000 to $15,000), we are
carefully not competing with MassAudubon’s fundraising.
7. Community targeted fundraising for those willing to support endowments. A
key local cost is covering the permanent city endowment that we need for open space. We
are not asking for CPA funds for this project for this $21,000 cost.
8. Tax title capital improvement funding. We receive significant city capital
improvement funding to purchase open space by paying off back taxes for land that is
behind in their tax payments. This year, for example, we have approximately $50,000 in
this account. This account is not, however, relevant to this project which is current on its
taxes.
9. Donations of land or bargain sales. Land is often donated or sold to us at prices
significantly below market. CPA funding might be a tiny portion of this for gap financing or
soft costs. This does not apply in this case.
10. Permit land donation incentives. We have some incentives built into zoning, and to a
lesser extent subdivision regulations, that protects open space. For this project, for example,
technically about ten acres is coming from these incentives and the remainder of the land is
what we are paying for.
11. Limited development projects. We have done and continue to do limited development
conservation projects where we carve off land for development where the development
should be and the rest of the land for conservation. When the land for development is for
market rate housing (but not for conservation) we might make a small amount of “profit”
which helps subsidize the open space. We are well known for this effort and this year we
were invited to publish a paper with the American Planning Association on this work.
To help answer that question, please provide an annual funding breakdown of all property
acquisitions it has made for the City. This should include the total annual amount spent on
acquisitions and what portion of this total comes from the City’s annual budget (or like
resources), CPC grants, and/or any third-party contributions or grants (I don’t need to know
who all those entities are, just the amount of funding used by the City in its acquisitions). This
should include funding data for the last five (but preferably ten) fiscal years, starting backwards
from FY2018.
WAYNE: We track this when required by grants or other conditions, so I can only
offer a partial list. Our rule of thumb, however, is that CPA funding is covering
about 35 to 40% of all projects, but more for some and less for others. In 2019, for
example, we purchased:
1. Parsons Brook Greenway-Pine Barrens. This included a total of 133 acres, with
$131,840 from a LAND grant, $118,160 from CPA, $68,000 in donated land value from
zoning incentives, $15,000 in donated conservation restriction costs and stewardship from
Kestrel Land Trust, $25,000 from city legal costs and project management costs.
2. Mineral Hills Greenway-Marble Brook. This purchase was 120 acres, $60,000 with
state funds, $20,000 with CPA funds, $40,000 with community funds, and $15,000 in
conservation restriction costs and stewardship from Kestrel Trust, and $25,000 from
donated city legal costs and project management costs.
Below, after the last question, is our last CPA Conservation Fund report that gives
a larger pool of projects to give you some sense of a longer track record.
Please provide more detail/breakdown on the dam removal/planting budget of $150,000?
WAYNE: We will do the planning and permitting in-house. The budget is
approximately $15,000 for design and $135,000 for construction.
The narrative mentions that the site contains an invaluable historic landscape. Does this mean
natural history, or cultural history, and if the latter, please elaborate.
WAYNE: The property is valuable in many ways. In terms of natural history, this
is one of the largest tributaries in Northampton to the main branch of the Manhan
River and contributes to the rich diversity of the Massachusetts Audubon Society
Manhan River floodplain forest. In terms of human history, the site ranges from
suspected Native American sites (hence the reason for the stream name) to human
history from interstate construction and golf course construction. The site is one
of the most damaging to natural systems that we have seen that we can restore,
which is why the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs specifically
supported this project.
Goats:
Please submit a more detailed budget for the project and indicate specific areas where the
project would take place.
WAYNE: 100% of the budget will go to pay for a goat land management business.
Planning will absorb all staff contracting, management and project oversite. We
will select only those sites where there are significant reasons not to do herbicides,
but we are waiting to complete our current first phase goat pilot study results
before we reach a conclusion. This year we treated Japanese Knotweed on the bike
path, in a location we wanted to avoid herbicides if possible, and a dense
overgrown area off Linseed Road to allow the expansion of the abutting farmland
parcel. In the spring we will assess how successful they have been and identify
where this approach seems to work best and where it is not a good use of
resources. Potential areas include Mill River Greenway and Connecticut River
Greenway, so we can minimize chemical use next to a river, bike path Japanese
Knotweed infiltrations, community gardens near organic plots, and other such
sites. We are not ready for final site selection until 1) we do our spring assessment
and 2) talk to stakeholders at each site. There are so many more sites than funding
can possible cover that we are not worried about finding sufficient sites.
How will goat maintenance (i.e. clean up of feces) be handled?
WAYNE: That is organic fertilizer and we are happy to leave it in place.
SAMPLE PAST PROJECTS (from past CPA conservation fund closeout) as a sample
of costs and leverages.
Open Space Preservation Project Acres CPA share Leveraged
Projects January 2016 to May 2016 to close of Conservation Fund #9
Talon Trust, Saw Mill Hills
Soft costs (appraisal)
2* $1,600 $0
Broad Brook Greenway
Soft costs (survey for survey to support CPA required CR)
0 $7,235 $0
Bobala (Sheldon Field)
Land acquisition (split with Conservation Fund 10)
2* $2,227 $2,000
Zewski, Rocky Hill Greenway*
Soft costs (closing property tax and recording fees)
See entry
below
$979 See entry
below
Projects November 2014‐December 2015
LaValley, Saw Mil Hills
Land acquisition
17 $17,425
$0
Ksiniewicz, Historic Mill River
Soft costs (MAS donating CR stewardship and legal costs)
3.31 $3,480 $6,000
Steidler, Saw Mill Hills
Soft costs (land donated in lieu of back taxes)
4.9 $275 $4,900
Zewski, Rocky Hill Greenway*
Soft costs (closing on land in March 2016, MAS donating CR
stewardship and legal costs and environmental assessment)
4.0* $5,195
$12,000
Derouin, Broad Brook*
Soft costs
1.0* $5,365 $0
Connecticut River Greenway CR
Soft costs (required as CPA project‐ Friends of N’Hampton
Recreation accepted CR for $5,000 below market)
$200 $5,000
Golash, Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge
soft costs (land donated in lieu of back taxes)
0.25 $125 $2,000
Dostal APR, Park Hill APRs
Acquisition and soft costs
1.14 $1,570 $0
Open Space Preservation Project Acres CPA share Leveraged
Baye APR*
Soft costs (APR from separate CPA APR account)
0.5 $700 $0
Reutener, Mineral Hills*
Soft costs (purchase from separate CPA grant & donations)
1* $1,550 $0
Hayssen, Stone Ridge Pond
Soft costs
1.29 $200 $4,000
Hewes, Rocky Hill Greenway*
Soft costs (purchase from separate CPA grant & donations)
5* $20,530 $0
Vollinger, Broad Brook*
Soft costs (purchase from CPA grant & donations)
1* $1,815 $0
McKown, Broad Brook
Land acquisition, soft costs
12.1 $10,044 $3,000
Totals through November 2014 to December 2015 55.7*** $80,513 $36,900
Projects through October 2014
Bosworth purchase: Mineral Hills Conservation Area
Leveraged other purchases Saw Mill Hills & Meadows
Land acquisition, soft costs
15 $10,000 $20,000
Bean Farm: Mill River Greenway
Use of funds for deposit, funds then refunded
2
$0 $47,500
Bleiman: Meadows Conservation Area
Soft costs
10 $8,927 $13,000
360 N. King: Broad Brook‐Fitzgerald Lake Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs
12 $23,410 $55,000
Beaver Brook Conservation Area*
Soft costs
2 $10,434
$10,000
Zimmerman CR: Broad Brook‐Fitzgerald Lake Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs
36 $19,475 $10,000
Beaver Brook Arch Bridge: Mill River Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs
4 $24,243 $14,562
Norwottuck Rail Trail extension ROW
Soft costs
2 $1,145 $5,000
West: Saw Mill Hills Conservation Area*
Land acquisition and soft costs
18 $9,195 $6,000
James: Venturers’ Field Road APR: Meadows Conservation
Soft costs
5 $171 $5,000
Turkey Hill: Mineral Hills Cons. Area*
Soft costs
1 $3,500 $6,000
Lane: Connecticut River Greenway cons. & recreation*
Soft costs
3 $2,973 $50,000
Main Street/Leeds: Mill River Greenway
Soft costs
2 $22,700 $37,500
Boy Scout Island area: Conn. River Greenway 13 $11,500 $5,500
Open Space Preservation Project Acres CPA share Leveraged
Land acquisition and soft costs (50% interest in 26 acres=13)
Girl Scouts (I) Broad Brook‐Fitzgerald Lake Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs
23 $21,523 $8,000
Bean Allard/Mill River Greenway and Community Garden*
Soft costs
2
$198 $1,100
Ryan Rd/Sylvester Road: Saw Mill Hills Cons. Area
Land acquisition and soft costs
22 $13,755 $15,000
Skibiski purchase: Mineral Hills Conservation Area*
Soft costs
1
$1,309 $500
Ward Ave: Mill River Greenway
Soft costs
.1 $6,807 $500
Kestrel Trust Conservation Restrictions**
(two transactions to catch up with five years of CPA)
$45,000 $10,000
Sullivan: Broad Brook‐Fitzgerald Lake Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs
2 $20,617 $5,000
Bookends: Mineral Hills*
Soft costs
$6,695 $2,000
Girl Scouts II: Broad Brook‐Fitzgerald Lake Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs
17 $20,900 $4,000
Forest Legacy: Broad Brook‐Fitzgerald Lake Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs
36 $14,132 $9,000
Chatfield Conservation Restriction: Mill River Greenway
Soft costs
$1,846 $6,000
Gonski: Historic Mill River Greenway
Land acquisition and soft costs (50% interest in 20 acres=10)
10 $12,633 $2,500
Dike Road closure: Historic Mill River Greenway
Soft costs
$75 $5,000
Pomeroy Terrace: Meadows Conservation Area
Soft costs
5 $4,825 $10,000
Broad Brook Gap (Vollinger, Gleason and Kubosiak): Broad
Brook‐Fitzgerald Lake Greenway*
Land acquisition and soft costs
7 $7,347 $11,000
Turkey Hill Road discontinuance: Mineral Hills Cons. Area 2 $375 $1,000
Hatfield Road: Connecticut River Greenway
Soft costs
6 $3,500 $13,000
Jail Farm: Meadows Conservation Area (future closing)
Soft costs
$325 $1,000
Jasinski Agriculture Preservation Restriction: Meadows*
Soft costs
4 $1,622
$1,000
Burke CR: Park Hill/Parsons Brook complex
Land acquisition and soft costs
19.5 $9,650 $2,000
Rothenberg: Broad Brook Greenway/Fitzgerald Lake 9 $11,198 $4,000
Open Space Preservation Project Acres CPA share Leveraged
Land acquisition and soft costs
Szymanski: Saw Mill Hills*
Soft costs
1 $2,820 $1,670
Florence Conservation Area expansion*
Soft costs
1 $125 $5,000
Parcel D: Northampton State Hospital APR
Soft costs
36 $119 $72,000
Hewes: Rocky Hill Conservation Area
Soft costs
0.5 $225 $500
Reutener: Saw Mill Hills Conservation Area*
Soft costs
2 $2,475 $1,000
Three Dike Road parcels (Atwood closed): Historic Mill River
Greenway*
Soft costs
2 $6,840 $2,000
Hayssen: Brookwood Marsh Conservation Area 0.5 $150 $500
McKown: Broad Brook Greenway 4 $2,321 $1,000
Totals through October 2014 3,357*** $346,355 $502,832
NOTES:
Costs are approximate because some valuations are very difficult, especially when soft costs and/or bargain sales
leverages donations of all or part of the value of land. This is not a formal accounting of expenses, which is available in the
CPA spreadsheets)
*To avoid double‐counting for projects with other CPA funding, this table assigns the acreage directly attributable to the
Conservation Fund investment or funding based on the Conservation Fund pro‐rata share of the project. Given that the
Conservation Fund makes these projects possible, we could claim a much higher credit
**CPA‐required conservation restrictions as a result of DOR withdrawing their opinion letter are charged here, not to
specifically funded CPA projects, which significantly increased the cost per acre.
***This does not include projects funded as separate CPA projects outside of the Conservation Fund.
North Commons: Responses to CPC Questions
How was $250,000 decided on as a budget request? What do different funding entities consider
appropriate community support?
The project now has advanced drawings (90% Construction Drawings) which have been
estimated. The request for $250K is based on the gap. It is the amount needed for the project
to be wholly funded and move forward.
The previous application indicated a funding gap. Please summarize the changes since the last
application -- both in terms of funding and design. Has the funding gap been eliminated?
Design:
TCB has advanced the design from 30% Design Development drawings to 90%
Construction Drawings. These plans have also been coordinated with passive house
requirements to ensure that the project will meet the necessary certification levels. We have a
third-party estimate from a qualified general contractor on the 90% set, which is what the
project budget is now based on and should be accurate for a 2020 closing and construction
start.
Funding:
Since the previous CPA application, the project was awarded a $212,000 grant
targeted to passive house multi-family developments. The City of Northampton, working
together with TCB, applied for $950,000 in MassWorks funding to offset the cost of
infrastructure development (ie, roadway and utilities) needed to support the project advancing.
The application was submitted in August and announcements are expected in October or
November. Both the City and TCB have successful track records in receiving and successfully
implementing and closing out prior MassWorks awards.
The resource package reflected in the budget submitted, when funded in full including the
$250K request from the CPC, would eliminate any funding gaps and allow the project to move
forward.
The LOI from MassHousing discusses providing a permanent first mortgage in the amount of
$2,880,000, at a projected interest rate of 5.61%. The budget reflects a MassHousing mortgage of
$4,070,000 at an interest rate of 4.4%. Has Mass Housing expressed a willingness to increase their
loan to the budgeted amount since the February LOI??
The amount of first mortgage is sized based on the project’s Net Operating Income, which has
not changed substantially since the time of the last application; however, the interest rates have
decreased due to market changes. The new projected first mortgage is consistent with the
terms of MassHousing’s underwriting.
The Project Time-line projects approval of the pre-application in October. What's your assessment of
the likelihood of an invitation to submit a full One Stop?
TCB has been invited to submit a full One Stop in the mini round—a round specifically geared to
highly ready, high priority projects. This full One Stop application is due October 31st with
awards anticipated by December. This mini round invitation is only provided to approximately
10-15 project teams (vs the full round which has closer to 50 applicants). Based on prior rounds,
we expect that 50-75% of the projects invited in to the mini-round will receive funding
approvals.
The 10-month construction period seems a bit aggressive. Is there something driving this timeframe?
It is a 12-month schedule per the general contractor and estimator.
Why is no capitalized replacement reserve proposed?
TCB and MassHousing do not require a capitalized replacement reserve for this project. In the
industry, typical underwriting processes do not require these for new construction projects,
based on the expected lifecycle of new systems (vs. rehab projects which, depending on the
Capital Needs Assessment, may warrant an infusion of replacement reserves on top of the
annual replacement reserve deposits).
Hampshire Heights Playground
QUESTIONS_____________________________________________________
1.) Please clarify the budget. The application indicates a total budget of $350,000, while the Opinion of Probable Cost indicates a total cost of $370,623 without
inclusion of the earthwork/site preparation and storm water work to be completed
by the NHA.
The budget is preliminary. The Community Development Block Grant Program allocation amount of $150,000 is fixed. Once the CPC award amount is known, the
budget will be re-examined. With those two amounts known, the equipment pieces
will be selected and the project will be put out to bid. Depending on the final project cost, either budget adjustments will be made, the Housing Authority will consider
other items they can accomplish with existing in-house budgets and personnel,
and/or a community fundraising campaign will be undertaken to fill any remaining
gap, should there be one.
Section 11 regarding feasibility does not appear to have been completed. Can you
do so?
An environmental review is a requirement of the Federal Community Development
Block Grant Program. This will be conducted by staff prior to issuing a contract. No
issues are anticipated to result from that review. No zoning approval is needed. There are no other barriers identified that would impede the progress of the
project.
2.) Why was a re-roofing plan included in the application?
The drainage and re-roofing plan schematics are from prior projects but were
included to show a variety of informational components that may be impacted by
the playground installation. The location and specifications of underground storm
and sewer drainage infrastructure and utilities, the building locations on the site,
proximity to the Hathaway Farms property boundary, etc. are all components that need to be known for this project’s site design and safe excavation activities. The
plans were included to communicate that this important information already exists
and does not need to be included in the costs for this project, although The Berkshire Design Group will make their own assessments.
3.) Is there any way we can get a dollar figure for the work and materials being
funded by the Northampton Housing Authority? The proposal shows the various
line-items but says only “to be paid by Housing Authority” with the dollar values for each item left blank. I did note in their letter supporting the project a pledge of
$14,000 from NHA.
Earthwork/Site Preparation
Remove bituminous concrete $ 644.00
Remove Tree stump (2) $ 800.00
Strip/stockpile/Screen Loam $2,040.00
Excavate/Rough Grade $ 765.00 Haul Topsoil $1,044.00
Fine Grading $ 658.00
Total $7,436.75 Erosion Control Barrier $1,485.00
Catch Basin $4,000.00 Storm Water System
Total $ 7,200.00
Drain Pipe ( 8”) $3,200.00
The Northampton Housing Authority has committed to cover the costs for these two
work scope components, roughly totaling $14,636.75.
4.) The proposal includes approximately $183,000 for acquisition of playground
equipment. Were multiple suppliers explored? What selection criteria was used to
determine the winning supplier?
No final determination has been made on the exact equipment pieces to be
purchased. The playground equipment indicated in the drawings and budget were suggested by the Consultant. There is no intention on the part of the applicant to
pay $128,000 for one piece, as suggested by the Consultant. Once the CPC award amount is known, research will be conducted on the pieces to be selected with the
goal of providing options for different age groups, provide handicap accessibility
opportunities and match the selections to the wish lists expressed by Hampshire Heights residents during the outreach sessions, to the extent the budget allows.
5.) Do Hampshire Heights residents currently use the playgrounds at Franklin
Street School and/or the YMCA?
Residents do use the Jackson Street play areas, but infrequently. Parents do not
send their children across the street to the School during non-school hours
unattended, however. The Y is far to walk with young children. The ability to have children play outside, close to their homes, is most desirable.
6.) The aerial appears to show the garden in a location separate from the proposed
playground site. Please explain.
The aerial photo submission was from early in the design process. There were 4 different areas being considered for recreation space in the complex. Once costs
started to be known, the project was scaled back to one area only. The site marked
“Playground” on the aerial is no longer being considered. The site marked “Garden”
is the site where the playground will be constructed, directly adjacent to the newly
created community garden.
7.) Have materials other than plastics been considered for the play structures?
As stated in #4, no decisions have been made on the actual pieces to be
purchased. Research will be done to identify equipment that may utilize different materials, including natural ones, such as wood. Cost will be a factor.