Bean CPC January 19 2010 Application low res
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PROJECT APPLICATION COVER SHEET I: Project Information Project Title: Bean Farm and Allard Farm Open Space Preservation Project Summary: This high priority open
space, agriculture, conservation, recreation, and historic preservation acquisition project will protect some of the most important farmland in the city. The project will protect both
the 45± acre Bean Farm and the 140± acre Allard Farm through: 1. Permanent preservation of all of the rich bottomland with no residential development. 2. Permanent preservation of the
critical floodplain forest along the Mill River. 3. Permanent use of a majority of the agricultural fields for agricultural uses. 4. Permanent preservation of the historic landscapes
that were once part of the nineteenth century Northampton Association of Education and Industry farmland. 5. Providing land for future active recreation fields. The land will be permanently
preserved through a combination of city fee and less-than fee ownership. If it is not preserved, it is extremely likely much of the land will be divided into a subdivision in the rich
agricultural bottomland or as a series of spaghetti lots, extending from Spring and Meadow Streets to the agricultural fields. Estimated start date: March 2010 Estimated completion date:
February 2011 CPA Program Area (check all that apply): X Open Space X Historic Preservation Community Housing X Recreation II: Applicant/Developer Information Contact Person and or/primary
applicant: Wayne Feiden on behalf of the Agriculture Commission, Conservation Commission and Recreation Commission Organizations: Northampton Agricultural, Conservation, and Recreation
Commissions working in cooperation with the Trust for Public Land (TPL). Mailing Address: 210 Main Street, Room 11, Northampton, MA 01060 Daytime phone #: 413-587-1265 Fax #: 413-587-1264
E-mail address: wfeiden@northamptonma.gov III: Budget Summary Total budget for project: $2,475,000 (estimated since partners do not have to disclose their full costs) CPA funding request:
request: $ 990,000 CPA request as percentage of total budget: 40% Signature: for the Agriculture, Conservation and Recreation Commissions Submitted: January 19, 2010
Request for Expedited Review Process CPC commitment is needed by February 3, 2010 because: 1. The current Bean Farm purchase and sale agreement, at the sellers’ insistence, requires
this. 2. We are asking for an extension of time from the Beans to put together the deal envisioned by this application. Without a CPA commitment of funds, the seller would not want to
provide the extension because it prevents them from pursuing other much faster options. The CPA commitment of funds now allows us, hopefully, to pursue grant funds and minimize the local
cost for the project. 3. Our Bean Farm purchase and sale, which is public, discloses what the buyer is looking for in terms of money and terms, making it more likely that a private bidder
will purchase the property if the city does not proceed. 4. Our assessment of what kind of spaghetti lots shows that the property could be easily developed without a master developer,
in a way that would destroy the integrity of the property. This too is now a public document (above), making it more likely that a developer will pursue this option now that the Bean
Family has agreed to divide up the farm if necessary. Under this scenario, it would be almost impossible for the city to exercise its right-of-first refusal under Chapter 61A. 5. It
allows the potential for a shared Bean/Allard Farm preservation, which is much more complicated but creates the potential for a preservation project that can serve all of the agriculture,
conservation, and recreation needs discussed at the public forums to date. 6. For the project to move forward, the City needs to spend significant funds in February (i.e., $15,000 for
a survey). We don’t want to waste these funds if the project is not funded. 7. There is a small window to put together the Bean and Allard Farm deals that is unlikely to ever come up
again, and collectively these two parcels are worth far more for agriculture, conservation, recreation, and historic preservation, then they are separately. (Although we would still
want to pursue the the deal if only one of these parcels is available.) The project meets the high priority goals of community preservation because of the expedited review. The property
provides resources that are more valuable to shared agriculture, conservation, recreation, and historic preservation than any other site in the city, but making it work requires quick
action. 1. Agriculture: Prime farmland, with fewer flood related restrictions for spring crops and vegetables than most of the meadows. 2. Conservation: The largest single opportunity
to preserve floodplain forest and riverfront access outside of the Meadows, with beautiful Mill River frontage and a key part of the viewshed from Look Park and from Meadow Street. 3.
Recreation: The largest flat sites in the city that is viable for multiple recreation fields located close to the geographic center of the city. It also contains the best opportunity
for providing a large portion of the city with access to the city’s rail trail network. 4. Historic Preservation: The last remaining farmland associated with the nineteenth century Northampton
Association of Education and Industry (which Sojourner Truth joined during her years in Northampton).
Project Narrative Project Addresses Community Preservation Criteria Acquisition for permanent protection of a range of critical and natural plant and animal habitats, including wetlands,
rare or endangered species habitat, especially along the river. Preservation of open space parcels that defines Northampton's character, including parcels that limit the expansion
of development into previously rural areas. Protection of forestland, wetlands and the rural character of outlying areas. Protection of critical prime agricultural land. Opportunity
to use agriculture to serve local food needs. Opportunity for active recreation to serve unmet needs. Linkage and augmentation of open space, recreation, and park parcels. Project
Serves Community Needs This project protects sensitive ecological resources, critical prime agricultural farmland, and invaluable historic resources, and can provide unique recreation
and non-motorized uses. All of the resources are desperately needed in the community. The Recreation Needs Assessment (attached) documents some of the need for recreation fields and
the citywide search to find sites for fields. The Bean Farm and the Allard Farm contain the best options for recreation fields to serve the needed configuration of multiple multi-use
fields in one location. The Agriculture Commission has pointed out that once recreation needs are met, recreation fields will no longer be competing with agriculture for agriculture
fields in the foreseeable future. Project has Community Support Although there is a vocal dialogue on how much of the site should be used for agriculture, recreation, conservation, and
historic preservation, there is broad community support to preserve the property as open space forever with some combination of the above uses. Of the hundreds of voices heard at two
large public forums, as well as dozens of other city meetings, the mast majority of voices want to protect the property for some or mixed uses. Success Factors The success of this project
will be measured by: The purchase of the property. The active involvement of the community partners. Shared use of the property by appropriate uses. A successful process to fully
plan final uses. Maintenance Agriculture uses will be maintained by agricultural tenant or owner. Recreation uses will be maintained by a combination of city maintenance forces,
sports league users, and possibly agriculture tenants (e.g., to mow fields during the summer). Recreation uses will not be developed until the City is in a position to maintain such
uses. Conservation uses require very little maintenance, but will be maintained by the Conservation Commission and its staff support.
Project Budget Acquisition: Fee (recreation, floodplain forest conservation, and community gardens) Less-than-fee (agriculture land agriculture preservation restrictions) $ 910,000 Soft
costs (pre-acquisition, demolition, recreation field design) $ 80,000 Staff time for demo, design, public process, due diligence, etc $ 15,000 Feasibility costs (soft costs from previous
CPA grant) $ 25,000 Partners portion of project—acquisition and soft costs Funded from grants and fund-raisings (estimated only) --State Agriculture Preservation Restriction Program;
and/or --State LAND and/or PARC and/or Conservation Partnership Grant; and/or --Federal Land and Water Conservation Grant $1,445,000 Total $2,475,000 2010 Community Preservation Act
Request $ 990,000 NOTE: Project is for both the Bean and the Allard Farms because they have to be planned together and have synergistic benefits. There is still a chance than either
one could fall apart, in which case the project would still proceed with the remaining parcel. If only only one project, costs are higher because of lack of economies of scale of doing
both projects. CPA funds if only Bean Farm $500,000 CPA funds if only Allard Farm $750,000 Project Timeline CPC application review……………….January 20, 2010 CPC vote………………………………February
3, 2010 City Council vote……………………...February 4 and 18, 2010 Sign revised Purchase and Sales………February, 2010 Expected Project Closeout…………….February, 2011 Feasibility The following steps
need to be completed: 1. Environmental Assessment of Hazardous Materials (21E)—raw lab results indicate no significant problem on Bean, but we need confirmation from the full 21E risk
assessment and complete a 21E for the Allard Farm. 2. Amendment to Bean Purchase and Sale to extend time IF CPA funds available (to provide assurance to seller that project will happen.)
The possible lack of this extension is the greatest risk to the Bean Farm purchase. 3. Agreement with non-profit project partners 4. Permits for Bean family retained lots (critical to
allow them to retain building lots without using up the fields for the lots). 5. Obtaining appraisals necessary to receive requested grants. 6. Obtaining requested grant funds. The project
(with both Bean and Allard) is very feasible, but there is a chance that either project could fail. For that reason we have designed the project and this request to allow us to proceed
if only one property is successful. No acquisition monies will be spent until steps are completed, so there is no risk for other than existing CPA feasibility funds.
Plans Orthophoto Floodplain
Photograph of Site Upper Photo: Bean in foreground and Allard in distance. Lower Photo: Bean only (very small portion of Allard on right side of tree row)
Support Letters and Other Attachments Agriculture Commission Support Letter Conservation Commission Support Letter Recreation Commission Support Letter Historical Commission
Support letter Bean Farm environmental assessment (21E) lab reports Existing Bean Farm Purchase and Sale agreement Recreation Needs Assessment
DRAFT Table X Groundwater Analytical Results Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) and Semivolatile Organic Compounds Concentrations in mg/l Former Bean Farm Northampton, MA Well No.:
BF-2 GW-1 GW-2 GW-3 Sample Date: 12/29/09 RCGW-1 Standard Standard Standard UCLs VPH Fractions C5-C8 Aliphatics < 0.1 0.3 0.3 3 50 100 C9-C12 Aliphatics < 0.1 0.7 0.7 5 50 100 C9-C10
Aromatics < 0.1 0.2 0.2 7 50 100 VPH Target Compounds Benzene < 0.001 0.005 0.005 2 10 100 Ethylbenzene < 0.001 0.7 0.7 20 5 100 Methyl tert-butyl ether < 0.001 0.07 0.07 50 50 100 Naphthalene
< 0.01 0.14 0.14 1 20 100 Toluene < 0.001 1 1 50 40 100 Xylenes (total) < 0.003 5 10 9 5 100 Semivolatile Organics none detected Tentatively Identified SVOCs none NOTES: 1. Concentrations
in milligrams per liter (mg/l, or parts per million). 2. "<" indicates not detected; value is quantitation limit. 3. RCGW = Reportable concentration for groundwater, from 310 CMR 40.1600.
MCP Method 1 groundwater standards from 310 CMR 40.0974(2). UCLs = Upper Concentration Concentration Limits, from 310 CMR 40.0996(7). 4. Values shown in bold exceed Method 1 standards.
5. "--" = Not analyzed for this parameter. 6. "NA" = Not applicable. F:\J0200\285 City of Northampton\14-01 Bean Farm ESA\Report\GW data.xls, ephvph
Resident -Soil: Table RS-1 ShortForm Version 4-06 Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) Vlookup Version v0808 Based on Resident Ages 1-31 (Cancer), 1-8 (Chronic Noncancer), and 1-2 (Subchronic
Noncancer) ELCR (all chemicals) = 5E-04 Chronic HI (all chemicals) = 4E+00 **Do not insert or delete any rows** Subchronic HI (all chemicals) = 6E+00 Click on empty cell below and select
OHM using arrow. Oil or EPC Chronic Subchronic Hazardous Material (mg/kg) ELCRingestion ELCRdermal ELCRvegetable ELCRtotal HQing HQderm HQvegetable HQtotal HQing HQderm HQvegetable HQtotal
Arsenic 30 1.7E-05 5.2E-06 4.7E-04 5.0E-04 2.4E-01 6.2E-02 3.6E+00 3.9E+00 6.7E-01 1.2E-01 5.1E+00 5.9E+00 DDE 0.21 2.7E-08 5.5E-08 8.2E-08 1.0E-03 1.7E-03 2.8E-03 2.8E-03 3.3E-03 6.1E-03
DDT 0.26 3.3E-08 6.9E-08 1.0E-07 1.3E-03 2.1E-03 3.4E-03 3.5E-03 4.1E-03 7.5E-03 Dieldrin 0.25 1.5E-06 3.9E-06 5.4E-06 1.2E-02 2.6E-02 3.8E-02 3.3E-02 4.9E-02 8.2E-02 1 of 1 Sheet: EPCs
Table 1 Soil Analytical Results Concentrations in mg/kg Former Bean Farm Northampton, MA Location: BF-4 BF-5 BF-6 BF-7 BF-3 MassDEP Reportable Reportable 2-Hour S-1 /S-1 /Depth (feet):
0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 10-12 Natural Soil Conc. Conc. at surface GW-1 GW-2,3 UCLs Date Collected: 12/23/09 12/23/09 12/23/09 12/23/09 12/23/09 Background RCS-1 RCS-2 40.0321 Standard Standard
METALS Arsenic 38 32 22 27 <2.7 20 20 20 40 20 20 200 Lead 130 85 4.8 36 3.9 100 300 300 NS 300 300 3,000 PESTICIDES Aldrin <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053 <0.0058 <0.0055 NA 0.04 0.4 NS 0.04
0.04 10 alpha-BHC <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053 <0.0058 <0.0055 NA 50 500 NS NS NS NS beta-BHC <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053 <0.0058 <0.0055 NA 10 100 NS NS NS NS delta-BHC <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053
<0.0058 <0.0055 NA 10 100 NS NS NS NS gamma-BHC (Lindane) <0.0034 <0.0034 <0.0032 <0.0035 <0.0033 NA 0.003 0.5 NS NS NS NS Chlordane <0.023 <0.023 <0.021 <0.023 <0.022 NA 0.7 30 NS 0.7
0.7 500 4,4'-DDD 0.016 <0.0092 <0.0085 <0.0092 <0.0088 NA 4 30 NS 4 4 300 4,4'-DDE 0.35 0.33 0.0079 0.17 <0.0044 NA 3 20 NS 3 3 300 4,4'-DDT 0.55 0.29 <0.0085 0.19 <0.0088 NA 3 20 NS
3 3 300 Dieldrin 0.41 0.32 0.027 0.26 <0.0088 NA 0.05 0.4 NS 0.05 0.05 20 Endosulfan I <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053 0.0069 <0.0055 NA 0.5 1 NS 0.5 1 3,000 Endosulfan II <0.0092 <0.0092 <0.0085
0.025 <0.0088 NA 0.5 1 NS 0.5 1 3,000 Endosulfan Sulfate <0.0092 <0.0092 <0.0085 0.05 <0.0088 NA NS NS NS NS NS NS Endrin <0.0092 <0.0092 <0.0085 <0.0092 <0.0088 NA 8 10 NS 8 8 100 Endrin
Ketone <0.0092 <0.0092 <0.0085 <0.0092 <0.0088 NA NS NS NS NS NS NS Heptachlor <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053 <0.0058 <0.0055 NA 0.2 2 NS 0.2 0.2 80 Heptachlor Epoxide <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053
<0.0058 <0.0055 NA 0.09 0.7 NS 0.09 0.09 7 Hexachlorobenzene <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0053 <0.0058 <0.0055 NA 0.7 5 NS 0.7 0.7 300 Methoxychlor <0.057 <0.057 <0.053 <0.058 <0.055 NA 200 300
NS 200 200 3,000 NOTES: 1. Concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg, or parts per million) on a dry weight basis. 2. "<" indicates not detected; value is sample-specific quantitation
limit. 3. "RCS-" = Reportable concentration from 310 CMR 40.1600. MCP Method 1 soil standards from 310 CMR 40.0975(6). UCLs = Upper Concentration Limits, from 310 CMR 40.0996(7). "NS"
indicates no standard. 4. Background values from MassDEP "Technical Update: Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil", May 23, 2002. 5. Values shown in
bold exceed Method 1 standards. 6. "NA" = Not applicable or not available. "NS" indicates no standard. F:\J0200\285 City of Northampton\14-01 Bean Farm ESA\Report\Soil Data Bean.xls,
metals
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PLAYING FIELDS SUBMITTED BY: NORTHAMPTON RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT C I T Y O F N O R T H A M P T O N, M A January 2010
FEASIBILITY STUDY INTRODUCTION This report provides an assessment of both existing and needed recreation playing fields within the City of Northampton. The purpose of the feasibility
study is to identify and assess possible parcels in the City that would suffice for playing fields. Also, to identify and quantify usage needs as determined through careful analysis
of past, current and future use and types of use. The Office of Planning and Development and the Recreation Department staff worked together to assess opportunities throughout the entire
City. A detailed analysis using the Geographic Information System (GIS) was used for topography, wetlands, access, land tenure, land use and other factors. The Recreation Commission
has detailed usage numbers, demand, and collaborated with various City leagues to assess priority needs.
CURRENT FACILITIES AND USAGE AVAILABLE Current Location Northampton Fields and uses ‐2009 Name Location Baseball Softball Soccer Football Lacrosse Pavilion Other Arcanum Field Bridge
Rd., Florence 1 90’ 1 60' X Fall only X Safety Village Arcanum Field Veterans’ Field Off South St., N’ton 1 90’ X Skatepark Ellerbrook Field Burts Pit Rd 1 X Fall only X Agnes Fox Playground
State St., N’ton Sheldon Field Bridge St., N’ton 1 60’ 3 (2 are youth only) X Fall only Park & Ride Lot Maines Field RiversideDr. Florence X Lights X 4 Sand Volleyball Cts City Schools
Location Baseball Softball Soccer Football Lacrosse Pavilion Other Smith Vocational High 80 Locust St., N’ton X Fall only X X JFK Middle School Bridge Rd., Florence 1 90’ X X Fall only
Aquatic Center Jackson St. Elementary Jackson St., N’ton X X Finn Ryan Rd. Elem. Ryan Rd., Florence 4 60’ Leeds Elementary Florence St., Leeds X X Northampton High Elm St., N’ton 1 90’
X X Fall only X X Bridge St. Elementary Bridge St., N’ton Private Fields Oxbow Marina X private property Some soccer fields are playable in the Fall only because they share the outfield
of baseball and softball fields, which play in the Spring.
NUMBER OF USERS City of Northampton Users of City Facilities and Approximate Participants approximate League number of participants Coed Softball 322 Mens Softball 273 Nton Girls Softball
U10 & 12 115 Nton Girls Softball U14 13 Nton Girls Softball U12 46 Bill Sweidel/Mens Soccer 27 American Legion 54 Nton Boys Lacrosse 49 Nton Girls Lacrosse 47 Mary V Womens Softball
Lg 100 Mike Laga Baseball Lg 45 Nton Little Lg, Farm, Jr. 350 Cal Ripken Youth Bsball 145 Nton Youth Soccer 284 Nton Youth Football 109 Nton Youth Fall Baseball 40 Mens Fall Softball
237 Ed Acus Coed Lg. 90 Jim Mias Open Youth Lg 75 NHS Girls Soccer Summer Lg 20 Adult Open Soccer 22 Nton Soccer Club 200 Ultimate Frisbee 25 Nton Recreation Youth Soccer 325 Nton Recreation
Tball Coach Pitch 265 Nton Recreation Summer Sport Cam 175 Northampton High School Teams 285 Smith Vocational High School Teams 90 TOTAL 3828
USE OF FIELDS AND NUMBER OF GAMES AND PRACTICES ON CITY FIELDS The Recreation Department coordinates all non-school usage of City facilities. A monthly spreadsheet is used to record
and keep track of all games and practices throughout the days that leagues take part in. Outdoor usage begins as soon as possible, usually mid-April, and continues through the beginning
of November when darkness settles in early and the weather is too cold. The Northampton Recreation Department, the Northampton School Department and Smith Vocational High School have
a long-standing partnership. The three entities share recreation and school facilities. The High School practices and games have priority and take place after school, usually until 5:00
or 6:00 p.m. Recreation sponsored leagues then follow. The youth sports world has expanded immensely in recent years. Organized sports offerings have expanded to include many new programs,
camps and longer seasons. For example, many play soccer year-round, baseball has recently added a fall league, and the youth lacrosse leagues have added divisions for younger ages. While
the growth of opportunities is wonderful, it has put an even higher demand on our current playing fields. It is a fact that many teams don’t have the opportunity to practice when needed
because fields are all full, and many times it is difficult to schedule rain make-up games. Approximate Number of games and practices on Northampton Fields ‐2009 April 560 May 915 June
775 July 370 August 170 September 450 October 410 November 90 Total 3740 Data from actual monthly field usage sheets at Recreation Department. Does not include all the Northampton
High and Smith Vocational High practices or games as those are scheduled by their High School.
USERS MEETING In August 2007, a facilities users group meeting was held to discuss and prioritize the current and future needs of the City. They analyzed current and future needs, as
well as gathered number of players, months played, number of games and practices current and desired, and ages served. The group of over 20 league representatives and officials determined
priority needs are six multipurpose rectangular fields and two baseball fields. Many issues were discussed. The ability to practice is important. The lack of practice time once games
start is a major problem. Opportunities for maintenance funding were talked about. Grants, private fundraising, league fees, fundraising tournaments, and others were pinpointed. It was
agreed that collectively this group has the ability and resources to fundraise. In Attendance: Name League Jim Pellegrino Northampton Soccer Club Mary Vazquez Women's Softball League
Dick Powers Junior League Baseball Daniel Pepin Nton Girls Youth Lacrosse Robert K. Ostberg Nton Cal Cal Ripkin Baseball Lance Lashway Nton Fall Baseball Connie Mack Baseball David P.
Hoose Mike Laga Youth Baseball Lg Robert Suprenant Nton Youth Soccer Assoc. Andrew Gimaldi Nton Little League Jeff Findlay Nton Youth Soccer Assoc. Putnam Goodwin Boyd Nton Little League
Donna McGill Nton Little League Jim Miller Nton High School Athletic Director Carol Bertrand Nton Recreation Commission Michael Noonan Nton Legion Post 28 Ray Ellerbrook Look Memorial
Park (Recreation Director for 27 years) Tom Parent Nton Recreation Commission Rich Parisiliti Nton DPW Foreman Parks and Cemetery Division Ann-Marie Moggio Director, Northampton Recreation
Department. Directly operate Youth Soccer gr. K,1 &2, TBall, Intro to Softball, Coaches Pitch Mayor Claire Higgins City of Northampton Data collected from the following leagues who
were not able to attend the meeting: Boys Youth Lacrosse, Summer Ball Baseball.
RECREATION FIELDS ARE IN HIGH DEMAND
RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PUBLIC PARCELS – RECREATION POTENTIAL Disclaimers on the following sites: 1. Sites assessed were theoretical and not based on any interest in owner to sell or make available. 2. Assessments
very preliminary and mostly go/no go level of exploring future options 3. Assessments made to assess overall opportunities, not make final parcel decisions
PUBLIC PARCELS – RECREATION POTENTIAL NO: Community gardens or CSA ONLY NO: agriculture value and legal MAYBE: minimal benefit NO: size and location NO: size and access NO: slope, wet,
farm value to school NOT NOW: Potential in future NOT NOW: Potential in future NO: Sensitive cap, traffic, conservation POSSIBLE: One field, traffic, access NOT NOW: Potential in future-small
CPA application pending EXISTING: Can reconfigure but not new NO: wetlands, wildlife, farmland, legal EXISTING: Can reconfigure but not new --includes new JFK field • Venturers Field
Rd: jail farm • Burts Pit: NW State Hospital • Burts Pit: expand Ellerbrook • Sylvester Rd: DPW gravel pit • Haydenville Rd: Smith Voc. VA • Locust St: Smith Voc. Ag. • Glendale Rd:
Capped landfill • Glendale Rd: Future cell • Garfield Ave: Capped landfill • Oak St: off bike path • Prospect St: Water Dept • Look Park • Recreation Parcels • Conservation Parcels •
Schools Preliminary Assessment only NOT based on parcel availability!
PRIVATE PARCELS – RECREATION POTENTIAL • Island Rd: Ox Bow • Old Ferry Rd: expand Sheldon • Meadows: other than Sheldon • Damon Rd: Lane Construction • Hatfield Rd: Concrete batch
• Spring St: Bean Farm • Meadow St: Allard Farm • Ryan Rd: Willard Gravel • Glendale Road: Kensington • Glendale Rd: gravel pit • River Rd: Hampshire Care • Old Wilson Rd: Pine Grove
Golf • Haydenville Rd: National Grid • Burts Pit: Private lots • Spring St: Chambers lots • Jackson St: by rail trail NO: Restore agriculture, traffic YES: Two fields over many years
NO: Prime agriculture & conservation MAYBE: One field MAYBE: Two fields, expensive YES: Multiple fields but prime ag YES: Multiple fields but prime ag YES: environmental, access YES:
One field MAYBE: Multiple fields, prime farmland YES: Two fields, access YES: limited, wet, expense, access MAYBE: One or two fields, many limits MAYBE: One or two fields YES: One or
two fields YES: Two fields Preliminary Assessment only NOT based on parcel availability!
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON RECREATION -POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION 1. There are limited options. 2. Some sites would support 1-2 fields. 1. Some of those have limited opportunity to support
parking and/or storage facility. 3. Extremely limited for 3 to 6 co-located fields to serve leagues and minimize infrastructure. ~ Continued next page
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON RECREATION -POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION 4. Fact is that the most affordable, flat place for active recreation fields most likely contains farmland. 5. The problems
at Island Rd. and growth of sport leagues resulted in an even bigger push to find property. 6. Purchase: The Commissions would apply for CPA (Community Preservation Funds) for the purchase
of the property, apply for grant, and fundraise if necessary. 7. Development: The Recreation Commission and members of our community have historically sought and obtained State and Federal
Grants, donations, and have successfully fundraised for development or improvements to City facilities. 8. Fields can be developed incrementally, over time, and don’t have to all be
done at once. 9. The average cost of one soccer field is $88,000-$130,000, depending on conditions. In Burlington, MA, 2 soccer fields with irrigation and a gravel parking lot cost $280,000
in 2005. *facts from Berkshire Design Inc., Northampton, MA 10. Maintenance: The Recreation Division of the DPW is responsible for maintenance. It is true that the budget is tight, and
slated to get worse before better. The Recreation Department understands this. There are creative ways to fundraise, charge user fees, empower leagues to help (as they already do), and
work together to maintain fields. 11. Space is needed for fields a. Multipurpose rectangle fields: i.e. lacrosse, soccer: 2-2 ½ acres b. Baseball 60’ diamond: 2 acres square c. Tucking
them together, “cloverleaf” is more practical and can reduce acreage need.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON RECREATION -POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan states the following: Goal: Expand Open Space and Recreation Areas Strategy
and Action: Acquire land and build facilities to meet the needs for adult and youth athletic and recreation and school teams.