Loading...
OPS CPC QuestionsRocky 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: The earthen dam mechanical building and controls create liabilities to the City and we would like to remove them as soon as possible. Invasive plants are quickly coming in the formerly mowed areas of the golf course, meaning that the ultimate conversation costs will rise. 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: Community Preservation Act funding (CPA is a kind of city funding). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: 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. 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 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 Land acquisition and soft costs (50% interest in 26 acres=13) 13 $11,500 $5,500 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 Land acquisition and soft costs 9 $11,198 $4,000 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.