Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.

Study leads to recommendation of new DPW site

By Courtney Llewellyn

Reminder Assistant Editor



LONGMEADOW Water seems to be a big issue in the town of Longmeadow. Whether it's being pumped, drained, overused or flooding, the topic is constantly being discussed by the Select Board. Their meeting last Monday was no exception.

Flooding water was one of the main concerns raised by Ronald Michalski, a senior consultant with Tighe & Bond, who presented a study of the Department of Public Works (DPW) site conducted by his firm. Eighty percent of the current DPW site, at the corners of Emerson and Pondside roads, is within the 100 year flood plain of the Connecticut River. Michalski said he could think of at least two occasions in the past 50 years when the DPW land had river water covering it.

He added that only 60 percent of the site could be flood proofed. Flood proofing the current site would cost approximately $180,000.

Other critical site constraints mentioned included the location of utilities, the removal of solid waste and the existing buildings.

The town's main sewer pipe crosses under the parcel, Michalski explained, as does a drainage pipe from the wetlands that border the site. To move these pipes and relocate the other utilities before new buildings could be added would cost about $1,050,000.

An additional $810,000 would be needed to remove waste left over from the days the site served as the town's burn dump before any new construction could take place. New garages and buildings would add to the cost. The total estimate for a revamped DPW facility on the same site is $2.1 million.

The 5.8-acre DPW facility was first constructed in 1931 for a cost of $29,000.

It's not just the water problems that make the site problematic. "We need to think of the future," Michalski said, "not just plan for the present."

He listed "obvious existing deficiencies" with the current site: inadequate space, asbestos tiling and poor maintenance, shop and personnel facilities.

"We recommend Longmeadow consider an alternate DPW site," Michalski said. He added that ideally, the new site should be made up of at least six acres.

Select Board member William Scibelli mentioned a large parcel he had noticed for sale on Benton Drive in East Longmeadow. Town Manager Robin Crosbie confirmed that there is nothing in the bylaws that states a town's DPW facility must be located within town lines.

No decisions were made about the DPW site at the meeting.

The discussion moved from floodwater to storm water as Thom Martens, the town's engineer, explained the town is currently not in compliance with regulations set forth by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, as developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. There are six required minimum control measures that must be taken before a town is considered compliant, and Longmeadow has not achieved three of these goals.

The town needs to pass three bylaws regarding illicit discharges and construction site and post-construction runoff before it can regain its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) general permit. The last permit expired on May 1.

Illicit discharges are made up of anything that is not stormwater, with a few exceptions firefighting, flushing water and sewer systems, etc.

"The goal of the MS4 is to improve the nation's waterways," Martens noted.

Select Board Chair Paul Santaniello is in favor of the system, but didn't know why the town needed to pass bylaws if these were already federal regulations.

"All I see is redundancy," he said. "It's just layers of government."

"It gives us the flexibility to do what we need to do," Martens replied. He already has the language written up for the bylaws the town just needs to approve of them at a town meeting.