Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 6/26/2023
HADLEY — In their meeting on June 21, the Select Board addressed several issues concerning the DPW.
DPW Director Scott McCarthy briefed the board on potential grants and several pending projects, including drainage and water service lines in town.
McCarthy also told the board that money had been allocated to paint the town’s steel water tanks, which he indicated was a potentially costly undertaking.
“They’re starting to kind of meet their life expectancy a little bit for the life of a steel tank so we decided to look at the cost analysis of repainting versus replacement,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s worth several millions of dollars on a paint job that’s only going to last 10 or 15 years.”
A joint Hadley-Amherst project currently underway involves the Mill Valley Pump Station, with Amherst being awarded a grant to begin analysis and survey of the involved land in order to change direction of the pumping flow towards the town of Amherst
Asked if such a project would impact future growth or building potential, McCarthy indicated it would not.
The board also discussed concerns covering private parking on the Town Common and the request from a community member for the placement of line markings between Middle Street and Route 47, with a look toward further analysis.
Jim Maksimoski, chair of the DPW Building Committee, joined by members of the engineering firm Weston and Samson, updated the board on the results of a feasibility study intended to facilitate the choosing of a site for the planned DPW building and garage facility.
The new building site would replace the current structure, which is located at 230 Middle St. and was built in 1970.
Addressing desired standards, Maksimoski told the board that priorities along with cost include not utilizing prime farmland, invoking eminent domain or becoming an invasive issue for neighbors. The current challenges presented by the current facility and desired needs were addressed in the study and presented to the board.
The committee toured several comparable facilities for design reference and compiled three construction concepts with cost structures ranging between $27.5 million and $32.475 million.
A potential timeline for design and construction was presented, outlining a nine to 12 month design schedule with two months allowed for bidding followed by a construction period of 14 to 18 months.
Board member Molly Keegan asked if a design plan could be completed in time for the fall Town Meeting. Makismoski responded that it could but that education on the project for the community was a necessary component.
“There’s a lot of education that will be needed,” he said. “The education of the townspeople to understand why this is really necessary and to get this through.”
The board agreed to schedule a broader discussion on the DPW plans ahead of entering executive session.