The meeting on how to "reuse" the former coal-burning plant drew about 60 people to the Senior Center.
Updated at 9:28 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2015 to include comments from Carri Hulet of Consensus Building Institute, Kevin Hively of Ninigret Partners and Richard Purcell of Holyoke, as well as information about coal ash on the site and the website where a preliminary report will be posted in a few weeks.
HOLYOKE -- The owner of a coal-burning plant on Route 5 that closed last year has yet to decide what to do with the 128-acre site, a representative said Wednesday (Feb. 11) at a meeting about the property.
"We're still kind of going through our own individual process, trying to decide what is the best step," said John P. Shue, vice president of operations in New England for GDF SUEZ Energy North America.
The company hopes to make a decision on what to with the site this year, he said.
"We're still evaluating that," he said.
Shue's were the first public comments in recent memory at a public gathering from the owner about the fate of the Mount Tom Power Station.
John P. Shue, vice president of operations for New England of GDF SUEZ Energy North America, at meeting in Holyoke Wednesday (Feb. 11) about closed Mount Tom Power Station.The company owns the former coal-burning plant on Route 5. Behind Shue facing camera is plant manager Howie Person.(MIKE PLAISANCE / THE REPUBLICAN)
The comments came in the second of what have been called "reuse" meetings to discuss what is next for the site, including clean-up of potential contaminants that have entered the soil from years of operation of the plant on Route 5 north beside the Connecticut River.
About 60 people attended the meeting at the Senior Center, 291 Pine St.
The meetings -- the first was Dec. 3 -- are organized by the city, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, a state agency, and Ninigret Partners, an economic development consultant from Providence, Rhode Island.
GDF SUEZ Energy North America closed the plant in December. It had operated only off and on for several years as the economics of burning coal to create energy clashed with the cheaper alternative of natural gas, officials said. The closing cost 28 employees their jobs.
Among suggestions from people at the meeting about the site:
--Whatever goes there should have no negative impact.
--The public should have access to the waterfront.
--The site should include pedestrian walkways and a bikepath.
--The next use should include union jobs.
--The site's existing electrical switchyard should be used. A switchyard is where electricity is changed from one voltage to another, according to online sources.
As at the first meeting, consultants said a decision about the site probably is years away. Such meetings are intended to help people think about what they want for the site by providing details about the location and suggesting ideas, said Carri Hulet, senior associate with Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge.
"We want to acknowledge that there aren't any answers yet," Hulet said.
A preliminary report with consultants' findings and answers to questions posed by people at meetings will be posted online in a few weeks, Ninigret Partners President Kevin Hively said.
The report will be posted on masscec.com/reuse, said Matt Kakley, spokesman for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.
Consultants from Tighe & Bond engineers discussed the features of the site. Among challenges to whatever a developer might want to build on the site are existence of rare species such as sturgeon in the Connecticut River, bald eagles and dragon flies, said Briony Angus, project manager with TIghe & Bond in Westfield.
The site also is in a 100-year flood plain. A flood plain is an area of land prone to floods generally consisting of a flat area with areas of higher elevation on both sides, according to a list of definitions handed out at the meeting.
Rare species and flood plain areas aren't necessarily obstacles to development as options can be negotiated with state regulatory agencies, consultants said.
But, said Jonathan Banks of Holyoke, "That seems to be a 'fatal flaw' if you want to build in a 100-year flood plain."
It would be a challenge, but development can occur such as by building a structure on a higher level and subject to dealing with state regulatory agencies, consultants said.
Such "regulatory issues" are not deal-breakers when it comes to development, Angus said.
"All it does is add to the upfront development costs," Hively said.
Anne Wibiralske of Pelham and Mimi Panitch, Holyoke Planning Board chairwoman, were among those who asked about the presence on the site of heaps of coal ash, the residue of coal burning.
Angus said 25 acres of the site consist of coal-ash "landfills," areas in which the coal ash is covered by soil and vegetation.
Shue sat at a table with plant manager Howie Person, former control room engineer Dave Sparko and former plant mechanic Clancy Kaye.
Richard Purcell of Holyoke stood and thanked the plant representatives from attending the meeting.
"And what do you think about it? That's the question I have," Purcell said.
That's when Shue said the company hadn't decided what to do with the site but hopes to this year.
An issue for city government will be whether the next occupant of the former coal-plant site is a taxpayer. The city will be losing the $615,131 that the plant paid in taxes each year, and uses like a bike path and green space don't generate tax revenue.