.

Scaled Back Patton Park Pool Design Goes Out to Bid

HW Kids improve their swimming at the Patton Park Pool.
HW Kids improve their swimming at the Patton Park Pool.

Salem News reports a scaled back pool will go out for bids this week to provide voters with details on exact costs.  

The smaller pool reduced the bather load (number of guests) from 430 to 274 (about double the current small pool holds) and scaled back the size of the zero entry portion of the pool.  
Read more: 
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1196441352/Scaled-back-Patton-Park-pool-design-goes-out-to-bid
Jay Burnham February 19, 2014 at 08:06 AM
Michelle…Having attended the most recent meetings of the Joint Recreational Committee, we have seen these numbers change at each meeting. At the Rec committee meeting on 1/13/14, it was announced that the bather load for a new pool (the zero entry plan) would be 274, which is the number you posted. But at the meeting on 1/27/14, it was announced it would be 333. And at the following meeting it was announced it would be 340, at 24% increase above the 274 number. How are we to discern what the actual number will be? And when?
george LaMontagne February 19, 2014 at 01:49 PM
Michelle, Jay is correct for I was a the last Rec meeting on the pool and Sean stated that the bather number for the pool being submitted for bid is 340. That # changes every time they have a meeting. Also the pool has realy not been scaled down. The approximate cost is $2.3 mil. They are asking for seperate bids one for each the pool, and the zero entry and the kiddie pool !!! Then it's decision time as to what Ham/Wen can afford!!!!!!!
Thinking Out Loud February 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM
FACT or FICTION?…. That the Town of Hamilton has sought to purchase 2+ acres of land from Myopia adjacent to where the the current Patton Park pool is located in order to accommodate new proposed plans which cross over the property line. Word on the street is that a Contract to Purchase was delivered to Myopia from the Town. Anyone hear otherwise? Is a pool unbuildable without the land purchase? If so, why are we just hearing (or not hearing) about this now? And if so, who authorized the offer to purchase?
William Dery February 22, 2014 at 11:53 AM
There are several glaring mistakes on this Pool rush job. They have not done their due diligence. First the ZBA report states that they have presented plans to all other board for regulations approval. This was #4 pages 6 or 7 of the ZBA submittal. This is total wrong. They have not run it by the planning board. A second problem is two fold. 1. the property line has a ZERO offset ( no distance between structure and property line, I think it suppose to be 15”. Maybe not a problem sine the variance can be granted by the ZBA and they are appointed by the BOS ----“cronyism you know”. However the second problem according to page SP1.03 of the application is that the leaching field is on Myopia property. That seems to be a real problem since I know of no agreement between the two parties. Seems to me we have put out to bid on a structure that has a leaching field on somebody else’s property?? There are many more unanswered questions. We are premature in submitting a bid.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »