Construction could begin June 1 on a $1.64 million project to replace the storm water drainage system serving Hill Street in Mount Holly Springs borough.
Details on the project scope and timetable will be presented to residents at a meeting at 5:30 p.m. Thursday at the Holly Inn, 31. S. Baltimore Ave.
A construction meeting is scheduled for Wednesday between the borough, the contractor and the engineering firm of Herbert, Rowland & Grubic Inc., Borough Manager Tom Day told council May 14.
Letters have been sent to Hill Street residents inviting them to the May 24 meeting. The letters include answers to what borough leaders anticipate will be frequently asked questions about the project.
“It’s a good idea that we have that,” Day said of the letters. “I can imagine how much of a headache the project is going to be on the residents up there.
“I know it’s going to be an inconvenience for some residents, but the ultimate goal is to get our problems resolved,” Day said, adding the roadwork is bound to cause access issues for households on Hill Street.
Ed Kendall said there are streets adjoining Hill Street that are posted for no parking on Tuesdays and Thursdays due to street cleaning. Kendall asked if that restriction could be lifted for the duration of the project to make it easier for those Hill Street residents directly impacted by the storm water system work.
The borough could put bags over the no parking signs to temporarily lift the restriction, said Day, who also serves as the Mount Holly Springs police chief.
On May 11, a two-and-a-half-foot sinkhole formed in the first block of Hill Street, Day said. He said it is believed the sinkhole was caused by the storm drain collapsing.
“We patched it up but it is a temporary fix until the construction starts,” Day said.
The borough received a $1.64 million PennVEST grant to fund the project, including the upfront engineering fees it paid to HRG to have a “clean plan” to be eligible for the grant.
A video survey conducted in 2016 reinforced the need to replace the system. The video camera reported multiple cracks along sections of pipe, and there was a two-foot section of pipe that was totally missing. The camera could not determine how far down the gap went.
When the contractor tried to videotape the line from the other side of the gap, the camera was blocked by stones that had infiltrated the line. There was also a 200-foot section of pipe that could not be videotaped.