Story Not Found

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Save & Earn with Greylock

3.30% APY 6-month certificate. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

The tag is NO foresight, but I appreciate the special note none the less. I don't doubt that anyone associated with the projects doesn't believe the site could be a "useful" power source. However, I would ask what does the term "useful" mean? Is it "useful" for the town to produce pollution free electricity? Is it "useful" for the town to have a way to lower it's energy bill by producing some of it's own electricity? Could a working hydro facility be "useful" for area education? Could a by-product of the project be a "useful" recreation area for the town? The internet is awash with sites dedicated to microhydro projects, it's not like the wheel would need to be re-invented. In our life time, besides death and taxes, the town of Clarksburg can count on two things. 1)The river will always be flowing and the price of electricity will also be increasing. My only question for the voters of Clarksburg is: If you are going to spend the money anyway, wouldn't it be nice to get something for it? For the record, I appreciate all the coverage your site has dedicated to this issue. A job well done.
from: No Foresight	on: 09-22-2010 10:39PM I Agree (24) - I Disagree (6)

iberkshires has done an excellent job reporting this issue. Clarksburg officials have gone a poor job dealing with this issue. Now they want to stick the taxpayers withe the wrong decision and the bill. The state officials involved in removing the dam want it removed, that is their job. It is the job of Clarksburg officials to do what is best for the town. There is money available for hydro projects and has been available. but town officials have refused to pursue free money, or even give explanations, based on facts as to why the have not. THis public information and the public can read it here: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=MA90F&re=1&ee=1 http://masscec.com/index.cfm?cdid=11245&pid=11159
from: Concerned Citizen	on: 09-23-2010 09:11AM I Agree (20) - I Disagree (7)

The Selectman told the taxpayers that if they did not vote to spend the money to demolish the dam, that 50 full time and 100 part jobs would be lost, and eventually the mill buildings would have to be torn down at a cost to taxpayers of $1 million. What the selectman did not tell the taxpayers, is that there are companies that specialize in developing small scale hydro power from old dams. These companies will assist the town in obtaining grants and financing to generate electricity, that will produce income for the town for as long as the river flows. This is what the selectman does NOT want the taxpayers to know. This is one company. http://www.communityhydro.biz/
from: Concerned Citizen	on: 09-23-2010 12:06PM I Agree (18) - I Disagree (7)

Another area town that is showing some foresight in turning lemons into lemonaide. http://www.thetranscript.com/ci_16160568
from: No Foresight	on: 09-24-2010 10:17AM I Agree (9) - I Disagree (3)

If a hydro project at Briggsville's dam could generate 1 million (1,000,000)Kwh's per year - would the voters of Clarksburg believe the project to worth it? That's enough electricity for about 300 homes. This is the conservative figure I come up with using only Google Earth measurements and my years spent on and around that river. A half hour's time could make this estimate an accurate figure and then the voters could make an informed decision.
from: No Foresight	on: 09-29-2010 12:56AM I Agree (2) - I Disagree (2)

Clarksburg School Committee Considers Lowering Paid Time Off Payout Threshold

By Jack GuerinoiBerkshires Staff
06:27AM / Wednesday, October 07, 2026

CLARKSBURG, Mass. — The School Committee will review its paid time off payout policy and potentially lower the minimum service requirement for employees to collect a payout upon leaving.

The conversation began at an Oct. 1 meeting, where the committee requested that a recently retired employee receive his full payout even though he served 16 years rather than meeting the current 20-year threshold.

"I think 20 years is a lot for people," School Committee member Cindy Brule said. "I think we need a number that is more realistic."

Assistant Superintendent Tara Barnes noted that this is another instance where Clarksburg's municipal policy differs from the school's. Most municipal employees in Clarksburg can collect a payout after 10 years of service.

The employee in question was Mike Peters, a recently retired custodian who sought to cash in on 87 sick days and three personal days.

"If he had taken those days over the 16 years, it would have caused disruption," School Committee member Dan Haskins said after supporting the payout.

In Principal Kimberly Rougeau's report, she shared that the school year has started smoothly and that staff have completed several professional development sessions.

Rougeau added that the school is essentially fully staffed. She welcomed new physical education teacher Heather Gray as well as Pat Wood, the new Special Education and 504 Coordinator. She noted that Gray is also a speech-language pathologist who can assist with the school's caseload, adding that both hires have "hit the ground running."

View Full Story