image description

Pittsfield City Council Votes No on Mosquito Spraying

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The City Council on Tuesday voted to opt out of the adulticide mosquito spraying portion of the Berkshire County Mosquito Control Project in a 7-4 vote.

Ward 1 Councilor Helen Moon, Ward 2 Councilor Kevin Morandi, Ward 4 Councilor Chris Connell and Councilor at Large Earl Persip III voted in opposition. Persip believes the city should opt out of the program as a whole.

This vote will eliminate only the mosquito spraying aspect of the project; the pre-emptive larval control and catch basin operations will remain.

"This program really seems unnecessary to me," Persip said. "I think we've been bamboozled into thinking this is something we need, we're watching other communities opt out and I would support opting out of the whole program."

Connell originally made a motion to table the petition until the panel was able to get more information from the project and Health Department representatives, who were not present at the meeting. This motion failed 7-4 with President Peter Marchetti, Councilor at Large Pete White, Morandi, and Connell voting in favor.

Mosquito spraying has been a topic of debate for about 10 years. Members of the public have expressed ongoing concern regarding the Berkshire County Mosquito Control Project and specifically its use of adulticides to combat the disease prevalence of Triple E (eastern equine encephalitis) and West Nile virus.

The city began spraying in 2010 when the council voted to contract with the project, which serves 10 communities in the Berkshires. According to a working group of city residents, "Residents Against Mosquito Spray," the process was done without formal presentation or consultation with the Pittsfield Department of Public Health or Board of Health.
 
The following year in 2011, the decision was reversed, and then reversed again. In the summer of 2014, a local petition opposing mosquito spraying with more than 300 signatures was submitted to former Mayor Daniel Bianchi.

Even though the council has opted out of spraying, the state can still mandate mosquito spraying under circumstances such as an outbreak of Triple E. Under MGL Chapter 252 Section 2-A, the State Board has the authority to spray once the Department of Public Health has determined that there's an elevated risk of larva virus for that year.



In this case, the state has the ability to go to the Mosquito Control Board and take action in an effort to address public health concerns associated with a specific outbreak.

"The mosquito control boards are established by state law so they're actually governed by a statute," Finance Director Matthew Kerwood said.

Without opting out of the program entirely, the city will still pay the BCMCP roughly $154,000 for their services in fiscal 2022.  Over the last two years, Pittsfield has used about two gallons of the DeWitt mosquito spray.

"Even if we pass this and opt out, there still can be spraying a Pittsfield," Morandi said. "I think we need to make that perfectly clear to the residents, even if we opt out not to spray, the state's going to dictate whether we do or not."

White also questioned if the city should opt out of the program entirely.

"I don't support spraying, residents have been clear with us and we were clear a few years ago about that, I just question if it's financially smart to stay in this program at all for only using the larvicides," he said.

"And I worry that we're paying for something and we're not getting what we're paying for, and as more towns and pull out, I wonder if we're just covering the cost of their staffing more than the cost of their supplies and what it takes."

Many members of the council wished that the project's Superintendent Chris Horton and Director of Public Health Gina Armstrong had been in attendance to answer questions. They found their absence "irritating" because this has been a topic on the city agenda for weeks, as the Public Health and Safety Commission voted against spraying in early April, it went to the Board of Health the following week, and was on the City Council's agenda for their April 13 meeting.


Tags: mosquito spraying,   

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

SJC: Public Records Petition 'Proper'

Staff Reports
BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court in an advisory opinion released Monday found the petition to bring the Legislature and governor's office under the Public Records Law is "proper" as a form of law.
 
"Its principal purpose is not to regulate the internal proceedings or operations of the two Houses," the court wrote. "Instead, its principal purpose is to provide the public with a new right of access to the records of the General Court and the office of the Governor, applying the existing public records law to those bodies alongside the other governmental bodies already subject to the law. "
 
The state Senate asked the Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on whether public records petition was a violation of the state constitution. The Legislature is required to act on the matter by May 5; if not, supporters plan to put it on the ballot in November. 
 
Auditor Diana DiZoglio has championed the petition as a measure to bring greater transparency to the workings of state government and as part of her own battle to audit the Legislature. More than 70 percent of voters approved the audit question in November 2024. 
 
The Senate asked the court whether, first, the petition was a law or a rule that would interfere with its internal processes and, second, would it create "new and unprecedented authority" to the courts to determine challenges to records determinations.
 
The court offered "that the petition proposes a law and is therefore properly pending before the Legislature" and, for Question 2, concluded "that the proposed measure does not relate to the powers of courts."
 
The court declined to answer three following questions related to intrusions on Senate authority and General Court authority, and violation of rights of  "deliberation, speech and debate" granted to members and staff.
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories