image description
The Board of Health votes to require masking indoors because of the rising number of COVID-19 cases.

Pittsfield Health Board Votes to Require Indoor Face Coverings

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Anyone in Pittsfield will now have to mask up indoors in public places next week.

The Board of Health on Wednesday voted to implement a mask directive effective Monday, Nov. 8.

The directive suggests that if not abided by, a stricter directive with fines and license and permit suspensions could follow. The board avoided using the term "mandate" but the language makes clear the directive is not advisory although venue operators are "respectfully" asked to comply.

It states that masks should be worn in all publicly accessible indoor spaces in the city unless seated at a table eating food or drink. Foodservice employees are to mask when serving customers indoors and outdoors.

The rules do not apply to children under the age of 2, employees in shared office spaces if 6 feet of distance can be maintained, and performers as long as they are at least 10 feet from others.

It was approved with two amendments: adding a section stating that the directive will be reviewed and evaluated by the Board monthly and a push back of the effective date from Nov. 5 to November 8.

Board member Kimberly Loring stressed the importance of giving business owners some buffer time to acclimate to the change.

"I think we need to give businesses the time to do the right thing," she said.

Interim Director of Public Health Andy Cambi modeled the document after the Tri-Town Health Department and the Town of Adams' directives, both of which were issued in September.

He updated an advisory for the board as an alternative but members found it to be too similar to the city's current stance on masking.


"I guess the reason why I like the directive is that it eliminates the question, it's clear to me when you go in you see a note on the door that says you need to wear your mask," board member Bobbie Orsi said. "Otherwise it's kind of left to the discretion of how they interpret or read the advisory."  

The full document is set to be released to the media and business owners on Thursday to allow for the time for the public to adjust. Similar to the former mandate, businesses will be required to have either city-provided or homemade signage directing patrons to mask.

During a COVID-19 update, Cambi reported that there has been a jump in cases from last month but hospitalizations remain low with about 10 people admitted to Berkshire Medical Center. The city did see a death around the middle of September.

"One thing to note is that the hospitalization rates are low or staying low," Cambi said. "Which can speak to the effectiveness of the vaccines."

As of Nov. 2, the percent positivity rate is 4.3 percent with an average case rate of 38.7 per 100,000 people in Pittsfield and there are 109 estimated actively contagious cases.

The mask directive was influenced by a rise in cases, the Delta variant, and the lack of elementary children who are vaccinated.

After the recent news that children ages 5 to 11 were given the OK to get vaccinated, Cambi said the Health Department will be working with the Berkshire Vaccine Collaborative to offer vaccines to children starting the week of Nov. 15. They will be visiting three schools that have not been announced yet to offer the shot.

Lee resident Joshua Bloom attended the meeting to voice support for a mask mandate, especially in youth activities, and offered the well-received recommendation that new regulations are visited on a month-to-month basis.

In other news, Orsi was nominated as the chairman and Loring was as the vice chair. Orsi has previously served in this position on the board.

Former Chairman Dr. Alan Kulberg resigned from the panel in September alongside Director of Public Health Gina Armstrong, who resigned from her position with the city.

Pittsfield Board of Health Masking Directive by iBerkshires.com on Scribd


Tags: COVID-19,   masks,   


More Coronavirus Updates

Keep up to date on the latest COVID-19 news:


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

Lanesborough Officials Take Road District Dissolution Off Warrant

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Select Board has removed a town meeting warrant article regarding the dissolution of the Baker Hill Road District.

JMJ Holdings development consultant Tim Grogan spoke in public comment saying the Berkshire Mall owner is currently has purchase-and-sale agreement for the mall. 

Back in February, the Select Board settled a tax dispute with JMJ Holdings by agreeing to move forward in dissolving the district if the company paid $1.1 million to the town. JMJ Holdings had to provide a signed development-and-purchase agreement 30 days before the town meeting. 

JMJ holdings did not submit a payment to be made by May 9. Because of that, the Select Board voted to take the article of the warrant to be voted at the annual town meeting.

Meanwhile, the Baker Hill Road District presented a slideshow defending the district and explaining what it does.

The district currently provides a non-resident-funded revenue stream of around $500,000 per year. These funds help pay for police cars and officer salaries, dump trucks, fire trucks, and more for the town.

"Dissolution would mean the district's three commercial property owners would no longer have to pay for upkeep of the Route Seven/Eight connector road. As a result, the BHRD annual contribution of more than $500,000 to Lanesborough would disappear permanently, since the services and maintenance costs associated with the Route Seven and Eight connector road would still remain," said Tom Caraccioli, PR consultant with AH&M Inc. "Lanesborough would have to absorb these costs and continue to provide emergency services to the mall and Target. The financial burden for these remaining expenses would then fall on Lanesborough taxpayers through higher taxes or the reduction of other important town services."

The proposal with JMJ would affect the town in a negative way Caraccioli claimed. 

"JMJ is proposing a one-time payment of $1.1 million to Lanesborough in exchange, JMJ would never pay BHRD taxes again. The decision to dissolve the BHRD by accepting this proposed $1.1 million would be a permanent choice that would have irreversible consequences," he said. "There will be no official system in place to cover recurring costs once the money from this single payment is spent. Therefore, the proposed one-time payment is not a long-term solution for the town of Lanesborough."

JMJ's dispute was that the Berkshire Mall no longer exists as a functioning entity and it should not be on the hook for protection and maintenance that had been based on the mall's operation in its heyday. The company is seeking to redevelop the site as senior housing and town officials were asking the state to take over the Connector Road. 

District officials said it's not guaranteed that the state would take over the road linking Routes 7 and 8, built to service the mall back in the '80s, and that the state Department of Transportation had historically discouraged the town from asking. Even if it happened, it could take three to five years, during which no BHRD funds would be collected if the district is dissolved. The state would not replace the revenue they support, and they argued the state is facing its own budget issues making it unlikely they would want to take over.

The road district was created by an act of the Legislature and would require another act to dissolve it. The town meeting article asked for voter support for a home-rule petition to start that process.  

After the presentation, it was asked what the current financial status of the BHRD, given that JMJ hasn’t paid in a long time and if the district actually has the money or if it is dependent on the mall sale.

Mark Siegars, attorney for BHRD, reminded the room that the mall is under a purchase and sale agreement and if the sale closes, the district expects to receive more than a million dollars because of the lawsuit and lien, but does not have that cash yet. If the sale does not go through, BHRD will take the mall and sell it. The district still gets payments from Target, which is separate from the mall. 

There were also some questions on the district's history, with Select Board member Jason Breault asking if the mall did not have a high tax rate from the district, would it still be solvent. The exchange became heated between Siegars and BHRD Chair Bill Prendergast.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories