EIGHT MILLION DOLLAR SPECIAL TOWN MEETING

People of Egremont

It's time to do our legislative duty again. We have a Special town meeting called for on Monday March 2, 2015 at 7:00pm in the Undermountain Elementary School cafeteria. There are three articles on the warrant but because article three is by far the most important and involves spending $8,000,000.00 I think we should focus on that. This issue highlights the importance of every citizen showing up at the town meetings. I'm asking everyone who can come out to be there otherwise we will be stuck with an eight million dollar debacle. We the people have the power and responsibility to tell the town officials what money to spend and how to spend it. I am adamantly opposed to the repair plan that this school committee, SC, has proposed. I think this proposal is too much buck for very little bang. We're talking about repairing a roof and replacing a furnace for eight million dollars. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  This is the kind of misguided plan that is hatched by a small group of people isolated in a bubble.

While I am opposed to the 8 million dollar roof and boiler "repair"; I am not opposed to fixing the problems that exist at the School. The fact is that the roof leaks and the furnaces have been neglected for years. These issues do need to be addressed and they will be, but there are more economical solutions outside of the bubble speak that the SC is trying to shove down our throat. I have to ask why the SC never budgeted for funds to replace the boiler when it first broke. Did they ask for funds when the second boiler started to leak? These simple maintenance issues could have been resolved as they came up if the SC acted properly; and they can still be addressed in a more prudent manner than is being proposed by the SC. The question is how and how much?

I recall a story about a firehouse door in a local town that was hard to open and made a wretched noise when it did. Now we can't have the firemen unable to get into or out of the firehouse can we? The finance committee was debating the issue because the estimates were in the thousands of dollars to replace the door. Then one elderly member asked if he could take a look before they decide. This gentleman looked at the door, squirted some oil on the hinges and went back to the committee and reported that the door was fixed. After ten years and a few coats of paint that door is still in service. We don't need to spend 8 million dollars to fix the roof and furnace!

Let’s talk furnaces. If the SC budgeted to repair and maintain the boilers as needed this heating system would still be in good working order. Now this SC wants us to believe that if we don't spend two million dollars on the heating system the children will freeze to death with water dripping on their heads. This heating system is simple; it’s a water heater (boiler), pipes and radiators to disperse the heat and pumps to circulate the hot water through the pipes. I looked online to see what it would cost to replace the existing boilers with compatible units. Each of the boilers would cost about $18k. Multiply this by 3 and were at 54 thousand dollars. Does this SC expect us to believe that it costs over $1.9 million to install 54 thousand dollars worth of equipment? Even if we had to replace all of the circulating pumps the material cost would barely reach $100,000.00. This is a simple maintenance issue and the SC is trying to kill a fly with an elephant gun.

Now let’s talk about the roof. The roof is a PVC membrane roof system manufactured by Sika-Sarnafil of Switzerland and was installed by Titan Roofing Inc. of Springfield Ma. According to the manufacturer this roof membrane was designed to last over 40 years and Sarnafil roofs installed in the 60s are still effective after more than 40 years in a brutal Swiss climate. {Watch this Sarnafil roof video} Choosing this roof in 1992 made a lot of sense because it promised to be cheaper and easier to maintain over the years. This has proven to be the case as there has been little maintenance cost since its installation. The SC cites the report that claims to have found two out of seven test holes to be moist. I'm sure the seven sites tested were presumed to be leak sources. I think it's a bit of an overreaction to replace an entire 187,000 square foot roof at a cost of over 5 million dollars because of two leaks. I've made a business out of saving roofs rather than replacing them; and I have many satisfied customers to prove it. This roof can be repaired it doesn't need to be replaced. To repair all of the small leaks may cost 10 to 25 thousand dollars, which is a far cry from over 5 million. The SC claims that this project will earn 40 to 50 thousand dollars per year selling energy credits. At this rate it will take over 100 years to see a return on the investment. Do the math; this roof proposal just doesn't make economic sense.

I don't blame the SC for these bloated costs, I blame the state. I think that the SC is playing into the hands of the state grant system. For the sake of receiving "state grants" the district is proposing that we spend nearly 5 million dollars to receive 3 million in grants when we could fix the problems for under a million. Just because money is available doesn't mean we have to waste it; especially if we have to spend more than it would cost without the grants. Personally I believe that the combined projects should cost the district under a million dollars and that's without any grants at all. If a project costs 800% more than it should in order to receive grant money then we are not saving money. I know roofs and am certain that I could deal with the roof problems for less than what the district is proposing. I think the towns should reject this plan and go forward without seeking grant monies.

Take a look at the state grant system. The state grant system is ripe for corruption and cronyism. The SC has already spent over $100k just for two feasibility studies. We could have fixed the furnaces with that money. Since there are only a few engineering firms on the state list those firms divvy up all the grant application business amongst themselves. When a finance committee member asked if the town could hire an independent engineer firm to give us an objective look he was told by another member that we needn't use an independent firm as they may not be on the "state list". He said we already have a study done by one of the firms on the list and was confident that the firm was trustworthy. Forgive me for being suspicious but these firms depend on the grant system. We've already wasted over $100,000.00 for feasibility studies, we don't have to throw good money after bad by spending 8 million dollars on simple repairs and maintenance.

CHARLIE FLYNN AT IT AGAIN

 

 THIS IS THE EGREMONT BoS IN ACTION

ONE VERBALLY ABUSES A CITIZEN

THE OTHER TWO SIT IN SILENT AGREEMENT

 

 

If your browser doesn't show a video then follow this link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ul--ABb-II

BoH Response to Blog Post

Kevin -
 The Egremont Board of Health is discussing upgrading the town's local tobacco regulations which haven't been upgraded since 2002. Please see the BoH article in the current Egremont newsletter for more information on that.
 The article you posted regarding what the Town of Westminster is doing has nothing to do with what is in the discussion stage here in Egremont. Westminster is proposing to ban the sale of tobacco products in their town. Even though we only issue two tobacco permits in town this has never even been considered by the EBoH for discussion, never mind action.
  What the EBoH is considering regulating is the sale of e-cigarettes, which is an inhaled device that contains nicotine. Currently with no local regulation in place a 12 year old could purchase the product. And product manufacturers cleverly flavor e-cigarettes in flavors like bubble gum and root beer with the intent to appeal to the youth market. So what the EBoH is considering is prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes and all other nicotine delivery products to a minor. REPEAT: not a total ban, just a ban to minors similar to the ban to minors for cigarettes.
 The EBoH is also contemplating raising the age to purchase both tobacco products and nicotine delivery products to the age of 21. They are also discussing whether to prohibit smoking on town owned property (French Park, Transfer Station, etc) or having designated smoking areas on those properties. These and other items are in the discussion stage. If the EBoH proceeds they will hold an informational meeting and then a public hearing.
 The board invites you or anyone else to come to a regularly scheduled meeting or to contact me by phone or email with questions or comments. My work email address is: jhaas@egremont-ma.gov. I would very much appreciate it if you would forward this message to your email group. 


Most respectfully,
Juliette Haas
Director
Egremont Board of Health
(413) 528-0182 x 22

My Response

Juliette
    Thank you for your kind response and I do understand that there is a difference between what the BoH is proposing and this article which is why I prefaced the article with the statement "because of its similarity". I also provided a link to the minutes of the BoH meeting on October 9th 2014 so people could read it for themselves. I did read the article in the town newsletter which is what alerted me to the fact that the BoH was discussing changes in the tobacco regulation.
     I do have to disagree with a couple of inaccurate statements that were made. One is that e-cigs could be sold to a twelve year old. Any products that contain nicotine are banned from sale to anyone under the age of 18 in this state. Also the statement that Tanglewood has entirely banned smoking on the property seemed misleading. Tanglewood does have designated smoking areas which I use whenever I attend an event. I only point this out to suggest that the smoking ban on town property would be more palatable if isolated smoking areas were provided for those who do smoke.
    I respect that non smokers have the right to not be subjected to second hand smoke and I have always respected that right. However, I feel that smokers have rights as well. The right to do what one chooses with their own body is indisputable. However that choice cannot violate another persons rights. For instance any adult has the right to smoke as long as they don't affect another persons right to be smoke free.
    This brings me to another point. Restricting an adults right to purchase nicotine products until they are 21 is a violation of their right. The law is clear that when a person turns 18 they are adults in the eyes of the law. This does not mean they are suddenly endowed with wisdom but they should be free to experience life on their own terms. To set the age to purchase nicotine products to 21 tells a young adult that they don't really have rights. This act also interferes with a store owners right to sell a legal product to a legal adult. This restricts the storeowners ability to make the profit that pays the bills and supports their lifestyle.
    Your desire to protect young adults from the harmful effects of smoking is noble; however the regulation you propose will not have the desired result. This will only chase business out of Egremont into surrounding towns. Not only will this take away cigarette sales but other products that these smokers would have purchased. I don't have a problem with reasonable regulations; but I do have to speak up when I see an act as unreasonable as this would be.
    In regard to passing this message on to my readers you may post this as a comment on the blog. I have lifted all restrictions on the comment section, however I reserve the option of deleting any comments I find objectionable. If anyone is disrespectful toward you or your comments I assure you the comment will be removed. Contrary to what people may think or have been told I do respect honest discussion of ideas however lively they may be.
Kevin

COMING SOON TO EGREMONT

The Egremont Board of Health is preparing to issue an edict in regard to the towns tobacco and nicotine dispensing device regulation. Because of its similarity I've reposted an article from NY Times.com.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/disgusted-by-smoking-outraged-by-a-plan-to-ban-tobacco.html?_r=0
 

 Click on the following link to see the Egremont BoH proposed policy.
 

http://egremont-ma.gov/BOH%20min%202014%201009.pdf

 

 

Firestorm Erupts in Anti-Smoking Massachusetts Town

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE NOV. 17, 2014

A hearing on Wednesday with the Westminster Board of Health became so unruly that the board chairwoman could not maintain order; she shut down the hearing 20 minutes after it began. Credit Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times

WESTMINSTER, Mass. — The fury — and make no mistake, it is white-hot fury — went way beyond the ordinary wrath of offended citizenry. A plan here to ban the sale of tobacco has ignited a call to arms.

The outrage is aimed at a proposal by the local Board of Health that could make Westminster the first town in the country where no one could buy cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco.

The uproar stems not from a desire by people here to smoke — only 17 percent do (a smidge higher than the statewide average). Many say they have never touched tobacco and find the habit disgusting. Rather, they perceive the ban as a frontal assault on their individual liberties. And they say it would cripple the eight retailers in town who sell tobacco products.

The ban is the major topic at Vincent’s Country Store, where a petition against it sits on the front counter and attracts more signatures every day; at last count, 1,200 people had signed, in a town of 7,400.

As shoppers come and go, they feed one another’s fury.

"The issue for me is freedom. Whether you are a smoker or not, you have a right to go and buy tobacco products in Westminster; it is a legal product," said Keith Harding, who carried this sign to one of Westminster's main intersections. Credit Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times

"They’re just taking away everyday freedoms, little by little," said Nate Johnson, 32, an egg farmer who also works in an auto body shop, as he stood outside the store last week. "This isn’t about tobacco, it’s about control," he said.

"It’s un-American," put in Rick Sparrow, 48, a house painter.

As Wayne and Deborah Hancock grabbed a shopping cart, they joined in. All quickly agreed that the next freedoms at risk would be guns and religion, prompting Mrs. Hancock, 52, a homemaker, to say that she was afraid to wear her cross.

"I’m thinking, ‘Am I going to be beheaded?’ " she said, not entirely joking.

Nearly 500 people packed a hearing at a local elementary school on Wednesday night held by the three members of the Board of Health. Passions ran high, and the hearing became so unruly that the board chairwoman could not maintain order; she shut down the hearing 20 minutes after it began.

The crowd started singing "God Bless America" in protest as the board members left under police protection. Angry residents circulated petitions demanding a recall election for the board members.

Few can fathom how Westminster became the latest setting for the nation’s decades-old tobacco wars. The pre-Revolutionary settlement emerged as a stagecoach stop in the late 1700s between Boston, 50 miles away, and points west. It remains largely rural and votes heavily Republican. There is no industry here, not even a mall.

Andrea Crete, center, was escorted from the public hearing afterward. Credit Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times

Opponents of the ban blame "outside groups" that want to make the town a test case, conjecturing that because it is so small, no one would care.

In fact, the Board of Health has been discussing the ban since the spring. But no one noticed until the board notified merchants last month that they could lose their permits to sell tobacco. David B. Sutton, a spokesman for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, the nation’s biggest tobacco company, said the company was monitoring the situation but had not been involved or stoked the rebellion.

Tobacco accounts for only a fraction of total revenue at the stores here that sell it. But people who buy cigarettes and cigars also buy other things, and studies say that losing those customers can cost stores a third of their revenue.

"The name of the game is one-stop shopping," said Joe Serio, the owner and pharmacist at the brown-shingled Westminster Pharmacy, where tobacco sales are 2 percent of revenues, and where wine and beer are stocked next to the cramped aisles of Band-Aids and antacids.

Over the years, Massachusetts has banned smoking in workplaces, as well as in restaurants and bars. And most of the state’s 351 cities and towns have enacted their own restrictions. For example, 105 towns have banned tobacco sales in health care institutions, including pharmacies; 34 have raised the legal age for buying cigarettes to 21 from 18; eight have banned the sale of flavored tobacco products and e-cigarettes.

But Westminster would be the first in the state and nation with a full-blown ban on selling all tobacco and nicotine products. The idea originated with the Board of Health, which says it has a moral obligation to try to stop young people from smoking. The board found it hard to keep up with all the new products, like bubblegum-flavored cigars and strawberry-margarita-flavored tobacco, many of them aimed at hooking young people.

"We have a whack-a-mole-effect," Joan Hamlett, the town’s tobacco control agent, said at the hearing Wednesday night before it was cut short. "Every 18 months since 1994, this Westminster Board of Health has been looking at different regulations because every time we work together to find a way to reduce youth access to tobacco, the tobacco industry comes out with a new product that we have to look at and address and figure out how to regulate."

Brian Vincent, left, was concerned a tobacco ban would hurt his business. Credit Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times Continue reading the main story

Andrea Crete, chairwoman of the Board of Health, quoting a report from the surgeon general, said that youth who shop at least twice a week in stores that sell tobacco are 64 percent more likely to start smoking than those who do not.

"The Board of Health permitting these establishments to sell these dangerous products that, when used as directed, kill 50 percent of its users, ethically goes against our public health mission," Ms. Crete said.

The crowd listened, but once the hearing was opened for public comment, people began to hoot and holler.

"You people make me sick," one man growled at the board as the audience cheered.

Wayne R. Walker, a town selectman, said that the selectmen had voted unanimously to oppose the ban. "I detest smoking and tobacco in all its forms," he told the health board, but such a "unilateral and radical approach" as banning all sales would "create a significant economic hardship."

A resident named Kevin West said that smoking was "one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do," but added: "I find this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing." The shouts after his statement prompted Ms. Crete, who had issued several warnings, to declare the hearing over.

She said that people could submit their views in writing until Dec. 1. The board, which has final say on the ban, will schedule another meeting and vote on the proposal, but she did not know when.

As angry citizens milled about after the aborted hearing, Brian Vincent, who owns Vincent’s Country Store, said he was disappointed he did not have a chance to tell the board that none of the merchants in town sell the kind of cheap, sweet tobacco products that the board is worried about. And none have been found in the last two years with underage sales violations.

Among the hundreds of protesters at the hearing, at least two people — doctors — supported the ban. Dr. Corey Saltin and Dr. Payam Aghassi, lung specialists who have a private practice nearby, said that they understood concerns about free choice but that people who are subjected to secondhand smoke have rights, too.

"This ban is going to happen somewhere, sometime," Dr. Saltin predicted. "But probably not in Westminster."

 

 

WE THE PEOPLE DID IT

 

            Well the people of Egremont made a very important decision on November 4th. We said that we are going to take back control of our town. We are not going to leave our town’s affairs to be decided by a small group of people with their own agenda. Town government works best when more people participate. This can only happen when a majority of the town’s people get together and decide what is best for the town as a whole. They do this at regular elections and when they meet together as fellow legislators at a town meeting to discuss the issues that affect the town and vote on those issues. Then the town officials are directed to implement these mandates.

There are many who say the CPA was a very divisive issue and it was; but then every issue is divisive or it’s not an issue. However, we can’t use divisiveness as a reason to not talk about controversial issues. Rather we must discuss these issues with mutual respect, understanding that we are divided on the issue. Personally I think this brought more people together than it divided; otherwise this high of a turnout would have been impossible. People discussed the issue amongst one another and decided not to adopt the CPA.

To the surprise of many 632 of the 934 registered voters came out to cast their vote in regard to the CPA and other state issues. That’s almost 70 % of all registered voters. 52% of these voters rejected the CPA while passing many of the state initiatives and overwhelmingly electing a democratic ticket. So don’t think the CPA failed because of a few outspoken opponents. It failed because a majority of voters felt it wasn’t for this town.  The pro CPA people didn’t expect this issue would bring out as many as it did and no one expected nearly 70% of the registered voters to show up at the polls; but they did. In fact one of our oldest and most respected citizens said that in his entire lifetime he had never seen such a turnout.

 We have a lot of people to thank for such a large turnout and the defeat of the CPA tax. I would like to thank the people who came out to vote, those who allowed signs to be posted in their yard, many who called and asked people to spread the word and last but not least those who financially supported this cause. I didn’t even have to ask people to volunteer; several people came to me and asked if they could call people to get out the vote. Others asked me for signs to pass out to their neighbors, friends and family. Most people simply discussed the CPA issue with everyone they knew and common sense told them to come out against it. We have everyone to thank and I thank you all.

This turnout was no accident either, it was a town wide effort of many people from every area of our town getting together and taking their rightful place in our town’s governance. I’m not one to say I told you so but I told you so. I said that we the people have the power to stop the CPA and we did. My only hope is that this is the beginning of a new era where the people start taking an interest in how their town is run. I hope this is a foresight of a well attended town meeting whereby the people give a clear dictate to our elected officials.  Town officials will do what they were elected to do or what they are allowed to get away with; we have to remind them that they were put in office to exercise the will of the people as expressed at the town meeting. They each have their voice as a citizen but their job as selectmen is to follow the directive of the people.