Corrections may be included in comments below or sent to 413villagegreen@gmail.com.

Link to CTSBTV Video

The Berkshire Hills Regional School District School Committee sets policy and the budget for the schools serving Great Barrington, Stockbridge and West Stockbridge.

Those schools are Muddy Brook Elementary, Du Bois Regional Middle School and Monument Mountain Regional High School. School spending is the largest single item in each town’s budget.

Three candidates appeared at a public forum on Monday, October 13, moderated by former School Committee member Bill Vogt: Sarah Tonetti, Bill Fields and Jason St. Peter. A fourth candidate, chair since 1999 Stephen Bannon, sent a statement that was read aloud.

The candidates

Stephen Bannon (incumbent, chair) missed the forum because of a Community Preservation Committee meeting. Bannon was appointed in 1997, has been re-elected every four years since 1998, and has chaired the committee since 1999. In his statement he said, “I believe our schools are at their best when the students remain at the center of every decision.” He pledged to support “responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars” and safe, supportive schools.

Sarah Tonetti (Stockbridge, incumbent) is the committee’s newest member. She has two children at Monument, a freshman and a senior, and moved to the Berkshires from New York City 18 years ago. Her father was the first in his family to go to college, and she said “quality public education changed the trajectory of my life.” She is not on the ballotbecause not enough of her nomination signatures were verified. She is running as a write-in candidate.

Bill Fields (Housatonic, incumbent) taught social studies in the district from 1969 to 2009 and has served on the committee since 2014.

He first ran because he had “had enough of standardized testing.” He won his last race as a write-in. He is running again mainly to see the new Monument Mountain building project through, as he believes, “You don’t leave a job undone.”

Jason St. Peter (Stockbridge, incumbent) is a 1989 Monument graduate and the son of two public school educators. He is seeking a fourth term. He chairs the high school building committee, and his priority is finishing the project “as far under budget as possible” while limiting disruption for students. His own two high schoolers “will only have negative impacts because they will be going to high school through a construction zone.”

Subscribe now

Where they stand

On MCAS and math scores. Jan Wojcik opened by noting that the state’s September 22 accountability report flagged Berkshire Hills as needing focused or targeted support. He also said the district’s MCAS math scores have trailed the state average since 2019. The three candidates split.

• Fields rejected MCAS as a measure: “If you look at the zip code, you can know what the score is going to be.” He called the test “one indicator. It is not the indicator.” He said the district’s AP results rank 12th in the state for its size.

• St. Peter called himself “kind of an anti-Bill” on testing. He values test scores but thinks MCAS is flawed. “We don’t teach to the test,” he said. He would support a 12th-grade exit exam like New York’s Regents.

• Tonetti called MCAS “one of many tools” and said math is “most certainly an area of focus.” She asked voters to weigh the district’s demographics, including English language learners and students who need extra support.

All three said it is too early to judge the new math curriculum. Fields pointed to the new K-4 reading program, Fishtank, and noted that teachers chose it themselves.

On increases in taxes and the budget generally. Asked by Vogt how to control school spending, the candidates mostly pointed to costs outside the committee’s control.

• St. Peter said the answer lies at the state level and called the funding formula “inadequate, and more funds need to come from the state.” He said about 75% of costs are for people, and health care keeps rising. “If you want a good education, a quality public school education, you’re going to have to pay for it.”

• Tonetti said much of the budget is “already spoken for.” She added: “We share your concern. I don’t want to see my taxes continue to go up. It stresses me out. I got two kids going to college.”

• Fields cited special education requirements and related costs, including more than $1 million for out-of-district transportation. He also cited health insurance costs, which went up 14% this budget year. He said the state’s rural aid formula is under review, with a report due to the Legislature in January. He defended school choice as “a real plus,” culturally and financially, calling the $5,000 figure that’s cited as “a red herring.”

On declining enrollment and consolidation: Atwood argued that enrollment has fallen by about half since 1970 — from about 2,750 to 1,086 in 2026.

In response to a question from Wojcik about declining numbers, St. Peter said the original Monument was designed for more than 700 students, and the new building for fewer than 500. “It’s about 60% of the old Monument.”

As for merging/ consolidating, “We’re all in agreement” that it’s a good idea.

Fields predicted the new school would push Southern Berkshire and Lee toward a “re-evaluation.” His summary: “If you build it, they will come.” He predicted that the new building would force a reckoning with the “fiscal realities” for the Lee and Southern Berkshire districts.

On absenteeism and the damage wrought by COVID shutdowns. Tonetti called chronic absence a national problem, often rooted in families dealing with mental health or addiction. “You can’t learn if you’re not there,” she said. St. Peter was the bluntest: “We basically sacrificed our young by shutting things down” with remote learning. Fields relayed a veteran Monument teacher’s view that, after the return, students “didn’t know how to be students.”

On staffing concerns. Fields warned that 7 to 10 Monument staff could retire in the next three years, while enrollment in teacher education programs is falling. “Who’s going to fill that void?”

Tracking Student Success after BRHSD: Residents pressed the candidates on whether the district tracks how graduates fare in college and the work world. The candidates said guidance counselors send self-reported, follow-up surveys to graduates, but none could say how many graduates respond, and the results have never been formally presented to the committee. Buddy Atwood raised the question and John Breasted, a former Monument tutor, followed up, summing up the answer as “we don’t know” and “we haven’t discussed it.”

Fields said the committee received a five-year list of graduates’ colleges about a year and a half ago.1

The forum ended abruptly. When the moderator called time at the one-hour mark, Breasted objected that the event “was not advertised as a time-limited meeting.” Breasted continued to argue that Lee schools kept students in classrooms during COVID on an alternating hybrid schedule. Tonetti replied that the district “did the best given the information” at the time.

The candidates invited voters to bring follow-up questions to regular School Committee meetings.

The next BHRSD School Committee meeting is Thursday, October 29th.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

After a lengthy presentation by Town Manager Liz Hartgrove and an extended discussion among Selectboard members and town counsel, the Great Barrington Selectboard voted unanimously, 5-0, to declare a water emergency in response to the escalating crisis with Housatonic Water Works Company and threat of a water turn-off.

According to owner Jim Mercer, HWW’s dire financial state makes it unable to pay overdue bills totaling more than $116,000 (and accumulating daily) for the emergency water hook-up HWW has used to connect to the Great Barrington Fire District water supply. The connection was put in place last year to make up for inadequate water pressure from HWW’s own water source to serve their 850-odd ratepaying customers.

Hartsgrove had sent a 12-page memo to board members before the meeting, and she reviewed it publicly to set the stage for the vote, stressing in particular several things that the declaration does not do or mean.

It does not mean water service has stopped.

It does not issue a drinking-water advisory.

It does not transfer responsibility for the privately owned system to the town.

It does not compel HWW to act. That power belongs to the Board of Health, under Chapter 111, or to the governor.

The primary purpose of the emergency declaration, she said, is precautionary. It’s a way to prepare for changes in drinking water availability.

KP law attorney Michael D’Ortenzio stressed the legal effect of the declaration, which is to enable spending authority, and he affirmed that in his opinion the board had the authority to make it, given the expressed threat of a water turn-off.

“What you’re empowered to do, again, is to authorize expenditures absent an appropriation and to speak for the town to third parties.”

The funding made available is a USDA Project Planning Grant, but that is the only USDA funding available while the town doesn’t own the utility. She also explained that a declaration, rather than resolution, was a stronger statement, and would place the town in a better position vis a vis the USDA funds.

Selectboard member Phil Orenstein said the limited extent of the emergency powers left him “underwhelemed.”

“I have to say my biggest concern is it doesn’t do much for us…this doesn’t advance the ball.” That said, however,he didn’t see any reason not to vote yes.

Ben Elliot, a HWW ratepayer himself, said the declaration was a step to move things in the right direction, and to "communicate how the board views the situation,” which he described as “a “slow-moving car crash about to fall off a cliff.”

The board, he concluded, needed, “to call this what it is - an emergency.”

Vice Chair Eric Gabriel reiterated the same sentiments.

“Being a rate payer we’ve been living in survival mode for so long it’s just another day. But after being at the Fire District meeting behind the owner where he says he’s in crisis, that puts a whole new level of worry in a ratepayers mind. You worry if you’re voing to have water at all. I don’t think we have much of a choice…..Things are unraveling fast.”

Chair Steve Bannon felt that calling it an emergency was appropriate because a health emergency could be imminent if the Fire District turned off the water. He said, “I think this is a proactive thing for us to do.” He stressed that he wanted the public to understand the board’s reasoning behind the vote, and that it’s the prudent move to take, given “the path we’re heading down.”

Later in the meeting, when it came time to make a motion, Bannon proposed adopting the draft with two changes:

• Emergency procurement should go to the Selectboard in a public meeting.

• The declaration references the board’s earlier letter asking the governor to declare a state emergency.

Garfield Reed encouraged action and added that there had been more than adequate reviews. “We’ve reviewed ‘til the cows come home. Let’s get moving.”

Hartsgrove said the Board of Health should be part of the town’s preparedness strategy and kept informed of developments, and that the Selectboard should review the declaration regularly. She also said HWW’s reliance on fire district water has created “vulnerabilities” for the district and its customers.

“This is not just about one district, but multiple districts, and the chain reaction of the dependency,” she said.

So the Town Manager ends tonight’s story where it began, with the most salient point to be made about the situation with Housatonic and its water:

“This declaration does not resolve the underlying problems with HWW.”

Subscribe now

Context for tonight’s vote:

The pivotal meeting which set the stage for tonight’s vote took place on September 23, when HWW president Jim Mercer told the prudential committee members he could pay just $3,000 of the bill, and GBFD’s Will Brinker threatened to turn off the water.

On September 30 the public learned that they’d abandoned the long-promised managanese treatment plant. DPU had approved a 90% rate increase over five years for ratepayers contingent on the completion of that plant, but Mercer’s letter to the GBFD insisted the company would require a further rate hike in order to continuing providing water.

At the October 6 GBFD meeting Commissioners voted to keep the water on until November 4th, provided HWW paid at least $10,000 of their outstanding bills by October 8th and made another payment in early November. At that meeting Representative Leigh Davis promised that the state’s Attorney General’s office, as well as that of the Lieutenant Governor and Governor, were taking an “all hands on deck” approach to solving the crisis, which would impact about 850 water customers in Housatonic, West Stockbridge and Stockbridge.

After the Oct 6 meeting Steve Bannon and Eric Gabriel publicly stated their frustration with the pace of progress in open letters to Governor Healey and other state officials urging them to hold HWW accountable. An “angry” Eric Gabriel asked where the money went, why the treatment plant was not completed and other promised improvements have been delayed, why was the $100,000 in debt allowed to accumulate, and why anyone would believe that another rate increase would solve the company’s problems.

Bannon, for his part, thanked Gabriel, and urged state officials to “help us finish what should have been finished years ago.”

As of October 14 there’s been no movement from state officials.

GBFD next meets on Tuesday, October 20th.

Subscribe now

ARTICLE 1: $20 MILLION BORROWING REQUEST FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND AVERY LANE PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS

At an August 26th meeting the Selectboard, in their capacity as sewer commissioners for the town, were presented with DPC Engineering’s findings on the state of the GB wastewater treatment plant and its recommendations for extensive upgrades to ensure the system’s sustainability.

CTSB VIDEO OF THAT MEETING HERE

In that presentation DPC Engineer Justin Skelly said, regarding the current situation at the treatment plant and Avery Lane pump station:

“It’s 1970s era equipment that is no longer dependable…..There’s steel that is rotting out, concrete that’s degraded…..There’s just a lot of elements that we as engineers design things to have a certain useful life, and there’s a lot of equipment and structures that have just simply hit or exceeded that point.”

Out of this meeting emerged the imperative to hold a special town meeting and to include this borrowing as the first, priority item on the warrant.

The full Finance Committee and Selectboard approved its inclusion on the warrant as written.

***

ARTICLE 2: CLEAN-UP COSTS AT THE FORMER COOK’S GARAGE AT 426 PARK STREET IN HOUSATONIC, PART OF WHICH HAS FALLEN INTO THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

In late August Eric Gabriel was alerted the Town Manager to the partial collapse of the former Cook’s Garage into the Housatonic River. The dilapidated brick building, part of the Monument Mills complex, directly abuts the river, and the town acquired it through foreclosure on June 7, 2018. An assessment conducted later that year found lead and asbestos, with 75% of a second-floor section inaccessible.

Four above-ground tanks and some soil were removed in 2019–2020, but COVID paused that work, and any attention that had begun to be repaid to improving the property starting in 2023 was dropped when the previous town manager left in 2024.

The GB Selectboard discussed Cook’s Garage at their September 14 meeting, whose summary is here, with police drone footage shown at 1:08:48.

The debris in the water contains asbestos and lead, and no DPW or Great Barrington fire staff hold the required certification for handling asbestos and lead. The debris remains in the water.

The three goals as she laid them out are to:

1. Address the immediate risk to the building and the health of the river.

2. Stabilize the building for safety and disposition.

3. Put the building up for sale as is, transferring the liability and costs associated.

Article 2 addresses the first two prioirities.

[The cost to demolish the building is estimated, according to Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove, “in the multiple millions.”]

Votes on funding requests coming from the town’s stabilization fund require a two-thirds vote.

***

ARTICLE 3: SIMPLE TYPO (OR ‘SCRIVENER’S ERROR’) CORRECTION, AS THE FISCAL YEAR REFERENCED IN PRIOR WARRANT FOR FIREFIGHTER SALARIES WAS INCORRECT

This is just to correct a one-number typo made in the last warrant.

***

ARTICLE 4: REQUEST TO PAY SMALL INVOICES FROM PRIOR FISCAL YEAR TO RAILROAD STREET YOUTH PROJECT AND EAGLE SHOE AND BOOT

This is a bookkeeping item to finish out fiscal year 2026.

***

ARTICLE 5: ZONING CHANGE TO REMOVE THE 45-ROOM CAP ON MOTELS AND HOTELS

The hotel room cap has become a live question, and a warrant article, as the town has been moving more aggressively to seek out revenue to pay for its ever-mounting costs.

The 45-room max has been a limiting factor for hoteliers looking to build in town, so the reason for this article is to make Great Barrington more appealing to would-be hotel and motel operators, including, presumably, Vijay and Chrystal Mahida, the owners of 79 Bridge Street, the old Searles School property, which has sat empty for years rather than been repurposed as a hotel.

Article 5 would change a zoning law to remove the 45-room limit and place no ceiling on the maximum number of allowable rooms.

***

ARTICLE 6: SBAS REQUEST FOR $47,838 FOR THE TOWN’S SHARE OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 CAPITAL ASSESSMENT FOR TWO REPLACEMENT AMBULANCES

Article 6 is a citizens’ petition filed by Southern Berkshire Ambulance Squad board member Peter Most, and asks voters to appropriate $47,838, Great Barrington’s fiscal year 2027 share of two new ambulances, each costing approximately half a million dollars.

SBAS has identified the capital stabilization fund as the source of their request, which requires a majority vote.

The SBAS request is a second attempt to get the same funds appropriated after failing during the regular town meeting. Budget materials presented to the squad’s six member towns last November listed Great Barrington’s share in two separate lines: $414,676 for operations and $47,838 for ambulance capital. Alford, Egremont, Monterey, Mount Washington and Sheffield each approved their capital shares at their annual town meetings in May. Great Barrington is the only town that hasn’t.

51-year SBAS volunteer and board president Ken Schumacher had this to say on the reasoning behind the purchase of two new ambulances: “All we’re trying to do is maintain top level service with the best equipment.”

At the May 2 Annual Town Meeting, the warrant offered SBAS $327,777 for operations, a 7.5% increase over last year, but short of the $414,676 the squad requested, with the Selectboard and Finance Committee calling a 36% jump unsustainable.

A separate citizens’ petition seeking money toward the new ambulances was tabled in May, and the Finance Committee indicated that it would revisit the capital request once a contract between the town and squad was in place. At a June 29 Special Town Meeting, voters approved another $86,899, bringing the operating appropriation to the full $414,676, and on June 30, Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove and SBAS signed a three-year contract fixing annual increases at the 7.5% rate. But that contract covers only operations, so SBAS still has this outstanding capital request.

SBAS will make up the difference on the cost of the two ambulances through private fundraising. A summer concert raised nearly $98,000 and they recently sent out a mail appeal.

Subscribe now

For a comprehensive explainer on the 2027 Massachusetts ballot questions, see the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis.

Paid subcribers will get the Village Green’s nuanced editorial stances on the 9 questions later in the month.

Send your own letters to the editor to: 413villagegreen@gmail.com.

QUESTION 1:

APPLY PUBLIC RECORDS LAW TO STATE’S EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES

Summary:

Executive agencies and towns and cities are legally obligated to comply with public requests for documents. Up until now, though, the law has NOT included the state' Legislature or Judiciary, meaning that the Mass Governor’s office, courts and Congress are exempt from our public records requests.

Question 1 would subject those branches to the same transparency requirements as everyone else.

But it’s not the people who are clamoring for access to the inner workings of the Governor’s office or Congressional meetings. Rather it is Diana DiZoglio, the state auditor, bringing this question forward. In the 2024 election she pushed for Question 1, which 72% of voters approved, and which then gave her the ability to audit the “accounts, programs, activities, and functions of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions, and activities of the state legislature and any authorities or districts created by the state legislature.”

But lawmakers refused to participate in her audit, claiming that her requests violated separation of powers provisions laid out in the state constiution. that’s the conflict that’s brought about the current standoff, and the appearance of Question 1 on this year’s ballot.

Asked to comment on Question 1 for the Village Green, Team DiZoglio offered this statement:

“Massachusetts deserves open government. Good government groups rank our state the least transparent in the nation. We're one of only two states where both the Governor's office and the Legislature claim a blanket exemption from the public records law. Every city, town, and state agency must follow that law, but the politicians on Beacon Hill exempted themselves.

Question 1 puts the Legislature and the Governor's office under the same public records law as everyone else. It protects constituent privacy, and the Secretary of Administration and Finance certified that it has no cost to taxpayers. In 2024, 72% of voters said yes to auditing the Legislature. Beacon Hill is still fighting that vote — but Question 1 will give you and every taxpayer the ability to access public records directly.”

Note 1: Questions of this kind are sometimes used for leverage that allows two sides to reach a compromise. The Massachusetts Senate agreed in May to turn over a limited number of documents to DiZoglio, while claiming the right to withold others. The House of Representatives, for its part, is currently working on passage of a more limited version of their own transparency bill, also in an effort to forestall Question 1, but that bill is still working its way through committees at this late hour, so as of October 13, Question 1 will be on the November 3 ballot.

An October 7 story from WBUR explored the fights that might erupt should should Question 1 pass with voters on November 3, but be replaced by watered-down legislation by the Governor or Legislature.

Note 2: If state voters approve Question 1 and it goes into effect on January 1, 2027 as written, there will be two exceptions. Constituent communications are exempt, so if you email Rep. Leigh Davis, that email chain will not be subject to public records requests. The other exception protects back and forths between legislators, lobbyists or Governor’s office staff communicating about policy as it is being developed.

Subscribe now

QUESTION 2:

ALLOW PUBLIC DEFENDERS TO UNIONIZE

Summary:

All criminal defendents in the Commonwealth are entitled to a defense attorney, and between 400-500 lawyers are employed for this purpose as members of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS).

But unlike virtually all other public employees in the state, this cohort of lawyers is not currently allowed to organize for better pay and working conditions. Question 2 would reverse that status quo and allow CPCS attorneys to unionize.

This change would likely lead to their enjoying the benefits which other unionized employees enjoy, and would also, presumably, make the sector more appealing to would-be lawyers for indigent defendants.

The additional money to pay for these improvements, however, would have to come from overstressed public coffers. Added job protections would also make it more difficult to remove attorneys who fail to adequately represent their clients.

Subscribe now

QUESTION 3:

ELIMINATE PARTY-CENTRIC PRIMARIES AND SEND TOP 2 FINISHERS TO THE GENERAL

SUMMARY

Political primary elections — organized by the state’s Democratic party and Republican Party — are not well-attended. In 2024 the state primary had a 17% voter turnout compared to the general election two months later with a 68% turnout.

Question #3 would eliminate party-based primaries and hold a party-less, open primary in September instead. The top two finishers from that election, one from each party or two from the same party, would then compete against one another in the general election in November.

Since Massachusetts is an overwhelmingly Democratic-voting state that match-up could often end up as a contest between two Democrats. The change would eliminate the power of party convention-goers from both parties to vet their preferred candidate, as it removes the requirement that statewide candidates win at least 15% of convention delegates to get on the primary ballot.

As it is now, convention delegates have the power to end a candidacy before voters weigh in. Under Question 3, every qualified candidate would earn a place on the ballot no matter how the convention votes. Critics say that eliminating the influence of the parties will enhance the influence of money, and that “qualified candidates” will therefore really mean candidates with loads of money behind them.

Rep. Leigh Davis’ stance on Question 3:

“I’m voting no. I don’t think top-two is the right fit for Massachusetts. California has shown that you can end up with two candidates from the same party in November, or no candidate from one party at all if the vote gets split. I also worry about the cost. You’re competing against everyone from the start and trying to reach a much broader group of voters, which can mean spending a lot more money much earlier.”

Congressional Candidate Nadia Milleron’s stance on Question 3, as stated in her podcast interview with From the Gazebo, dropping Oct 12th:

“In a jungle primary, the people who have more money win and a small person like me, who's an independent, would have no chance at all.”

Watch a debate between Question 3’s most prominent NO (Democratic Party Chair Steve Kerrigan) and YES (Voter Advocate Danielle Allen) votes.

Nadia Milleron is on the November 3 ballot in the First Congressional District of Massachusetts.

Village Green is publishing this conversation because voters should know where candidates stand. Her views are her own.

Congressman Neal was offered the same opportunity by email, but his office did not respond to the invitation.

SHOWNOTES:

Nadia Milleron's campaign website

Subscribe now

On Tuesday afternoon of this past week The Village Green was in the room where the Housatonic water crisis was playing out.

Here’s the story of that meeting, which includes the Fire District minutes from the September 23rd meeting where Housatonic Water Works Company claimed it could not pay its water bills.

That story, as well as the subsequent letters from Eric Gabriel and Steve Bannon, are not behind a paywall, but this work took time and care. Pursuing this fast-moving story as it plays out will take time and care.

If you appreciate that work, here’s the link to become a paid subscriber.

The most helpful thing you could do as you watch football, baseball or wait for dinner to cook: share a link to the Village Green with five of your friends, family or colleagues who would also appreciate it with a note about why you subscribe.

Thank you!

Subscribe now

PS: Dropping tomorrow is a From the Gazebo podcast episode with Nadia Milleron, where she addresses the mailer that has everyone talking.

PPS: Also coming this week: a plain English explainer of Great Barrington’s October 19 Special Town Meeting warrant.

We’ll be doing the same for all 9 questions on the Massachusetts ballot in November, and will also weigh in with our (sometimes nuanced) opinions on each of the questions.

PPPS: And coming in the next few weeks, just for fun…..

We go door to door investigating who’s behind the Instagram phenomenon Decent Barrington.

*****

Re-read the Village Green’s happy news story from this past week about the unusual success story that is Once Upon a Table in Stockbridge.

Here it is.

Subscribe now

FROM:

Stephen Bannon, Chair of Great Barrington Selectboard

TO:

Rep Leigh Davis

Rep. Paul Mark

Officials with DEP (Dept Environmental Protection)

Officials with DWP (Drinking Water Program)

Officials with DPU (Department of Public Utilities)

October 9, 2026

I want to begin by congratulating my colleague Eric Gabriel for taking a stand and making a statement that took courage to write. It is because of that statement that I am delivering my own thoughts on this matter.

I am not writing this as a resident of Housatonic. I am not writing this as a Housatonic waterworks Customer. I am writing this as the longest serving member of the Great Barrington select board. I am writing this as an individual member not representing the views or thoughts of the entire board.

The town of Great Barrington over the past many years has followed the regulatory process, opposed rate increases before Department of Public Utilities (DPU), and questioned decisions that have allowed Housatonic waterworks to continue to operate in a substandard way.

When we opposed rate hikes, we were told by regulatory agencies that they understood our concerns and yet they still granted the rate hikes. When we questioned why business as usual was allowed to continue, we were told that progress was being made. We knew otherwise. And more importantly, so did the customers who continued paying higher water bills while waiting for the improvements they deserved.

Now we are at a tipping point where we actually may see a change. A change in ownership. A change in leadership. And, most importantly, a change in the future of this water system. For the first time in a long time, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. But we also need to recognize that even with meaningful progress today, clean, reliable water for Housatonic, Stockbridge and West Stockbridge residents is still years away.

That is why what we do next matters.

I am asking our State leadership to help us finish what should have been finished years ago. I am asking for your regulatory support, your financial support and your continued cooperation. If, as State Representative Davis has suggested, declaring a state of emergency may not be the best way forward, I respect that perspective. But if it is not the answer, then I am asking the State to help us identify what IS the answer.

An emergency declaration by the Governor could provide authority for the State to intervene in the operation of the company and temporarily transfer day-to-day running of the company to a qualified third party. If not, tell us the better way to accomplish this goal.

This is about more than solving a water crisis. It is also about who is going to pay for it.

For years, Housatonic Water Works customers have been asked to pay more and more and more. Rate increases have been approved through DPU, while the improvements residents have been waiting for have not been fully delivered.

At what point, as Eric stated, is enough, enough?

I believe residents should pay their fair share for clean, reliable water. But their fair share should not mean continuing to pay higher rates for a system that has constantly fallen short of their needs.

We need the State’s partnership in both regulatory support but also identifying State and Federal financial opportunities that can help us develop a responsible and affordable financial path.

The people of Housatonic, Stockbridge and West Stockbridge have already paid a price for this crisis. They have paid through higher water bills and years of frustration and uncertainty, not knowing whether they can trust the water coming into their homes. They should not have to pay for it all over again.

Solving a water crisis should not create a financial crisis for the very people we are trying to help.

I also want to recognize the cooperation we have received over the past several weeks from Governor Healey’s administration, our legislative delegation, and the many State agencies involved. We have worked together in a collegial and constructive way, and I sincerely appreciate those efforts. I believe everyone involved wants to see this resolved. We may have different ideas about how to get there but we share the same responsibility to the people who depend on this water system. While I appreciate the conversations and cooperation, we now need to turn that work into action.

This is not a political request. This is a humanitarian request for every customer of Housatonic Water Works.

No one in this Country, this Commonwealth, or our community should have to live with dirty and unsafe water. There is no reason people must think twice before they can use the water in their own residence.

We have an opportunity to do more than fix a water system. We have an opportunity to restore public trust, rebuild confidence and begin the process of helping a community that has carried a burden far too long. This will take leadership, cooperation, financial commitment and some difficult decisions. But I believe we can get there if we continue working together and keep the residents at the center of every decision.

We have come too far to stop or slow down. This is the moment for us to step up and do the right thing for the customers of Housatonic waterworks and the future of our community.

Editor’s Note 2: The editor is also a Housatonic Water Works customer.

Subscribe now

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: Housatonic Needs Action Now

ERIC GABRIEL

The views expressed in this letter are solely my own. I am writing as an individual, a Housatonic Water Works ratepayer, and a member of this community. This letter does not represent an official position or statement of the Great Barrington Selectboard or the Town of Great Barrington.

How much more are the people of Housatonic supposed to take?

For years, Housatonic Water Works customers have been told to wait. Wait for clearer water. Wait for infrastructure improvements. Wait for the manganese treatment plant. Wait for regulators. Wait for the next deadline.

Meanwhile, the bills keep coming.

Now HWW says it cannot pay its own bills.

HWW has been relying on emergency water from the Great Barrington Fire District because its own system could not maintain adequate water flow and pressure. Yet it allowed its unpaid bill for that water to grow to approximately $100,000 over roughly ten months.

Now HWW has stopped construction of its long-promised manganese treatment plant and is once again seeking more money from its ratepayers.

Enough.

In 2024, DPU approved substantial rate increases tied to capital improvements, including manganese removal, the Fire District interconnection, storage improvements and water-main replacements.

Ratepayers were given a plan and charged accordingly.

Today, the manganese treatment plant remains unfinished, HWW says it is in financial crisis, and those same ratepayers are once again being asked for more money.

Before asking Housatonic ratepayers for another dollar, show them what happened to the plan they already paid for.

I also want to speak plainly about something I have witnessed firsthand.

I am a member of the Great Barrington Selectboard and have been directly involved in the Town’s efforts and negotiations concerning Housatonic Water Works.

I have tried to approach this process responsibly.

When funding for the Town’s legal work was challenged at Town Meeting, I stood before voters and asked them to continue it. I made clear that we were not voting to purchase HWW. We were voting to finish the process, get the facts, and allow the state to independently determine the value of this system.

I believed then—and still believe—that was the responsible course.

But since then, what have we seen?

An emergency connection needed to maintain adequate water service. A massive unpaid bill to the Great Barrington Fire District. A manganese treatment project brought to a halt. Another financial crisis. Another request for ratepayers to pay more.

And throughout my involvement in the Town’s negotiations, I have watched roadblocks, changing explanations and blame directed everywhere except toward the ownership and management of HWW.

My patience with this process has run out.

Based on my experience at that table, I do not believe the Town has been dealing with a willing or transparent partner.

At some point, responsibility has to stop being somebody else’s.

The Mercers own Housatonic Water Works. They manage Housatonic Water Works. And they need to answer for how Housatonic Water Works reached this point.

Where did the money go?

Why wasn’t the manganese treatment plant completed?

Why was roughly $100,000 in debt for emergency water allowed to accumulate?

Why have promised improvements repeatedly been delayed?

And why should anyone believe another rate increase will solve problems that previous increases were supposed to address?

These aren’t abstract questions to me. I have spent countless hours in meetings and negotiations trying to find a path forward.

And I am angry.

I am angry for the people of Housatonic who have paid their bills while living with brown water. I am angry that another public water system stepped forward to keep water flowing and has been left with a massive unpaid bill.

And I am angry that while HWW has struggled financially, the Mercers have continued receiving annual raises, even as the company reported another year operating at a loss. How can HWW tell ratepayers it cannot afford to meet its obligations while its owners continue receiving raises?

But my anger doesn’t stop with HWW.

I believe the Mercers have taken advantage not only of their ratepayers and this community, but of a regulatory system that has repeatedly failed to hold them meaningfully accountable.

For years, HWW has faced violations, enforcement orders, missed deadlines and fines. Yet too often the consequences have amounted to little more than another cost of doing business.

When a company responsible for drinking water repeatedly fails to meet its obligations, a small fine is not accountability.

When promised improvements aren’t completed, another extension is not accountability.

And when ratepayers are asked again and again to pay more while the system moves from one crisis to the next, another rate increase is not accountability.

At some point, the Commonwealth has to acknowledge that its regulatory approach to Housatonic Water Works has not worked.

The people of Housatonic are held accountable every month when their water bill arrives. It is long past time that the owners of Housatonic Water Works be held to the same standard.

Governor Healey, I am asking you to intervene.

MassDEP is involved. DPU is involved. The Attorney General’s Office is involved. Our state delegation is involved. Great Barrington is involved.

Yet approximately 850 customers remain dependent on a private utility that says it cannot meet its financial obligations, cannot complete its desperately needed treatment project without more money, and is relying on another water system to maintain adequate service.

What exactly are we waiting for?

I am urging Governor Healey to declare a public health emergency and direct the appropriate state agencies to begin the legal process of placing Housatonic Water Works under temporary independent management.

In my opinion, the current owners have demonstrated that they are no longer capable of responsibly managing this essential public water system. The health and safety of Housatonic residents must come before the interests of the people who own it.

We need a qualified, independent operator who can stabilize the system, protect ratepayers, and keep water flowing while a permanent solution is developed.

HWW ratepayers should organize and make their voices impossible to ignore.

If HWW can stop paying its bills, ratepayers have every right to ask why they should continue quietly paying escalating rates while promises remain unfulfilled.

I am calling on the Commonwealth to immediately provide a lawful mechanism for HWW customers to place disputed payments into escrow, or another protected process, until there is accountability for where ratepayer money has gone and a credible path forward.

Contact the Governor. Contact DPU, MassDEP and the Attorney General. Contact our state delegation. File complaints. Attend meetings. Demand answers.

I have stood at Town Meeting and argued that the long-term future of this water system must be public. I continue to believe that.

After years of failure, missed deadlines, broken promises and excuses, we can no longer talk about fixing HWW without removing the people who have been running it first!

The people of Housatonic have waited long enough.

No more finger-pointing. No more roadblocks. No more extensions. No more rate increases without accountability. And no more pretending that the same management that brought us here is going to lead us out.

Governor Healey: We need action. Now.

Eric Gabriel
Housatonic Water Works Ratepayer
Great Barrington Selectboard Member
Writing in my individual capacity

Subscribe now

BROUGHT TO YOU BY

ONCE UPON A TABLE

In the American imagination Main Street in Stockbridge is one of the most evocative stretches of road in New England, thanks to the 1967 Norman Rockwell painting of its Christmas iteration.

Stately, sprawling Red Lion Inn anchors the western end of its main stretch and a line of colonial-era storefronts runs east. You can’t see it from the road or in the painting, but tucked into a narrow alley between old town offices and general store is a charming little restaurant. It’s called Once Upon a Table (OUAT), has just twenty-eight seats, and the owner who greets you has a very modern American success story.

Avie Maloney has owned OUAT for five years and this fall, she says, she’s in a “Thank you” mood. 2026 was the first year she felt secure enough in the business to close for the off-season, meaning the month of March, to visit her mom back home. That fact alone tells a story about how far she’s come.

Subscribe now

Once upon a time, Avie left her home island of Grenada and arrived in the US for a job at the Red Lion. She eventually joined the administrative team at the Montessori School of the Berkshires as the welcoming face of the front office, while also waiting tables part-time for then-OUAT owner Alan O’Brient at the establishment she’d one day own.

“I was the one he could call and say, ‘Hey, somebody’s sick, you want to come cover?’” she says of O’Brient.

In 2021 O’Brient was ready to sell. Maloney wanted to buy, but it would be stretch to claim she was ready. It was still the COVID era, and banks weren’t financing restaurants. But she decided to be seize the day, and made an offer she expected to be refused.

“I said to him, ‘I want to do this, but I don’t have the money, and the bank is not giving me any money.” She asked for a deal that would bypass the bank. “I was waiting for him to say no. I was going to go back and live my life.”

But he said yes. Five years later, she still writes a check every month not to a bank, but to her former boss who believed in her.

“Who does that?” she says.

Once it was hers to take care of, people came out of the woodwork, or rather her Montessori rolodex, to help. A former colleague knew a retired restaurateur who showed her how to build spreadsheets and ask for funding. Another came out of retirement to do the books. A Montessori parent/ carpenter [full disclosure: my husband, Jim Clary] renovated the place, and has been called back into service each year since. Small start-up investors, many of them school parents, put up money. The waitstaff were former students.

When Maloney opened, the cozy dining room looked like a school-based party.

“The first month or two, it was all Montessori,” she says.

But while there was ample support and cheerleading, the first several years were still very hard. If you were to check out the national stats on restaurant start-ups, you’d learn that less than half of them make it through two years. In Maloney’s first two years three chefs came and went, invoices got lost as upstairs office space turned into storage, and the kitchen floor had to come up entirely when a repair turned into a replacement, among other crises. For a long time it seemed like money was only going out, not in. It took until last winter before she could keep ahead of costs and look at actual income.

Near her desk she keeps the close-of-day report from the worst night, when receipts were in the low double digits. She’s sure to look at that report during the boom time in July.

“It reminds me why every phone call and email is important.”

Winter, in other words, is always coming.

What she’s looking to do now is to build up OUAT’s small winter events — holiday parties and the like - to carry the restaurant through the slow months. She’s also busy as vice president of the Stockbridge Chamber of Commerce, but though she’s been asked to serve on various other committees, that’s the only outside commitment she’s committed to. She doesn’t want to take on more than she can responsibly handle.

Maloney is ready to center gratitude these days because she knows it isn’t easy for people to prioritize a nice dinner out right now. Gas prices are keeping people closer to home. It requires discretionary income. Given the hard times she appreciates each and every customer, especially the regulars she counts as family. Hotels and bnbs send guests her way. She recalled the rabbis who noticed the mezuzah she’d been gifted but which had been hung up incorrectly on the door jamb, who later returned to not only affix it properly but to hold a ceremony right there at the threshold to bless her restaurant.

“I can’t do it without the people. The people making the reservations, the people showing up, the people giving us reviews. Word of mouth goes a long way….This is a story about relationships, and trust.”

[Update on October 8: A $10,000 payment from HWW/ the Mercers was received by the GBFD on the morning of October 7, per a GBFD commissioner.]

The Great Barrington Fire District will not shut off water to Housatonic Water Works Company tomorrow morning. But if it does not recieve its first $10,000 payment it might shut the water off on November 4.

At a Tuesday afternoon meeting at the Fire District office, commissioners voted unanimously to demand a $10,000 payment from the failing utility by Wednesday, October 7, and to grant a 30 or so-day grace period beyond that. If the money doesn’t arrive, the emergency connection that’s been in place since December to supplement HWW’s water supply will be shut off in early November.

The $10,000 amount had been offered by an emailed letter from HWW co-owner and treasurer James Mercer, who did not attend. Buddy Atwood read the email, sent earlier Tuesday, in which Mercer raised his prior payment offer of $3,000 to $10,000 a month for three months.

Also in attendance were Representative Leigh Davis, Great Barrington Selectboard Chair Steve Bannon and Vice Chair Eric Gabriel and Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove. Bannon read a brief stating asserting that the town “does not support a rate increase” for HWW ratepayers.

Tuesday’s compromise emerged only after a harsher motion failed to carry the room. Commissioner Will Brinker first moved to shut the water off Wednesday, October 7, noting the district has been waiting ten months to be paid, and stressing that it was the District’s “fiduciary duty” to look out for its financial interests at this stage. The replacement motion, demanding $10,000 by Wednesday, with a 30-day grace period, was made after a request from Rep. Davis asking for more time, and promising on behalf of state officials, “We promise that you will be made whole.”

Kristen Elechko, Director of Governor Maura Healey’s Western Massachusetts office, traveled from Northampton for the meeting.

“We’re all trying to be supportive partners,” she said, “understanding this is a long-standing issue.”

The vote follows weeks of escalating pressure. At its September 23 emergency meeting, the district voted to cut off HWW’s water unless the company paid $35,000 by September 25, with two further payments of $35,000 due in November and December. HWW instead offered $3,000, a check never came, and the shutoff threat led Rep Davis to call in the state Attorney General’s Office, MassDEP and DPU, as well as the governor’s office.

Committee member Ken Schumacher asked Davis whether forensic accounting was underway on the company’s finances, and she assured him that it was, though she could not give any timeline on when that or other work on behalf of HWW ratepayers at the state level would be complete. Kate Van Olst of Housatonic wanted to know if measures such as putting liens on company properties had been considered to exert pressure.

“Everything is being looked at,” Davis said, asserting she was confident that if the district gave the state more time, a workable solution could be reached.

Upon the unanimous vote to demand an immediate payment and wait another 30 days before turning off the water Brinker commented, “I appreciate everything everyone’s trying to do but we need to hold a few people’s feet to the fire and look out for GBFD. It’s a lot of money.”

The commissioners’ next scheduled meeting is October 20.

Subscribe now

Notice from Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove:

At the Great Barrington Fire District meeting Tuesday evening, Selectboard Chair Steve Bannon outlined the Town’s position regarding the ongoing Housatonic Water Works situation and reaffirmed the Town’s commitment to working alongside the Fire District, residents, and state and federal partners toward both an immediate and long-term solution.

The Town recognizes that the Fire District did not create the circumstances facing Housatonic today. When HWW needed an emergency source of water, the District stepped forward. That action has helped maintain water service for hundreds of residents and businesses while also protecting an important component of public safety.

The Town also recognizes that the Fire District cannot reasonably be expected to carry HWW’s financial obligations indefinitely. HWW reportedly owes the District approximately $110,000 for water provided through the emergency connection.

“The Fire District stepped forward when our neighbors needed help, and the Town is grateful for that,” Bannon said. “They have responsibilities to their own ratepayers, and we respect whatever decision the District ultimately makes. Our message tonight is that they should not have to navigate this alone. The Town intends to be a partner.”

The Town’s Position

The Town does not support another rate increase on Housatonic residents as the answer to HWW’s mismanagement, the proper use of these customer funds is to provide safe water operations and investment in the outdated infrastructure.

Residents have already experienced years of concerns involving water quality, manganese, pressure, reliability, infrastructure and affordability. The Town believes significant questions remain regarding HWW’s financial history, accumulated obligations, infrastructure needs, and the circumstances that led to its present financial condition.

The Town’s efforts to maintain water service should not be interpreted as an endorsement of HWW’s management or the decisions and operating practices that have contributed to the current situation.

“Our responsibility is to the community,” Bannon said. “Keeping the water flowing does not mean accepting the circumstances that brought us here. It means protecting our residents and public safety while we work toward something better.”

Working Toward a Solution

The Town has been working intensively with the Healey-Driscoll Administration, MassDEP, the Attorney General’s Office, Department of Public Utilities, the Town’s legislative delegation, and federal partners to identify immediate assistance and a sustainable path forward.

Those efforts include seeking potential financial assistance related to HWW’s outstanding obligation to the Fire District; reviewing available financial and regulatory options; exploring federal funding and financing for water-system improvements; and continuing to evaluate potential municipal acquisition of HWW.

The Town remains serious about acquisition as a potential long-term solution, but any acquisition must be financially responsible and based on a clear understanding of the system’s value, condition, debt and liabilities, infrastructure needs, and the investment required to provide reliable water service into the future.

The Town will continue working with the Fire District while respecting the District’s independent responsibility to determine its own course of action.

“This problem was not created by the Fire District, and it was not created by the residents of Housatonic,” Bannon said. “Solving it should not fall on either of them alone. The Town is prepared to do its share of the work.”

The Town’s priorities remain clear: protect residents, protect public safety, maintain reliable water service, support the Fire District as a community partner, and work toward a sustainable long-term future for Housatonic’s water system.

###

Liz Hartsgrove, Town Manager

lhartsgrove@townofgbma.gov

Inspired by Community, Guided by Purpose.

The Big Picture

After several years of strong pandemic-era activity and a subsequent slowdown, South County’s housing market is heading into fall with more sales, higher dollar volume, and modest price growth, even as properties are taking slightly longer to sell.

According to Berkshire REALTORS® MLS data, South Berkshire recorded 89 residential sales in the first half of 2026, up 14% from 78 during the same period last year. Dollar volume rose 24%, from $61.68 million to $76.18 million, while the median sale price increased about 3%, from $605,000 to $625,000. Average days on market increased from 157 to 166. At the end of the reporting period, there were 139 active residential listings and 69 pending sales, with approximately 9.4 months of absorption based on the report’s methodology.

The broader South Berkshire market — including residential, condos, multifamily, land, and commercial properties — was also more active, with transactions up 25% and dollar volume up 26%, to approximately $90.6 million.

Taken together, the numbers don’t suggest a declining market. But they also don’t point to a return of the pandemic-era frenzy.

Corey Bishop, president of the Berkshire County Board of REALTORS® and broker/co-owner of Bishop West Real Estate, describes South Berkshire as “active, but increasingly selective and price-sensitive.”

That selectivity becomes clearer when you break down the numbers by town and, especially, by price range.

Subscribe now

South County at a Glance

The South County market report covers nine towns: Alford, Egremont, Great Barrington, Monterey, Mount Washington, New Marlborough, Sandisfield, Sheffield and West Stockbridge.

But with some towns recording only a handful of transactions, town-by-town percentages can be misleading. In Alford, for example, just two homes sold in the first half of both 2025 and 2026, even though the dollar value of those sales increased substantially.

Great Barrington, with considerably more transactions, provides a more useful window into the South County market.

Great Barrington: The Bellwether That Won’t Cooperate

As South County’s hub, Great Barrington serves as a useful proxy for the region, illustrating how difficult it can be to read a small market at face value.

In the first half of 2025, 35 residential properties sold in Great Barrington compared with 25 in the first half of 2026 — a decline of 29%. Dollar volume fell 22%, from $23.14 million to $18.05 million. Yet the median sale price rose 6%, from $560,000 to $595,000.

What’s behind the apparent contradiction?

Bishop said there is “a good variation of mix in the property,” and offered to drill down into the individual transactions to examine what actually sold.

Limited transaction volume, available inventory, property mix, and price point can materially affect the numbers. Ten fewer transactions in a market that recorded only 35 sales in the first half of the previous year produce a 29% decline, but that does not necessarily mean buyer demand or property values fell by anything approaching 29%.

The takeaway isn’t so much that Great Barrington’s market is slumping or thriving. It’s that the numbers need to be read in context.

A More Selective Market

The first-half numbers don’t point to a market-wide frenzy. Instead, they show a market that’s active but increasingly segmented by price, condition, and location.

“There is no standout hot market segment in South Berkshire right now,” Bishop said during a follow-up interview. It’s a notable shift from the market’s pandemic-era peak, when homes routinely sold within days, often over asking and sight unseen, with buyers waiving inspections just to compete. That frenzy has been replaced by something more selective: strong demand for the right properties and a greater willingness among buyers to walk away from the rest. Inventory varies sharply by price point — lean in the entry-level range, and considerably more plentiful as prices climb above $500,000.

Above $2 million, inventory balloons further still — to roughly 39.6 months, or more than three years’ worth of supply at the current pace of sales.

That spread helps explain why the region’s overall average of 166 days on market — up from 157 a year earlier — can be misleading as a single number. Bishop cautioned against reading it as how long it takes to sell “a typical South County house.” As his report puts it: “A 500,000–750,000 property is essentially sitting in a balanced market, while a $1 million-plus seller is competing against considerably more supply relative to demand. That’s why pricing, condition, and location matter tremendously right now.”

Maureen Kirby-White, a managing partner of Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Barnbrook Realty, called it “a very healthy market,” noting that “demand remains strong, inventory remains relatively low, and well-priced, appealing properties continue to sell quickly.” She tempered that assessment, however, by noting that once-common multiple-offer bidding wars are no longer happening across the board.

Rachel Louchen, a Compass agent whose work is shaped in particular by full-time, local buyers, sees a shortage not necessarily of listings, but of homes in the condition and price ranges buyers want. “I don’t think there’s a lack of inventory — I think there’s a lack of inventory in the condition and price range people want,” Louchen said. “It’s not that they’re not on the market. It’s that people want turnkey, and turnkey is scarce.”

Bishop makes a similar distinction. “More inventory doesn’t automatically mean better inventory,” he said, adding that buyers are becoming more selective about what they purchase and what they’re willing to spend. “I do think that people are looking for more homes that are, you know, in better condition and are priced properly.”

The Inventory Question

Low inventory has been a running theme of the housing market nationwide for the past several years, and South County is no exception. But whether inventory is increasing depends on the market sector — and on what buyers are looking for.

“Inventory levels are at pre-pandemic levels and, depending on the town, there is enough depth to create real opportunities for buyers,” said Selina Lamb, founder of BIRCH Properties. By her reading, the tight supply has genuinely eased.

Kirby-White described inventory as somewhat improved, “but I would still characterize it as low, particularly when it comes to quality homes in desirable locations,” she said. “We simply do not have an abundance of compelling inventory, and that scarcity continues to support values.”

The Berkshire REALTORS® analysis similarly cautions that more listings don’t necessarily translate into better choices. Countywide inventory had improved to 561 homes, about 7% above the prior year, but remained historically low compared with earlier years. The Market Watch report shows that the county often had more than 1,000 residential listings, and at times more than 1,500, during the previous two decades.

For South County, the issue is also where that inventory is accumulating. The report identifies $500,000-plus as the region’s most heavily supplied segment, even as inventory there moves more slowly.

In other words, buyers may have more listings to look at without necessarily having substantially more of the homes they most want to buy.

The Mortgage Wild Card

No fall outlook is complete without the rate question, especially since it just got more complicated.

On September 16, the Federal Reserve raised its target for the federal funds rate by a quarter point, its first increase since 2023, citing elevated inflation. Mortgage rates, meanwhile, had climbed to roughly 7%, their highest level in about a year. (It’s worth noting that mortgage rates do not move in lockstep with the Fed’s policy rate; they are more closely tied to longer-term bond yields and other market forces.)

Kirby-White said, “Rates matter, particularly to our primary-home buyers, but they are not the sole driver of our market.”

Louchen said the full-time local buyers she typically works with have been relatively unaffected by rate changes. “Everyone I’m working with is taking out a mortgage — nobody’s paying cash. The mindset is: date the rate, marry the house.” Instead, her clients focus on finding the right home, expecting refinancing to be an option down the line if rates eventually fall.

Bishop sees a more segmented effect. South County has a significant cash and second-home component, he noted in his written analysis, so higher rates won’t affect every buyer equally. The rate environment may affect financed and affordability-sensitive buyers more than the upper end of the market or buyers relying on cash and accumulated equity.

During the follow-up interview, Bishop also described another effect of the current rate environment: buyers are reassessing whether moving makes sense at all.

“I would say that they are being more discretionary,” he said. Some are reconsidering whether their current situation is better than taking on a new mortgage at 7% and paying for work on a new property. Others, he said, may renew a lease for another year to see what happens with inventory and the broader market.

That could become an important factor in the fall market: not simply whether buyers can afford to purchase, but whether they decide that moving is worth the cost.

Looking Ahead

The first half of the year was strong, particularly in South County, but the market report also raises questions about whether that pace will continue.

Berkshire County had 113 pending residential sales at the end of the second quarter, down 11% from 127 a year earlier. Bishop said he will be watching pending sales, inventory and absorption by price point, as well as the effect of mortgage rates moving back toward 7%.

The timing of the fall market may also matter. During the follow-up interview, Bishop said the next several weeks are an important window because buyers and sellers are weighing whether a transaction can close before winter.

“Deals are going to happen over the next couple of weeks,” he said. In less-competitive segments, he expects buyers may have “a little bit of the upper hand” in negotiating before the end of the year.

That doesn’t mean every South County buyer will have leverage. Bishop said the $300,000-to-$350,000 range is likely to be the most competitive portion of the local market, while the $450,000-to-$750,000 range can still be competitive depending on condition and whether a property is turnkey.

The bigger question is whether the market’s first-half momentum carries into the fall, or whether higher mortgage rates, more selective buyers, and uneven inventory produce a more pronounced slowdown.

Conclusion

Like so much in real estate (and life!), the market cannot be summed up in a single, tidy forecast.

For sellers, pricing matters more than it did a few years ago, and 2021–22 sales are increasingly beside the point as pricing benchmarks. Buyers have more room to negotiate, though not necessarily for the most desirable, move-in-ready homes, which can still have little to no wiggle room.

Those contrasting dynamics — where sellers still have an advantage and where buyers may have leverage — will be explored in the next two parts of this series.

For now, the bottom line is that South County’s market is neither boom nor bust, but increasingly selective. Sales are up, dollar volume is up, and median prices have edged higher, while average days on market have increased. Inventory has opened up in some sectors, even if much of what is available does not match what buyers most want. And the experience of buying or selling varies considerably by price range, property condition, and location.

As Bishop put it during the follow-up interview, “people are just being a little bit more picky about what they’re buying and what they’re spending their money on.”

The result: an active market, but far more selective than the one South County experienced a few years ago.

TOWN MANAGER UPDATES PUBLIC ON OCTOBER 1

On the afternoon of October 1, Great Barrington Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove sent out a lengthy update on the escalating emergency regarding Housatonic Water Works Company, the utility providing water to 850 customers in Housatonic and West Stockbridge, its inability to supply adequate water without a hook-up to the town’s Fire District water, and the utility’s failure to pay for that water. In the update she referenced ongoing work between the town, HWW, the state Department of Environmental Protection— which handles quality and safety of water — and the Department of Public Utilities — which handles rates and finances, and announced that the work now includes the Berkshire delegation, the state Attorney General’s office, and Kim Driscoll, the Lieutenant Governor, all trying to address the crisis.

As stated by Hartsgrove, the town’s “most immediate concern remains maintaining water quantity and pressure for HWW customers.” (See document #1 below)

Why are customers in danger of losing water quantity and pressure?

Subscribe now

EXPLANATION OF THE CRISIS

Housatonic Water Works Company is quickly reaching an impasse with the Great Barrington Fire District due to non-payment of $100,000 for water provided over the past ten months. The District has threatened to shut off the hose through which HWW has been supplying water to its 850 Housatonic and West Stockbridge customers unless the company sets up a payment plan to reach that amount. A September 23 emergency meeting between the two entities resulted in a gap of $32,000 between what HWW is willing to pay and what the GBFD insists it must pay, and the District will meet again on October 6 to discuss disconnecting the water.

A water pressure problem is the reason the connection exists, as HWW could not maintain adequate flow on its own. The emergency water hook-up is conducted through hoses along Christian Hill Road, while the company’s main water source and aging treatment infrastructure are located at Long Pond. The hoses have been in place since the end of 2025 as HWW works through what Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove called, in her update to the public on the crisis, “filtration issues” in its own system. Customers have been publicly complaining about manganese build-up and brown water since at least 2018, and the state Department of Environmental Protection had been issuing fines to the company since 2016.

As reported by The Berkshire Edge on October 1, HWW has stopped construction on its new manganese treatment plant, per a September 30 filing with the Department of Public Utilities.

Subscribe now

BACKGROUND

The fact that the utility was using Fire District water to meet customer need was not public knowledge until a few weeks ago, and that disclosure was sparked by another disclosure made at the special town meeting on June 29. Selectboard Vice Chair Eric Gabriel had spoken that evening in favor of keeping a $75,000 line item for Housatonic Water Works-related legal fees in the budget, which voters approved. After the meeting Fire District Prudential Committee member Will Brinker approached Gabriel to say that HWW hadn’t been paying its bills, owed roughly $80,000, and wasn’t answering emails.

The non-payment situation escalated over the summer and came to a head in September on both state and local fronts. On September 15, the MassDEP issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to HWW setting requirements for water quantity and pressure, and demanding that if HWW could not meet them, it was required to provide one gallon of bottled water per person per day to customers beginning October 1. Then on September 25, per Hartsgrove’s update, MassDEP told HWW, “that the agency does not have authority to compel the Great Barrington Fire District to continue supplying HWW through the temporary emergency interconnection. MassDEP further advised that it will not approve continued use of the emergency connection until HWW and the Fire District reach an agreement for continuous service and HWW incorporates that agreement into its operating procedures.”

Another wrinkle is the back and forth on the town’s possible takeover of the utility, which has been a live question for several years. A town-commissioned study in 2021 found the water treatment system needed $31 million in work, against a later appraisal valuing the company at $2.3 million. Two years ago HWW wrote to residents urging them to support a town takeover, but voters rejected that idea at a special town meeting in April 2025. At this point the state’s Supreme Judicial Court has asked the Department of Public Utilities to set a value on the company, which Peter Most tried to ascertain himself a few weeks ago. That proceeding is still open, but is now running against the possibility that the company will go under before a value is set.

THE LATEST

Back in Great Barrington the September 23 emergency meeting brought together the Fire District’s employees and Prudential Committee along with representatives of HWW and some other attendees, including Eric Gabriel. (Minutes of meeting are document #2, below.) Jim Mercer of HWWC, both in person at that meeting and by letter submitted the same day (Document #3, below) offered to pay $3,000 of what was owed, but Walter (Buddy) Atwood said that he “would like to see a much larger commitment from H.W.W.” Mercer insisted that his company was the brink of financial collapse and could not afford any more than $3,000, and in his letter claimed that if the company were made to provide bottled water to its 850 customers on a daily basis it would “face the prospect of being unable to continue as a going concern.” Prudential Committee member Will Brinker, for his part, warned that without payment, Great Barrington’s Fire District taxpayers may face a tax rate increase.

Ultimately the board voted unanimously to delay shutoff of the water on condition of three payments: $35,000 by September 25 at 10:00 a.m., $35,000 by November 3, and $35,000 plus accrued charges by December 1, with a one-week grace period on the latter two. September 25’s deadline has come and gone, more than half a dozen entities are scrambling to find a viable solution for water customers, and the GBFD meets again next week.

Subscribe now

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS STORY:

1)

Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove’s email on afternoon of October 1

TOWN PROVIDES UPDATE ON HOUSATONIC WATER WORKS, REAFFIRMS COMMITMENT TO UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE

The Town of Great Barrington is working closely with state officials, regulators, and local partners to protect uninterrupted water service for customers of the Housatonic Water Works Company (HWW) and to advance a sustainable, long-term solution for the system.

Over the past several days, Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove and Town Counsel have been in active communication with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), the Department of Public Utilities (DPU), the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (AGO), State Representative Leigh Davis, State Senator Paul Mark, and the Office of Governor Maura Healey and Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll. The Town is also in continuing contact with the Great Barrington Fire District regarding the emergency water connection currently supporting the HWW system.

“Our focus is very simple: keep the water flowing, protect the people who depend on this system every day, and keep moving toward a long-term solution,” Hartsgrove said. “There are a lot of people at the table now, and that matters. We are grateful for the attention and engagement we are receiving from our state partners and for the willingness of everyone involved to keep working through a very complicated situation.”

Maintaining Water Service

The most immediate concern remains maintaining water quantity and pressure for HWW customers.

HWW has been relying on an emergency connection with the Great Barrington Fire District while addressing filtration issues within its own system. MassDEP has advised HWW that continued use of that connection requires an agreement between HWW and the Fire District for continuous service. The Town and its counsel are continuing discussions with the Fire District and state officials with the immediate goal of avoiding any interruption in water service.

The Town is also coordinating with MassDEP regarding contingency planning should an interruption occur. Under MassDEP’s September 15 order, responsibility for providing replacement bottled water rests with HWW if the conditions established by the order are triggered. The Town has nevertheless made clear that it is prepared to assist state agencies with appropriate logistical support to help residents if necessary.

State Agencies Actively Engaged

The Town is working across several state agencies because the immediate water-supply issue, regulatory requirements and the system’s longer-term future each fall under different areas of state authority.

The Attorney General’s Office is actively engaged with the Town and is participating in the ongoing DPU proceeding involving the valuation of HWW. Town officials and representatives of the Attorney General’s Office are scheduled to continue those discussions.

The Town is also continuing direct communication with DPU officials regarding the pending valuation proceeding and the broader effort to identify a sustainable path forward.

The Town has additionally been in communication with Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll and the Town’s State legislative delegation Representative Leigh Davis and Senator Paul Mark regarding the urgency of the situation and the need for continued state coordination.

“This is exactly the kind of situation where coordination matters,” Hartsgrove said. “MassDEP has an important regulatory role. DPU has an important role. The Attorney General’s Office has an important role. Our state delegation and the Healey-Driscoll Administration have important roles. Our job locally is to keep those conversations connected and focused on the people who rely on this system.”

MassDEP Requirements Remain in Effect

MassDEP issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to HWW on September 15 establishing requirements related to maintaining adequate water quantity and pressure. MassDEP subsequently advised HWW on September 25 that the agency does not have authority to compel the Great Barrington Fire District to continue supplying HWW through the temporary emergency interconnection. MassDEP further advised that it will not approve continued use of the emergency connection until HWW and the Fire District reach an agreement for continuous service and HWW incorporates that agreement into its operating procedures.

If HWW cannot maintain the Fire District connection and cannot otherwise meet the requirements of MassDEP’s order, HWW is required to provide one gallon of bottled water per person per day to its customers beginning October 1.

The Town continues to monitor HWW’s compliance with those requirements in coordination with MassDEP.

Looking Beyond the Immediate Emergency

At the same time that the Town and its partners are focused on maintaining water service, work continues on the larger question that residents have raised for years: how to create a reliable, sustainable future for the Housatonic water system.

The DPU valuation process initiated by the Town continues. The Town is participating in that proceeding and will continue evaluating all legally and financially responsible avenues available for achieving a long-term solution.

“The immediate challenge and the long-term challenge are connected, but we cannot allow one to distract us from the other,” Hartsgrove said. “Today we need to make sure people have water. At the same time, we have to continue doing the work necessary to make sure this community is not facing the same uncertainty again next year or five years from now.”

The Town will continue providing public updates as additional information becomes available and as developments can appropriately be shared.

2)

Minutes of the September 23 emergency meeting, as provided to the Village Green by Selectboard Vice Chair Eric Gabriel.

Great Barrington Fire District

Minutes for Prudential Committee Meeting on September 23, 2026

Great Barrington Water Department

17 East Street Great Barrington MA 01230

Board Members and Employees Present:

Walter Atwood Chairman – Prudential Committee

Kenneth Schumacher Treasurer – Prudential Committee

Robert Hammer Member – Prudential Committee

William Foster Member – Prudential Committee

William Brinker Member – Prudential Committee

Pete Marks Superintendent

Cynthia Ullrich District Clerk

Guests in Attendance:

James Mercer HWW – Treasurer

Bruce Collingwood

Ed Abrahams 15 Pleasant Street

Eric Gabriel Selectboard Member

Sharon Gregory (arrived at 4:37) 32 Hollenbeck Avenue

Chairman Walter (Buddy) Atwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 P.M.

JM emphasized the seriousness of the situation, stating that there is a need for water. He acknowledged receipt of the interim agreement regarding the permanent water system interconnection (attached). He also spoke briefly about the continued emergency water service and proposed payment agreement (attached). he submitted to the Board.

JM quoted a provision from the District’s Acts and Resolves: “The Great Barrington Fire District may supply any of the inhabitants of the Town of Great Barrington with water for domestic and other purposes, upon such terms as the district may determine.” JM stated, “We’re challenged. We would pay if possible.”

JC [sic] stated that he has been monitoring the flow at the H.W.W. plant and reported that the use of District water is gradually decreasing.

WF stated that the proposed payment plan of $3,000 per month was insufficient and that, at that rate, H.W.W. would not be able to bring its account current.

WA reminded JM of the Board’s fiduciary responsibility of the board to the Great Barrington Fire District Residents, and he would like to see a much larger commitment from H.W.W.

WB stated that the Board appreciates the concerns regarding the residents of Housatonic; however, the GBFD Commissioners have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and customers of the district.

WB noted that Housatonic Water Works Company (H.W.W.C.) has made no meaningful effort to reconcile the amount of money currently owed to the district. At the last meeting, Mr. Mercer stated that he could not sign any agreements or contracts due to legal ramifications, regulations, orders, litigation, and other concerns. However, H.W.W.C. is now requesting that the district provide assurances to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on H.W.W.C.’s behalf.

WB further stated that, according to the bylaws and policies of the district, past-due accounts are subject to shutoff. If H.W.W.C. was not aware that payment would be required, WB questioned why this issue was not addressed before almost ten months had passed. WB also questioned why there had been no communication regarding H.W.W.C.’s inability to enter into an agreement concerning the interconnection before the district extended more than $100,000 in credit to H.W.W.C.

WB stated that without payment from H.W.W.C., the district’s budget will be significantly affected and may require an increase in the tax rate for GBFD taxpayers in the upcoming fiscal year.

WB made a motion to delay the water shutoff date provided that the district receives a payment of $35,000 by Friday, September 25, 2026, at 10:00 A.M.; a second payment of $35,000 by November 3, 2026; and an additional payment of $35,000, plus any additional charges accrued, by December 1, 2026.

WA amended the motion to include a one-week grace period for the November and December payments. If payment is not received within the applicable grace period, the water service will be shut off. WF seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

Subscribe now

3)

HWWC LETTER TO GBFD, SEPT 23, 2026

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED WITH CLAUDE AI WITH A TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY CTSB TV, AND HAS BEEN CORRECTED, EDITED AND AUGMENTED.

Corrections may be included in comments below or sent to 413villagegreen@gmail.com.

***

Convened: 5 pm

Adjourned: 8:33 pm

***

All Star Salvage (Formel’s) show-cause hearing

Outcome: No decision. The board continued the hearing to Monday, Oct. 26 at 5 p.m. at Town Hall.

The hearing remains open, but public comment is finished. The chair gave three reasons: a large amount of material was handed to the board that same night, the Building Commissioner was not present, and staff still owe answers on several open questions. The chair was openly frustrated by the absence of a building department official.

The allegations (Ch. 140 §59 and the town noise bylaw):

• Noise above 86 decibels at 50 feet (Chapter 115-2B)

• Changes or additions to the licensed premises without approval

• Operating outside licensed hours (M–F 7–5, Sat 8–noon)

• Noncompliance with Board of Health, building, zoning, underground-tank and MassDEP requirements

Staff findings (Town Manager, with the fire and police chiefs):

• A Sept. 23 site visit found a new crusher, additional payloaders, and a greenhouse attached to Conex boxes. The Building Commissioner hasn’t yet ruled on whether the greenhouse needed a permit.

• There are two underground tanks, and only one is permitted. Both were vented during the 2022 fire, so the town assumes both are in use. Permitting a tank after it’s already buried is difficult because no one can see how it was installed.

• The hot-work permit has expired. The business says it has stopped cutting and grinding.

• Collecting already-cleaned residential oil tanks is not a violation.

• The Board of Health is investigating a fuel-odor complaint.

• MassDEP issued an administrative consent order with a penalty tied to the Oct. 2022 fire release.

• Taxes are paid.

• Police noise checks: five readings on Sept. 16–18, ranging from 36.7 to 56 dBA, all well under 86. However, they were taken with an Amazon-bought meter, so staff said they aren’t a definitive compliance finding. No noise complaints were filed with police.

• There have been no hours violations since the July 27 meeting.

• Zoning: Chris Rembold said “light industrial” isn’t defined as a zone. The open question is whether car crushing is now the principal use (the owner said up to 50 cars a day) rather than an accessory one. The owner still hasn’t met with the planner, as the board asked him to in July.

Licensee’s defense (attorney Shawn McCormack):

• They hired Cross Spectrum Acoustics to run a Class 1 sound study in August. The crusher measured about 76 decibels at 50 feet. Only two things exceeded the limit:

  • A dump-truck gate bang (about 91 dBA for 17 seconds). Their fix is to stop aggregate deliveries.

  • Loading aluminum rims into a container. Their fix is to fill the container gradually and haul it off whole.

• He argued a 1994 special permit (recorded in 1995) replaced the 1984 one. The 1984 permit said the crusher would come only every 3–4 months, and he argued that language was a finding, not a binding condition. Nobody has located the 1994 permit itself. He showed aerial photos from 1995–2026 to argue the operation’s footprint hasn’t grown.

• On hours, he acknowledged three violations since January. The yard gate now stays closed until 7 a.m., and he offered quarterly reporting.

• He said they are current on the DEP consent order, with a licensed site professional filing reports. He said he hadn’t known about the tank permit issue and would accept a condition requiring it.

• He argued truck traffic on public roads is outside the licensing authority’s purview.

  Subscribe now

Board pushback:

• Phil Orenstein argued the photos show how many cars were on the lot, not how fast they turn over, and that the business has shifted from a parts yard to crushing and recycling. He also asked whether the 1984 permit's one-year term implies a renewal every year through 1995.

• Another member described “hypergrowth” at the site rather than natural expansion, citing heavy truck traffic and complaints about a truck idling most of a day outside a resident’s home.

Public comment:

• The biggest moment: Attorney Mitch Greenwald, representing Division Street neighbors Michelle and Bruce Loubert, produced what appears to be the 1994 special permit. It is for a one-family dwelling at that address, which undercuts the licensee’s main argument. (Verification of that permit did not take place during the meeting.)

  • He also argued that uses not listed in the zoning bylaw are prohibited, and that an illegal use can’t be grandfathered.

  • He said §59 says the board “shall” revoke a license for violations, not “may.”

  • His stressed that his clients aren’t seeking a shutdown, but want tight conditions and a “short leash.”

• Michelle Loubert of Division St. played a recording of All Star-generated noise from her backyard. She cited DEP emails about nearby wells, a dry well on site, and the aquifer. She said she has paid $3,000 in legal fees so far.

• Elizabeth Berliner of Division St. and Valerie Locher of North Plain Rd. described large car carriers cutting tight corners, horn-honking at the intersection, and near-misses on narrow roads.

• Supporters:

  • Mary Formel, the next-door neighbor at 25 Van Deusenville Rd. said the noise has never bothered her.

  • The company’s dispatcher said they run one four-car hauler and source cars locally. The Ohio shipments are crushed cars going out, not cars coming in.

• McCormack responded that sound falls to about conversational level at 1,600 feet.

Other business

• Regional EMS study (Collins Center): Presentation only, no decision. The three options were:

  • Expand Southern Berkshire Ambulance to all 8 towns (needs about 8 more staff and likely a New Marlborough satellite station)

  • Create an EMS district, which would need special legislation (about $100/year on a $300K home)

  • Have Great Barrington absorb EMS into its fire department. This is modeled at about $586K for Great Barrington versus $1.35M today, but the figure excludes one-time transition and staff-time costs.

  Partner towns will regroup in October. State implementation grants may not be available.

• Housatonic Improvement Committee: Chair Sara Parker gave a year-in-review (Long Table Dinner, Harvest Festival, tree planting, a capital pipeline). She asked for $10,000 a year in operating funds and flagged the water tower, Commons Park and public restroom needs.

• Hotel room cap: The board approved a special town meeting article deleting the 45-room limit. Hotels would still need special permits. The Planning Board hearing is Oct. 15, and town meeting is Oct. 19. The lift on the cap needs a two-thirds vote.

• Approvals:

  • Positive recommendation for the 6-ft lattice fence at 267 Long Pond Rd.

  • Endorsement of Old Maids Park engineering Phase 1 (CPA-funded survey and concepts only)

  • Updated Title VI/ADA policies for the South County Connector

  • Beer and wine license for Siam Square at 290 Main St.

  The Great Barrington Land Trust’s one-day license was held because the application was incomplete.

• Announcements:

  • Ben Elliott mentioned The Berkshire Eagle story on the license-plate cameras. He credited Chief Adam Carlotto for policies limiting access and logging every use. He urged the board to take up a town-wide AI and data policy later this year. He offered a shout-out to Michelle Kaplan for the second annual Sunshine Orange Subaru Crosstrek meetup and parade.

  • Chair Bannon announced that there are 13 active public records requests.

  • Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove gave her report:

    • The police chief community survey closes next Friday at midnight. She said she and Interim Chief Carlotto are entering a contract.

    • The joint meeting with the Finance Committee on the six warrant articles for the Oct. 19 special town meeting.

• Open comment:

  • Donna Jacobs, Park Street. She is a library trustee but spoke only for herself in relation to the recent joint meeting of Trustees and Selectboard.

• Trustees at the Sept. 22 meeting weren’t given the questions in advance.

• When she said “we” hadn’t gotten the job done on the MBLC grant, she meant the whole town, not the six trustees.

  • Eileen Mooney asked if Housatonic Water Works would be added to the Oct 19 Town Meeting warrant. The Chair said it will not be added.

  • Michelle Loubert, Division St. She is the Formel’s neighbor and also a Finance Committee member.

• The HIC presentation didn’t mention that the water tower is privately owned.

• She asked HIC’s Sara Parker to stay for the salvage hearing, and Parker didn’t.

• Her records request is how the 1994 permit surfaced.

  • Jim Bailly, Housatonic.

• The town can’t afford the Ramsdell library project, and he agrees with the town manager on that.

• It’s wrong that records requests cost $25.

• Only Garfield Reed responded to the information he sent the board.

• He looks forward to the Prosperity Way audit.

• James Garzon criticized transparency, records-request fees and rising taxes.

Subscribe now

THIS PROFILE IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY

OKUN SERVICES: WINDOW AND GUTTER CLEANING,

SERVING SOUTH BERKSHIRE COUNTY AND BEYOND.

NOW BOOKING FOR OCTOBER.

****

Ted Okun and his partner Michelle Kaplan, of MishMash productions, both grew up in Canton, Massachusetts, and although their brothers were best friends, they didn’t meet until their early 20s. Since then these kindred spirits have been going where the wind has taken them, out west, back east, and finally here in South Berkshire County.

Okun went to work directly out of high school in a union carpentry-shop job before joining AmeriCorps’ NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps), for which he was based out of Denver and did ten months of trail work, built with Habitat for Humanity and did FEMA outreach for Arkansas and Texas.

Subscribe now

After AmeriCorps, he and Michelle worked on organic farms through the WWOOF (Willing Workers on Organic Farms) program, hitchhiking up the West Coast starting in San Francisco and farm-hopping for months. A homesteading stint brought them to Pennsylvania, which is where Ted got seriously into bread baking, partly inspired by his baker great-grandmother and also by Tartine author Chad Robertson, who got his start with Richard Bourdon, our resident baking celebrity and owner of Berkshire Mountain Bakery.

That connection is what drew the couple, in 2012, to Great Barrington.

Okun and Kaplan house-sat and camped for a while in a friend’s backyard before settling into an apartment, and while he, in keeping with his WOOFing roots, moved here without a confirmed job, he ended up at the bakery, where he stayed to make bread for three years, while also working for fermented food company Hosta Hill, which has since shut down. Then, seeking to change things up, he transitioned into house painting. He found more lucrative but also much more physically grueling.

So Ted Okun eventually shifted toward first gutter cleaning and then to the addition of window cleaning. He started Okun Services business in 2018 with just himself, and has grown out over time to employ three additional full-time employees. The work is seasonal, with intermittent busy seasons and light seasons. After the burst of December work he takes the winter off so he and Michelle can head to Florida to stay with friends and family and escape the cold.

The business stays mostly close to home, covering Great Barrington and Sheffield, but ranges as far as Canaan, Connecticut and Pittsfield.

A big part of the appeal of gutter and window work, Okun says, is getting to see Southern Berkshires up close. He gets to drive down out-of-the-way driveways he’d never otherwise notice and see the quirky details that distinguish homes and and the unexpected commonalities that united them. He’s started a photographic collection of the turtle statues he’s found at more than half a dozen front doors.

“I wondered does that mean something or is it just a coincidence?” Okun mused that the turtle might even be a fitting mascot for his business, given how it’s grown: “slow, steady, gradual.”

Business growth has come mostly through word of mouth, the local community Facebook/board, and organic Google search rankings rather than paid advertising. It helps, too, that Okun makes a side gig of doing informal community favors like helping folks shovel their walkways and remove window AC units.

Outside of business Okun has been active in the Great Barrington Rotary since Covid, and now serves on the speaker committee. (He’s pleased to have introduced the club to the Berkshires’ own turtle rehabilitation specialist, who brought in some patients for show and tell.)

What animates Ted Okun most isn't the liveable schedule or his company’s growing success, but the responsibility he feels for the three men who depend on him for income, one of whom has a three-year-old child he has never met. Paying his employees well is one of the pleasures of the work. “It’s another part of the business I love,” he said. “It’s huge.”

Reflecting on his own family's history — his grandfather worked three jobs so Ted's mother could get an education — Ted draws a line to today’s crew: "I kind of feel like where my grandfather was, building a life for his kids."

Subscribe now

GUIDO’S FRESH MARKETPLACE, HOUSATONIC HERITAGE, EDIBLE BERKSHIRES AND THE VILLAGE GREEN NEWS.

Participating organizations were Berkshire Agricultural Ventures , Greenagers , Berkshire Grown, Great Barrington Land Conservancy and BRIDGE.

This year I had the pleasure of working with 8 farmer storytellers, ranging in age from 17 to 60+, to develop stories of the farming life, which reflect the diversity of this place we all call home.

Subscribe now

,

Subscribe now

Here are reposts of our stories and podcast from this week, as well as bits of local news.

But first!

A reminder that our paywall is now in place, so while everyone will continue to receive news, summaries, profiles and From the Gazebo episodes, only our paid subscribers will get deep dive stories, analysis and live conversations.

The next paywalled story will be an explainer of the residential tax assessment system centering on the results of a study that found Berkshire County to have the most regressive property assessments in the state.

Become a paid subscriber today to support our work and get full access to the Village Green.

THIS WEEK ON THE GREEN:

1)

TODAY!

RAIN OR SHINE, GET THEE TO MAIN STREET, GREAT BARRINGTON AT 11:30 AM FOR THE 2ND ANNUAL SUNSHINE ORANGE SUBARU CROSSTREK PARADE.

2)

EVANGELINE COFFEE AND BOOKS IS COMING SOON TO HOUSATONIC.

3)

FROM THE GAZEBO, EPISODE #14, WHERE ERIK AND SHEELA DISAGREE ABOUT PARENTING.

4)

SEPT 22 GB SELECTBOARD/ LIBRARY TRUSTEE MEETING RESULTS IN REQUEST TO THE STATE FOR GRANT EXTENSIONS ON THE RENOVATION OF RAMSDELL.

5)

SEPT 22 EGREMONT SELECTBOARD PUSHES BACK ON REGIONALIZING AMBULANCE SERVICE

SHOWNOTES:

Tickets for Fodder at Greenagers on Sept 27.

Mother in Virginia arrested for allowing her competent child to walk to a pond. (We didn’t discuss this story but it’s crazy and people should know that this can happen.)

The Anxious Generation, by Jonathan Haidt

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED WITH CLAUDE AI WITH A TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY CTSB TV, AND HAS BEEN CORRECTED, EDITED AND AUGMENTED.

Additional corrections may be included in comments below or sent to 413villagegreen@gmail.com.

_______

Convened: 6 pm

Adjourned: 8:54 pm

Link to CTSB Video

Key decisions

• Library Trustees voted 5-0 to recommend that the town ask the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) to extend both the Dec. 31, 2026 grant deadline and the spring grant deadline for a certified town meeting vote (June 30, 2027).

  Voting: Laura Mars, Lauren Clark, Russell Samora, Pat Hollenbeck, and Donna Jacobs.

• Select Board voted unanimously to accept the trustees’ recommendation. Members framed it as keeping the project alive, not rejecting it. In Chair Steve Bannon’s words: “We’re doing everything we can not to vote no.”

• Select Board voted unanimously to add a special town meeting article removing the 45-room cap on hotels. Hotels would still require a special permit.

• Select Board approved the draft special town meeting warrant (placeholder language) unanimously.

• Select Board approved Festival Latino of the Berkshires’ use of the Town Hall parking lot, gazebo, and park on Saturday, Sept. 26, 8 a.m.–8 p.m.

Highlights

• Town Manager Liz Hartsgrove gave the bluntest assessment of the town’s capacity to pay for a library renovation: “I can tell you factually, we cannot afford a five plus million dollar project. Period.” She put the possible price at $5 million to $12 million, though nobody knows the actual figure.

• Regarding Ramsdell’s renovation project there is still no cost estimate and no disclosed fundraising total, and no one has decided who will pay for the independent preservation consultant the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) is requiring.

• Midway through public comment, Ramsdell Building Committee co-chair Frederica Sigel announced a $10,000 donor offer toward the consultant. It is conditional on Hartsgrove acting as mediator, a role Hartsgrove had called a conflict of interest.

• The town’s owner’s project management firm, CHA Consulting, warned that asking to push past June 2027 could forfeit the grant entirely. That warning came just before both boards voted to ask for exactly that.

• The project architect confirmed the renovation would enlarge the building by roughly 50–55%, mostly by replacing the 1930 addition with a two-story one.

Summary

Why the boards met

Hartsgrove called the joint session after MHC’s (Mass Historical Commission) Sept. 8 letter. The letter is from Edward L. Bell, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer. Its recommendations center on hiring an independent historic preservation consultant. Hartsgrove said decisions with financial consequences belong to the Select Board as building owner and to the trustees as the board responsible for its “care and custody,” and not to the manager “in a vacuum.”

The money problem

Hartsgrove laid out the fiscal constraints:

• No free cash. The account closes out June 30, so there is nothing available even for a consultant.

• Roughly $500,000 of room under the levy limit.

• Borrowing costs. About three years ago the town borrowed $11 million for capital projects, at better interest rates and a higher S&P rating. For context, that borrowing added about $1 million a year to the operating budget’s debt line.

Late in the meeting she added that MBLC expects the town to bond for the full project cost up front and then collect reimbursements as the project hits milestones. The debt service has to fit in a balanced budget, or the town has to hold an override. Last year’s $5 million override conversation was hard, she said, and this year’s gap will exceed $5 million “without an additional project.” A cost estimate arriving a month before town meeting would be “way too late.”

She also said strongly that she supports the library. She called herself “a child of an educator.” She named Ramsdell as an anchor of the proposed Housatonic cultural district, and said having two libraries shows the town values access to knowledge. “But we’re not going to go bankrupt over it.”

Size, design, and the 1930 addition

Bannon said he’d heard the grant forces the town to “double the size” of the building. The trustees disputed that. Michael Bellefeuille of Perry Dean Rogers Partners (PDR) said the program space is what MBLC requires, was “rightsized” last fall, and remains conceptual. He later gave the figure of 50–55% larger. Trustee Donna Jacobs explained that gross square footage barely changes, but net usable space roughly doubles once the upstairs is opened up. The footprint stays about the same.

Michael said keeping the 1930 addition is “likely infeasible” or much more expensive, largely because of foundation work and added that mitigation options could include salvaging details such as the reused windows.

On parking, MBLC won’t reimburse it but would hold the town to any number it promises. The study therefore included none. PDR plans to look for at least a few accessible spaces on the tight site.

Subscribe now

Fundraising friction

The sharpest exchange (~48:14–51:41) came when Bannon reminded trustee Pat Hollenbeck that three years ago he had said $5 million was likely raisable. “That hasn’t happened yet.”

Hollenbeck and Donna Jacobs both responded:

• Pledges are confidential.

• Donors are put off by negative press, including critical commentary in the Berkshire Edge, saying, “If people keep shooting at us, who in their right mind is going to give you money?”

• Federal appropriations are possible. He cited $1 million grants to Amherst and Fitchburg and contacts with Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s and Rep. Richard Neal’s offices.

• A $250,000 accessibility/elevator grant is possible.

Bannon said he wouldn’t consider CPC money “without understanding what the project would cost.” Hollenbeck replied: “Steve, if you say you can’t support this project, that’s going to hurt us. And you just said it.”

The trustees also said:

• Their fundraising goal was $1.5 million, to match the CPC request they made last year.

• No one is currently doing donor asks.

• The Great Barrington Library Fund’s withdrawal “set us back.”

• State campaign finance rules (the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, OCPF) bar trustees themselves from fundraising.

Ben Elliott said from experience that a campaign like this needs full-time development professionals “working on that for it to come to fruition.”

Accessibility and the 30% rule

Hollenbeck and Michael Bellefeuille agreed the building has crossed the state accessibility code threshold. Once work paid for reaches 30% of the building’s value, the entire building must be brought up to code: an elevator, 36-inch doors, and more. Hollenbeck said: “No more piecemeal.” What exceptions exist was left unclear.

The consultant question

PDR estimates the consultant’s fee at under $10,000 and said the consultant could work as an independent sub-consultant to PDR. Phil Orenstein asked whether town staff (Assistant Town Manager Christopher Rembold) could do the work instead. Hartsgrove said no: there aren’t enough staff, and “we’re the property owner,” so it would be a conflict of interest. Hartsgrove confirmed that donated funds can pay the consultant, but only if the Select Board accepts the conditional gift at a meeting.

The archives

The second floor holds about 80,000–85,000 items: papers, photographs, furniture, Civil War materials, arrowheads. They belong to the Historical Society and the Historical Commission, not the library. Garfield Reed asked why those groups don’t take them. A speaker (likely Hartsgrove) noted that the Historical Commission is part of town government with a budget of about $2,000 a year, and that the Historical Society is a nonprofit that still carries a mortgage. Bannon said the archives are a town problem and suggested a joint meeting with the Historical Commission.

Extension risk

Bellefeuille said MBLC grants extensions only when a town shows good-faith progress on the MHC process. He said the schedule is compressed because Ramsdell was waitlisted until May, when other communities’ projects failed their local votes.

MBLC told another CHA client this month that missing the certified-vote deadline means losing the grant. That town would have to reapply from scratch and go back through the feasibility phase, which cost about $150,000. A trustee said MBLC’s Andrea had also called a second extension “much less likely.” The trustees concluded that if the choice is between trying for an extension and ending the project, they would try.

Subscribe now

Other business

Special town meeting warrant (2:37:35)

Hartsgrove walked the board through a draft warrant. She called the language “very, very preliminary,” and the articles carry letters rather than numbers for now.

• Article A — Wastewater treatment plant, $20.7 million. The Select Board, acting as sewer commissioners, voted last week to recommend it. Staff and town counsel are still reviewing the language.

• Article B — Cook’s garage abatement and cleanup (placeholder). Hartsgrove said the town is discussing grants and other financial help with EPA, the state environmental agency, and the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. She expects to recommend setting aside some funds through capital stabilization, and said she would have more on Sept. 28.

• Article C — Correcting a scrivener’s error. Article 2 of the May 2, 2026 annual town meeting said FY26 when it should have said FY27. The free cash was already appropriated; only a town meeting vote can fix the wording.

• Article D — Citizen petition. It must go on the warrant, but its subject was never stated during the meeting. Bannon asked that it go last, as is customary. He said petitioners “always bring some people,” so putting it at the end keeps them in the room for every vote.

• Article E — Unpaid FY26 invoices. One is a June bill for the skate park monitor from Railroad Street (likely Railroad Street Youth Project); the other is DPW staff boots from Eagle Shoe and Boot. Both will be paid from the already-approved FY27 budget. A board member asked whether Eagle’s closing mattered. Hartsgrove said she assumes it is still collecting its receivables.

Lifting the 45-room hotel cap (2:41:40)

Bannon then proposed adding a zoning article to the fall special town meeting to remove the 45-room cap on hotels, rather than waiting for the annual meeting in May. He said the board had already discussed it and made it a priority in its strategic plan. He added that the Finance Committee concluded last year that the town needs more revenue.

Bannon called it “low-hanging fruit.” He offered a hypothetical hotel chain that likes Great Barrington but needs 82 rooms to turn a profit. He said a 45-room hotel may struggle to make money, while a larger one is more likely to attract guests. “I’m not saying we need 20 hotels,” he said.

Eric Gabriel and Phil Orenstein said the change is narrow. Hotels would still need a special permit, so larger projects would still get a public hearing. “We’re just talking about removing the cap, not making it by right,” Gabriel said. Orenstein called the cap “an additional restraint” that sits on top of the existing permit process.

Garfield Reed was reluctant. “Maybe I’m just a small-town guy, but I’m not excited about it,” he said, and asked whether existing hotels would expand and where a new hotel could even go. Then he voted yes, saying:

“I’m not excited about more growth in the town. It means more money, but… I don’t know how far we expand. How much [are we] going to expand? When will we lose our charm? Small town.”

Ben Elliott supported the article but predicted “a conversation” on the town meeting floor. He suggested placing it near the end of the warrant as well, to hold quorum.

Hartsgrove described a tight schedule:

• Draft zoning changes with Christopher Rembold for the Sept. 28 agenda.

• File the legal ad by noon Sept. 29.

• Run notices in the Berkshire Eagle on Oct. 1 and Oct. 8.

• Planning Board hearing Oct. 15, if the board can make a quorum. Hartsgrove noted the Planning Board had not yet been consulted.

The Planning Board could also meet Oct. 16 or even Oct. 19, which she said is the day of town meeting. It would bring its recommendation directly to the floor. Bannon asked her to email the Planning Board the next day. “I respect them,” he said, “but… I don’t want to start a problem.”

The board voted unanimously to draft the article, then unanimously approved the warrant as presented.

Public comment — during Ramsdell discussion (chronological)

1. John Nelson, Ramsdell Building Committee co-chair, said PDR was the committee’s unanimous pick. He described the 1930 addition as having no basement, no second floor, and no historic woodwork, and said it leaks.

2. Deepa Venkat of CHA walked through the original timeline: cost estimates starting in November, figures for the Select Board in January 2027, a vote in May, the MBLC agreement in July 2027, and construction not before 2028.

3. Jim Bailly, a resident who used Ramsdell as a child, called the lack of cost figures “shameful” and said the library isn’t closing: “quit the fear-mongering.”

4. James Garzon cited last year’s credit downgrade and the town’s other obligations: $20 million for wastewater, $90 million for the school, about $30 million in Housatonic Water Works repairs, PCBs, and Cook’s garage. He said taxpayers can’t absorb $5 million more.

5. Sharon Gregory said the town should push back on MHC. They argued that the school assessment formula drains the town’s budget and urged forming a regional agreement amendment committee.

6. Malcolm Fick read the MHC letter as demanding real alternatives. They said $10,000 won’t cover that and that PDR should have had a preservation consultant from the start.

7. John Breasted said Bell raised substantial questions and mentioned an opinion column he submitted to the Berkshire Edge.

8. Frederica Sigel, Building Committee co-chair, called a vote to end the process “precipitous.” She announced a conditional $10,000 donor offer she’d received during the meeting.

9. Michelle Loubert, a Finance Committee member raised in Housatonic, said the town has no money. She urged Ramsdell supporters to show up in person and asked for written materials at future presentations.

10. Wylie Goodman, a Housatonic resident, who works for the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (speaking personally) urged the boards not to kill the process and to activate the library now, acknowledging that the town is dealing with many other “priority issues.”

11. An unidentified Great Barrington resident who uses Ramsdell alongside Mason Library asked the boards not to let the project “go to the chopping block.”

12. A project team member said MHC wants an independent narrative assessment, not a redesign.

Citizens Speak (post-vote)

• James Garzon backed lifting the hotel cap to grow revenue and faulted the decade-long delay at the former Searles site.

Top moments (timestamps)

1. 1:02:32 — Hartsgrove: “We cannot afford a five plus million dollar project. Period.”

2. 2:24:29 — Hartsgrove says she must bond the full cost and that a spring estimate is “way too late” to balance a budget.

3. 48:14–51:41 — Bannon and Hollenbeck clash over undisclosed pledges.

4. 1:55:39 — Frederica Sigel announces the conditional $10,000 donor offer.

5. 2:13:34 → 2:29:35 — CHA warns an extension past June could forfeit the grant; both boards vote for the extension anyway.

Deferred / unresolved

• Cost estimate. It is blocked until the MHC process settles which design goes forward.

• Consultant funding and selection.

• Where the town archives will go.

• On-site parking.

• Whether MBLC allows phased projects.

• Exceptions to the 30% rule.

• Hotel article language, which is due Sept. 28.

Next steps

• The extension request goes to MBLC, which meets the first week of each month.

• Bannon wants these answered before the boards reconvene: how much money has been raised, how, and by whom; a plan for the archives; and the consultant hired.

• Sept. 23: Finance Committee meeting.

• Sept. 28: Select Board, with the hotel zoning language and the Cook’s garage update.

• Oct. 15: Planning Board hearing (tentative).

• Special town meeting is Oct. 19

Subscribe now

Sara Parker is the kind of person who doesn’t let ideas sit for long without putting them into action. Already accomplished from a long to-do list for the Housatonic Improvement Committee she chairs is the inauguration of the first Housatonic Harvest Festival and long table dinner, bringing Berkshire Busk! to Housatonic for the first time in July, and coordinating a tree-planting project all over town last spring. The committee’s goals for the near future include more such community programming, along with town improvement planning, a visioning session for the park, a public paddle on the Housatonic River, robust advocacy for investment in local infrastructure, and a virtual walking tour of historic Housatonic sites.

Now, or rather soon, on top of those ambitious aims she is opening a coffee shop and bookstore in downtown Housatonic on the first floor of 137 Front Street. She’ll be renting the space from the building’s owners, the Center for Peace through Culture, which will continue to offer separate programming in the upstairs space. The building has been long-known in town as prolific artist Deb Koffman’s studio, and her always-welcome reminder sign, “It’s Ok to Pause,” is till hung up outside. (Koffman passed away in 2021.)

Subscribe now

The new business, to be called Evangeline Coffee and Books after Parker’s middle name, will combine an espresso bar with a curated bookstore stocked with roughly 4,000 titles that will include new releases, New York Times bestsellers, fiction, nonfiction, art and nature. (Robert McFarlane’s Underland is her favorite book.) The shop will also carry stationery and gift items. Coffee will come from Partners Coffee, a Brooklyn-based roaster Parker selected after running a blind community taste test earlier this year, and will be served from the Little Gallery, located to the right of the main room.

The layout will divide that central space into the coffee and lounge area up front, with a “wall of books” leading back to the rear section, which will continue to serve as an event space and will feature author talks and other community gatherings.

As for the esthetic Parker is aiming for, expect color and character. "Something that I feel shops and stores are missing today,” she explains, “is that inspiration you got when you walked into a library or a bookstore as a kid.” So Evangeline, “will have garlands and stars on strings — a place where you feel like you've gone on a mini vacation."

She’s working on a logo with Housatonic’s own family-owned web design business T Square Design, and it’s expected to be finalized soon. In the meantime, you can start following the start-up today on Evangeline Coffee and Books on Instagram.

Although some minor renovations and permits are necessary to make the space ready for primetime, in typically ambitious fashion Sara Parker says she hopes the shop will be open in late October or November, and expects to employ a manager along with baristas. Parker, who’s a full-time business strategist and researcher in her professional life, is also planning to work some hours on-site herself.

So, to recap:

What? Evangeline Coffee and Books

Where? 137 Front Street, Housatonic

When? Later this fall

Why? Because, says Sara Parker, “I want everybody to walk in and feel like they’re in my living room, like it’s the place where everybody knows your name.”

Subscribe now

Additional corrections may be included in comments below or sent to 413villagegreen@gmail.com.

Convened: 10 am

Adjourned: 11:54 am

Link to Zoom recording of meeting

Summary

Chair Lucinda Fenn-Vermeulen called the meeting to order with Select Board members Mary Brazie and Vice Chair Judi Goodman present, along with Administrative Assistant Mindy Nilson. The board’s two biggest items were personnel appointments for the town’s van-driver program and an extended discussion of a regional study proposing new models for ambulance service — a discussion in which the board made clear it wants no part of a regional EMS district or absorption into Great Barrington’s fire department. The board also began line-by-line review of a proposed three-year service contract with Southern Berkshire Ambulance (SBA) and voted to surplus two retired fire trucks.

Top moments

1. Two part-time van drivers appointed (unanimous, 3–0).
Transportation Administrator Melanie Vicneire recommended Todd Jervinson and Anthony Terry for two open positions. The board moved, seconded and approved their appointment unanimously.

2. Regional ambulance study: board resists district and Great Barrington integration models.
Becca Meekins of the Collins Center for Public Management presented findings from over a year of work with the Southern Berkshire EMS Partners group, representing the eight towns currently served by Southern Berkshire Ambulance. She laid out three models under consideration:

1. Expansion of SBA to provide full ALS/BLS service (rather than intercept-only) to New Marlborough and Sandisfield, requiring two new ambulances, eight new staff, and a restructured assessment formula.

2. A new EMS district, modeled on state fire-district law but requiring new home-rule legislation (Meekins estimated at least two years to establish), funded through a district-wide property tax based on equalized valuation (EQV).

3. Municipal integration into Great Barrington, converting SBA into a division of the Great Barrington Fire Department, with eventual (voluntary, incentivized) cross-training of EMTs and firefighters.

Egremont’s board was pointed in its resistance to the latter two options.

Chair Vermeulen said: “Until such time as Great Barrington gets a grip on their life, there is no way that I would allow this town to integrate our ambulance or fire service with theirs.”

Fire Chief Joe Schneider argued Egremont’s paid fire department already functions as its EMS backbone and cross-trains with neighboring towns without needing a new governance layer: “I don’t want another layer of bureaucracy… we will always support the Southern Berkshire Ambulance group of people… it’s part of our blood flow in this community.” A board member raised concern that a district’s board, apportioned by population, would hand Great Barrington outsized control: Meekins herself acknowledged the study’s district model could produce “a district board that is essentially… four people from Great Barrington and one person from [a smaller town], making decisions for all eight towns.” Meekins put the framing of the whole project starkly: “The goal is sustainability, ultimately. It’s not saving money… The goal is sustainability.”

3. Southern Berkshire Ambulance’s finances and rationale for a 7.5% rate increase.
SBA Chief Kevin Wall said full staffing has eliminated overtime costs that previously drove double-digit annual increases, and that private fundraising — including a Yo-Yo Ma benefit concert that raised close to $100,000 — is being used to hold the line on what towns are billed. SBA Treasurer John Halbreich and Clerk to the Southern Berkshire EMS Partners Mary McGurn also participated in the financial discussion; McGurn provided sample district-tax figures ranging from about $101/year on a $300,000 property to $336/year on a $1 million property, under the proposed district model.

4. New three-year SBA service contract flagged for revision before signing.
The proposed contract — closely modeled on Great Barrington’s — sets rates rising from $138,000 to $148,000 to $159,000 over three years. Board members, with input from SBA board representative Peter Most, flagged several provisions for town counsel to review: extending the insurance-cancellation notice period from 10 to at least 30 days; tightening indemnification language that currently turns on an “alleged” claim of fault; and a “termination for convenience” clause both the board and Kevin himself criticized — Kevin conceded, “I have said, this barely makes it a contract,” while a board member called it “the craziest provision I’ve ever seen.”

No vote was taken; the contract goes to town counsel Jeremia Pollard next.

5. Fire trucks declared surplus (unanimous, 3–0).
The board voted to declare a 2008 International pumper/tanker and a 2001 custom pumper/tanker as surplus, to be advertised for sealed bid (Shopper’s Guide, fire trade publications, social media, and the town newsletter) with no minimum bid set this round, retaining the right to reject offers that come in too low.

Other business

• Minutes for August 1, 18, 24 (open and closed sessions) and 31 were approved unanimously with minor language corrections (contractor-vs.-employee wording, committee co-chair order, grant-status phrasing).

• A brief update noted the town is submitting an expression of interest for a Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness grant related to the town dam.

• No public comment was recorded from the citizen (Marj Wexler) noted as present.

Tabled / deferred

• Final terms of the SBA service contract await town counsel review; no signing date set.

• Fire truck sale minimum-bid strategy pending outreach/appraisal by the fire department.

• Scheduling and meeting protocols discussion pushed to the next meeting.

Next steps

Next Select Board meeting: September 29 at 10 a.m.