Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 12/23/2022
EASTHAMPTON – Following an open house celebration for the grand opening of the Mountain View School on Oct. 22, the Easthampton City Council met with Mayor Nicole LaChapelle and City Auditor Hetal Patel to discuss appropriating $18,035.60 from the city’s cannabis stabilization fund to pay for the project during the council’s Dec. 21 meeting.
LaChapelle explained that initially the celebration was brought up to her by the School Building Committee after it had been advertised and a logo had already been created, with a plan for it to be paid out of the lending for the school but she felt that the open house should not be paid out of bonded taxpayer dollars. Instead, LaChapelle went forward with appropriating money out of the cannabis stabilization fund.
“It was an ask by the superintendent to the School Building Committee, and I spoke up and said it was an inappropriate use of bonded funds while a great opportunity for an event. I said I would go forward and ask on cannabis appropriation so it’s not taxpayer money but a user fee,” she said.
LaChapelle said she also increased the original budget from about $4,700 to the requested $18,035.60 by including food trucks.
“I wanted people to come to the event unfettered, whether they could or could not afford a food truck, I honestly did not care, I just thought that we should all celebrate together and should not be a worry on anybody’s discretionary or actual income, whether you can afford it or not, and it was a great way to give stable income to our local food trucks,” she said.
While many councilors spoke in favor of the open house, several concerns were raised about the process in appropriating the funds. Precinct 3 Councilor Thomas Peake said he was concerned about the timeline for the spending of the cannabis funds, which was requested after the party took place.
“From council perspective I would have appreciated being able to have some of this conversation prior to that money being spent, prior to anything being obligated to vendors because I might’ve had some feedback,” Peake said.
Peake added it was necessary to pay the vendors and said, “We have to pay, we’re not going to stiff the vendors or cut a department’s budget for this.”
Councilor At-Large Brad Riley said that saying the money was not being paid for by taxpayers was “disingenuous.”
“It’s true that if you never shop at a local dispensary in Easthampton, you wouldn’t be paying for this party with your tax dollars if we approved the appropriation, but the cannabis stabilization from is still a community benefit that everyone should be benefitting from equally,” Riley said. “There is an opportunity cost that could directly benefit the community that no longer exists.”
Precinct 5 Councilor Daniel Rist said he understood the other councilors’ concerns with the process but was in favor of appropriating the cannabis funds.
“There is no other fund available to this community that is not taxpayer dollars. If we deny this appropriation it is going to have to be paid somehow and these vendors are going to have to wait until January when a new method is done,” he said. “We have paid many appropriations using cannabis stabilization, I think the problem councilors are having isn’t necessarily with how it’s being paid but the process in which it was developed.”
Councilor At-Large Owen Zarat said he understood the appropriation because of the way the timeline worked out for planning the celebration.
“I would agree that it sounds like there were some process points that may have been out of order, but it also sounds like there was a time crunch and an audible needed to be called. It sounds like from my understanding that the way the timeline unfolded that became impossible and it sounds like the choice would have been to scrap some of the other elements altogether or proceed ahead with a plan to use these funds,” Zarat said.
LaChapelle refuted the concerns that the proper procedure was not followed for the appropriation.
“Procedure was followed, it’s my understanding that I cannot bring an appropriation forward to the council without the signing of the auditor. I did not put this appropriation [forward] until I had the documentation the city auditor had,” LaChapelle said. “Your job, respectfully, is to say yes or no.”
By not appropriating the money out of the cannabis fund, LaChapelle said the $18,000 appropriation would have to account for the interest on a 30-year bond if it came out of the lending for the school project.
While there were some questions about what the cannabis funds are eligible for, both LaChapelle and Patel said the open house was an eligible use.
“To convene a community celebration on a drug-free, alcohol-free property that everyone in the community is invited, whether they attend or not after COVID[-19] to celebrate a building of wellness and learning, I feel appropriately meets the criteria of reasonably related,” LaChapelle said.
As part of appropriating the funds, LaChapelle said she brought amendments to each of the city’s dispensaries bringing an end to impact fees as of July 1 “because we cannot reasonably relate any further money to the impact of cannabis now that it is a part of our community.”
In terms of an audit on the appropriation, Patel said she had everything she needed to defend it.
“What we need from an audit point of view, I have that. I can’t speak to what the Attorney General’s Office is going to come and ask me about the legality because they would ask me more legal questions it was taxpayer money,” Patel said. “This impact fee is driven by a host agreement which is community based, it is not regulated by the state. It’s a community where the administrator decides how to move forward with these establishments.”
Ultimately the council approved the expenditure out of the cannabis stabilization fund with a 7-1 vote.
The Easthampton City Council next meets on Jan. 4 and coverage of that meeting will appear in the Jan. 12 edition of The Reminder.