The foundation that owns the Berkshire Carousel has offered it to the city of Pittsfield.

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — More conversation is needed before the City Council can decide to accept or reject ownership of the Berkshire Carousel.

On Tuesday, the finance subcommittee recommended that Mayor Peter Marchetti create a committee to explore the proposal. For an hour and a half, councilors and community members aired support, opposition, and concerns of uncertainty about the future of the ride.

Last month, a conveyance and donation of property at 50 Center St. was referred to the subcommittee.  While the Berkshire Carousel opened to enthusiastic fans in 2016, it has not operated since 2018 after leadership and funding fell apart.

"This is about having a community engagement and as you know, we've received some very passionate emails against and we've received some very passionate emails for so I felt it was important to bring this forward and have a community conversation," Marchetti said.

"I do think there's a lot of unanswered questions and I do think that there's more work to be done but I don't think the job as mayor was for me to say ‘no' and never allow a community conversation or a council conversation."

The property owned by James Shulman is assessed at $267,000.  A 2025 operational model and budget put forward by the donors costs about $61,000 annually and brings in the same amount of money, with a $25,000 income from rides alone if they cost one dollar.

Councilor at Large Alisa Costa and Ward 4 Councilor James Conant spoke during the open microphone portion, Conant for the acquisition and Costa having trouble supporting it.

Conant said it would be a wonderful addition to the community and "we need to try to run this carousel and make it part of our community and there's nothing worse than not trying."

"In the packet that we received, they indicated they did 23,000 rides the last time it operated. Say you're doing 25,000 rides when it reopens with improved marketing and communication and a $4 fee to ride the carousel, you're looking at $100,000," he explained.

"The information that's been given to us indicates that the operation of the carousel on a seasonal basis would be $60,000 to $65,000. Obviously, simple math says it's more than enough to operate it as of no burden to the taxpayer."

Costa wanted to support this but the volunteer who brought her on a tour of the ride could not fully answer her questions. She recognized that "it is obvious that so much care and love and passion went into this project," citing the detailed artwork depicting Berkshire County scenery, families, and pets and calling it "stunning to look at."

"When I asked how much it would cost to replace the motor. I was told 'It's a simple motor. It will be easy,' but I don't know how much it would cost. I don't know if you can get the parts," she said.

She wondered if it could be done in a public/private partnership in which the city donates resources, possibly including Retired Senior Volunteer Program volunteers. Marchetti reported that RSVP's first question was if the carousel would be in the same location and if the visitor center could be placed there.

"I think we still have a lot of questions that we have to figure out in order to make this work. So I am still completely undecided on this but I'd love to see some of those questions answered," Costa said.  

Resident Diane Pero expressed concerns about the acquisition raising taxes and its location.  She feels that it should not be "in an industrial area surrounded by car service stations and a pot shop down the road and CVS with all kinds of people being taken out of there as undesirable subjects almost on a daily basis."

"Too many people are struggling to pay taxes for essential services, never mind a carousel that is not an essential service, and here's your chance to show the city, show constituents that you understand the pain that they're going through. You understand how it's necessary to provide essential services and not to branch out into things that are not anywhere near the city's core competency," she said.

"Certainly the carousel, the people that worked on the carousel put amazing work into it, highly dedicated. It's a work of art. There's no question about that but if, in fact, it's going to be viable, it really belongs in a place that has other family attractions, not in the center of Pittsfield."

Similarly, resident Dave Pill does not feel that the city has a core competency to run an amusement ride. He is also concerned about the costs that will be incurred as the ride ages.

"I am passionate about having nice things in the city and the things that we do own, I want to see well kept and well taken care of," he said.

Philip O'Rourke, one of the carousel's carvers, pointed out that the Harvey and Virginia Kimmel Foundation offered to provide $15,000 each year for the first three years once it is in operation. Shulman also offered a $15,000 gift.

"It's very important to note that we intend to support the carousel with no expense to the city. We do not want to burden the taxpayers. I'm a taxpayer myself. Everybody was a taxpayer, has seen it rise year after year and it is a burden for many, many people in this city. We do not want to add to that burden," he said.

"Operating expenses are projected to cost approximately $60,000 a year. We are confident we can raise the balance through donations, fundraisers, and income from the carousel. We're halfway there with the support of Mr. Kimmel and Mr. Shulman. The carousel was built at no cost to the city. The carousel cost approximately $3 million to complete. The expenses were covered with funds from the Shulman family donations and grants. We carved 40 horses and all of those were funded by donations from individual people, which was very significant to the overall cost of the project. A substantial donation was many thousands of dedicated volunteer hours over a period of 10 years."

He added that operating a carousel would consist of more than just having it available to ride with opportunities ranging from birthday parties to wedding photos, concessions, and corporate sponsorships.

"I agree with everybody here, the people that are for the carousel, the people that are not for the carousel ... this is the only thing I've been so undecided about," Councilor at Large Kathy Amuso said.

Marchetti said he also agrees with everyone who has spoken and emailed. He felt that justice hadn't been done to the whole concept, whether the city chooses to accept or deny the donation.

"The first iteration of this contract conversation with Mr. Shulman happened in May," he reported.

"I don't think it was a decision I took lately to bring forward but again if I had made the decision to say no without bringing it forward for a community conversation or the council's conversation, how many of you would, guys would have said, 'that's great?'"

Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren answered, "Not me." He pointed out several "legal red flags" in the contract and said a lot more effort needs to be put into the proposal before he can support it.

"I don't think we can let our childhood yearning for nostalgia handcuff the taxpayers," he said.

"So I represent the residents of Pittsfield, both for those who want to see a vibrant carousel, I will try to do what I can within reason to facilitate that, and to get it into somebody's hands who can make a go of it and it might be a nice attraction that would do well — but I also represent the taxpayers."

Council President Peter White said he had wanted the proposal sent to the finance subcommittee because it shouldn't have been a quick vote when it was first presented.

"This is something that should take time. This is something that should cause us some agony in making the decision," he said.

"If every decision that came before the council was easy, we'd have five-minute meetings every night. We've been doing better at shorter meetings but we still have to make some tough decisions, and I think that we can find ways to show the taxpayers who are not in favor of this that a $60,000 a year investment, which won't be that much with other donors coming in, is something that is an investment in Pittsfield to have things to do and to actually make some more money."

He said the central location could attract people who usually go to other Berkshire County destinations and noted the public's call for more child-friendly activities.

"If we want people to continue to come to Pittsfield and want to be in Pittsfield, there has to be things in Pittsfield," White said.

"We could say ‘no' to this. We could say no to the ballpark. We could say the parks are in bad shape, it's easier to close them. I don't see that bringing people in. I don't see it giving our youth something to do."

Looking at social media comments and talking to families, a commonality has been people saying they need things for their kids to do.  

He noted that the location is not ideal but after a few years of operation, if it is hindering success, proper site planning could be conducted to explore other locations and the cost associated with relocating.

"We have a lot of opportunities in this," White said.

Councilor at Large Earl Persip III said that if he had to make a vote that day as a business decision, it would be "absolutely not."

"But as a passion of something, I want to see things happen in Pittsfield, yeah," he added. "I think tonight's discussion started a great discussion."

He feels the city is on the right path putting a committee together.

"I'm hearing loud and clear it shouldn't be a Pittsfield project but I'm not hearing from anybody that it shouldn't still exist," Marchetti said.

"And so if the conversation that takes place from all this means that carousel opens under somebody that I've done my job."

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Blogroll

• Photos