Good evening. I'd like to call the April 17th, 2025 meeting of the Westville City Council to order. Roll call please. Madam City, clerk Ky. Here. Sullivan. Here. Adams Here. Allie? Here. Bean. Uh, he'll be a little bit late. Bill. Randy? Here. Burns. Here. Fanon? Here. Biggie. Here. Harris? Here. Matthews. Kane? Here. Meow. Here. Morgan Alley. He will not be with us this evening. Thank you. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of flag of the United States of America is the Republic Ation under Invis Religion.
Justice. Thank you. Reading of the record of the meeting of March 20, 25 and April 3rd, 2025. Councilor Osky. Thank You Mr. President. Make a motion for a positive acceptance of the reading, the record of the meetings of March 20th, uh, 2025 and April 3rd, 2025. Motion made and seconded. Anything further on the minutes? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now comes of portion the meeting for public participation. Anyone wishing to address the city council may do so by stepping forward. State your name and address for the city clerk in three minute increments, which may be extended.
Anyone like to address the council? Dan Alley. 38 Union Street. So I just would like to take the candy outta my mouth. Um, publicly thank the Holyoke City Council that on uh, Monday night, they, um, voted to, um, uh, suspend their own rules and immediate consideration and voted unanimously to support a resolution supporting Westfield and opposing the lithium battery storage facility. I'd also like to take the East Hampton, uh, city council that on Tuesday night voted to do the same. So, Thank you. Anyone else?
Like to address the council? Seeing no one communications from the mayor. Item one is Mayor McCabe presenting an update on the FY 2026 budget. Preparation floor is yours, sir. More for this One. Good evening everybody. Good evening. Evening, Good evening. A mile. Get a smile or something. Holy. Um, the reason why I asked to come before you today prior to submitting a budget is because I'd like to seek some input, some help trying to figure out whether or not we're going in the right direction in order to close.
What you've seen is a $16 million gap in funding over last year. So I provided some documentation for you. Um, have you received it? Uh, yes, I think so. You've received the documentation. Um, so some of the drivers that you see in this, um, economic package are all stuff that are outside of the control of the council or the city itself. So I'm gonna start off with healthcare. Um, our healthcare costs are projected to be 36% higher in FY 26 than they were
in FY 25. That includes increased cost to both the city side and all of its employees. If you are a individual with a family plan, your individual number is about $1,500 an increase, your individual number is about $1,500 increase on a family plan, which means if you multiply that out, it's about roughly a two thirds ratio. Um, you can see how quickly the city's cost of that is 5.8 million. The current inflation rate, I didn't come up with this. This is a consumer price index, has it at 2.8%.
If you factor in that number with the size of our budget, that comes out to $5 million roughly. We have contractual obligations in the last year of their contracts. Are the schools a, BD, custodians and librarians? Those obligations are 1.8 million. We have a transportation increase of 1.3 million. We have special ed increase of 1.1 million and I'm gonna pause here for a second. Uh, as Councilor Ali has talked about numerous times, we talked about, uh, state mandates
and underfunded mandates. These two specifically are not funded where they're supposed to be. Um, and so all we could do is really kind of hope that the state, uh, rectifies that situation. I don't see it coming anytime soon. Just hit today. The house budget took a decrease from the governor's budget. That meant that this number that you have at the bottom 1 71, that's gone up another $300,000 just today. So that's much closer to 471,000 than 171,000. I have contacted my colleagues at the house.
I've also contacted my, uh, only colleague in the Senate and I'm hopeful that maybe that gets rectified a little bit. Um, trash collection and recycling, I have included in here, uh, as an increase of 321,000 from the current year to the next year. 'cause I'd like to have a little bit of a discussion on that as we move forward into, uh, the bottom portion. And then we have, uh, the estimated utilities cost increase of about 15% across the board. You can argue that that 15% may be kind of
consumed in the inflation rate a little bit. So that number might be a little, might be a little wonky, but it's not terribly off base. Um, the school budget, uh, and the next set of, uh, items, the school budget came in at 80 million plus dollars from a, a real budget of 74 million. The actual budget that we passed last year was 72 million, but they used $2 million of school choice money to offset it. So their number's really about 74 million. So they were $6 million over last year.
And I've already spoken to several of the reasons why that is. Uh, transportation special ed contracts and employees that had it to be added throughout the FY 25 year in order to meet state mandate purposes. So basically there were 17 one-on-one added to the school budget as the, as the year progressed. And that roughly totaled out to about, uh, the, the million dollars that I spoke to earlier then. Um, so they have cut back from their
school budget, $5.2 million. Sadly, that's also corresponded into several cuts in services. There are 43 positions in those cuts, just so I want, want that to rest a little bit. There are 43 positions in those cuts from the school department, um, along with the $5.2 million in cuts and our budget cuts and the city's budget cuts. And this is kind of where I need your help. So I'm doing a little stumping ahead of time. Um, we have $3 million in cuts. Now, the rationale as to why we didn't cut the school,
the city side as much as we cut the school side is because the drivers on the school side, unfortunately were so much higher in comparison to the drivers on the city side. So it includes if you note, uh, $1.5 million in free cash from engineering. So currently the engineering budget and FY 26 has a million dollars in sidewalks and $440,000 in improvements of the levee. Um, I would like to transfer that entire amount of money in two steps. Obviously one to do the sidewalk work and one to do the levee work.
We can complete the levee work this year. It's actually a good, both of these are a good thing to do. Um, the levee work will actually cost us less if we do it now, but the real issue comes in the sidewalk. So we have a number of sidewalks throughout the city as everybody knows, we have something called a, um, an an indicator, a sidewalk indicator, a sidewalk condition indicator, an SDI, using that sidewalk condition indicator. We know that we have a bunch of sidewalks that aren't in good shape. Well, what you may or may not be aware is that we lose the sidewalk contract in October.
So currently our contractor runs their contract through October, which means their rates are set from now to October at the rate that they've had during the pendency of their contract. As soon as October hits, then we're gonna get hit with the other side of the regulation. Now, the other side of the regulation don't hold me to whatever the measurement was. So I'm just gonna give you a measurement and you can kind of extrapolate from that. The measurement is $175 per square yard, which is what we're paying now in October.
That will move to about $460 a square yard. So clearly if you triple the amount, you then decreased the amount that you're using of your million. So your million just became roughly $400,000. And you can obviously do much, much less work, um, in FY 26 that you would be able to do in FY 25. And yes, it is very clearly trying to pull money off the FY 26 budget and allocate it to FY 25. And I hope you support me on that. We have proposition two and a half, proposition two
and a half is, um, about 2.2 million. This gets into a bit of a sticky political wicket, which I totally understand. I'm in a political arena myself, as are you. Um, it's always good to lower taxes from the points of the politician. Unfortunately, you can actually lower taxes so much that it works against you. So over the past three years of my administration, we have never raised taxes 2.5%. In fact, in the last year, we gave a negative 1% tax increase, which is actually a decrease, right?
That's a clearly a decrease. That means the netted out number was about $3.5 million that did, did not get used in the budget. Where this comes into play, and I I brought Vicki with me. So Vicky, if I get this wrong, you could, you could just jump in. Where this comes into play is year over year, over year, over year, over year for a decade. We were told that the closer the gap, the more dangerous it was. So as the ceiling reached the limit, that gap in spending was very, very dangerous. Well, it is very,
very dangerous if you have a flip in your economy. So if your assessed values plummet, then it's a very dangerous situation to be in. So over the past three years, we have seen that gap go from 2 million, excuse me, 4 million to 12 and a half million. The problem with having a 12 and a half million dollar gap is this, when I go to the State House or I go ask people at the legislature for help, and I say to Senator Veli and I say to Rep Finn
and Rep Pease, and I say to Lieutenant Governor Driscoll and Governor Healy, help me understand why we don't get more money in the Chapter 90 formula and why we don't get more money in the Chapter 70 formula and why we don't get more money in the Chapter 74 formula. They say to me, what's your gap? Now, the first time they said it, I wasn't really prepared 'cause they didn't understand what they meant. And what they were essentially telling me is, you have a 12 and a half million dollar gap. Okay, I see Rick kind of smirking. Um, okay, what does that mean?
That means spend your money. We are not helping you with chapter 90. We are not helping you with chapter 70 and we're not helping you with chapter 74 because you have money of your own money that you should have been. Now this is just kind of hyperbole spending all along, but our spending has not been there because we don't want to tax. That's not the position any politician ever wants to be in. But I am suggesting in this budget that we tax 2.5%.
That's $2.2 million. I'm also suggesting that we tax another 2.5% and reach into the gap and pull out another $2.2 million, reducing that gap number to about $9.5 million. And if we keep reducing that number a little at a time moving forward, we can actually get help from the state that we're not getting. I we have a school committee member, pre bright guy Bo Solomon. It drives him crazy that Pitt Field's budget, Pittsfield size,
Pittsfield schools are exactly the same size as ours, but they get a ton more help from the state than we do. And we thought we were doing the right thing by creating this economic solvency that we had pretty good standing. But as it turns out, the state in isn't interested in that until we spend the money. Well, that was a bit of a kick in the fanning to be quite honest with you. So that's where we are there. The proposed tax increase on the, excuse me, There is a difference. And if you know it, just bear with me. I'm actually saying this for the folks behind me
and the folks in cyberspace, there is a difference between a fee and tax. It's actually a pretty simple distinction. You can charge a fee for services rendered. What you can't do is charge a fee that is greater than the expense of the service that you are rendering. So in this case, back in 1990 when the city council passed the $85, and if you get into the weeds, it's just gonna drive you crazy. The $85 yearly annual
tax fee. When they did that, somehow it magically got divided into 2 21 0.25 a quarter. 'cause that's what the math comes out to for $85 a year and FY 2010, and similarly from FY 20 to FY 2010, the revenue taken in from that fee was $1,063,895 and 83 cents just north of a million. In FY 24, The number was
$1,085,613 and 88 cents. The problem is, in 2024, the actual expense was 2 million 976, 70 $6,560. Which means that over time the increases, just like healthcare, never even came close to correlating with the expense of trash services, which I think is a valuable service.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get rid of trash service, I'm just saying it is a valuable service. But I also have a fundamental disagreement. And this is just the way I think. I have a fundamental disagreement with raising taxes to fix that service because not everybody involves themselves in that service. If you ask somebody to come pick up your trash, that's the fee that you expect to pay. So if you have 12,000 residences and they're all paying $85 a year
and you're coming nowhere close to the monies necessary to match the expense, at some point in time, something has to give. Now we have really strange, strange language in the city ordinance. So the city ordinance under 18, section 1 22, and you can certainly look it up, I just brought it here so that I have the right language. It says, solid waste management fee. The fee to be charged for the Solid Waste Management Program, excuse me, within the city, is hereby established at $95
hours quarterly. Quarterly, not yearly, quarterly effective for the respective billing scheduled in fiscal 2002 fees will be assessed on a quarterly basis. So I try to do all kinds of research to figure out what happened. God bless you, you can't find it. I've been not, I've searched through the clerk's archives, I've gone through every drawer in the place in the auditing department to try to find what happened to that fee and why wasn't it a portioned at $95 a quarter.
I'm not suggesting $95 a quarter, oddly enough, $65 a quarter or $260 a year matches within a thousand dollars, the expense of trash. That's my pitch to you. That is the reason why I'm doing it. I don't think that we should continue to keep paying for trash fees as tax related fees if it's actually a service that we're trying to provide. Again, that's just my point of view. Included in these numbers are the last two numbers.
Our local receipts is estimated at about $900,000. So the local receipts are the seats that we pick up in fees and, you know, for services that we provide throughout the city. And new growth is forecasted to be at about $500,000. So I just wanna make sure that I, I go back to my notes and make sure that, um, I hit everything. I expect to get the budget to you by May the fifth. You have 45 days allowable under, uh, the, under the charter to review it. And hopefully you guys will come to, um, you know,
this has been, this has been interesting. So special education state mandate and individual program increases, uh, transportation increases. Were driven by contractual, I don't really wanna say what I wanna say about busing, I just leave it at that. Uh, mandatory increases to staffing. One to ones is the reason why we went up nearly a million contractual obligations is the reason why we went up 1.8 million. Healthcare is 5 million. Um, and that's just because it went up 36%. Um, I recommended it go up 7% last year. The healthcare trust voted me down
and put it at, uh, a nominal number, um, utilities, trash, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What has not been mentioned in this update, if you will, is in 2022 when we started the good work that we do together, I was faced with 18 contracts. All 18 of those contracts were settled and somewhere around 2%, there were some that had longevity payments in it, there were some that had stipends in it, but overall the broad brush was at 2%.
I have no intention whatsoever of not offering increases to our labor. I don't know how I'm gonna fund it. I don't know where I'm gonna get the money from. I'm not gonna certainly fund it to the, the level that I've been asked to fund it at by, by some wishful thinking folks, we'll say. Um, but at some point in time that number's gotta be massaged into this budget as well. So if you have any questions, I'm here before you. If you have any solutions, I'm here before you. Um, and the door will be open until I guess you get a budget from me, uh, finalized by the fifth.
I'm also gonna do the same presentation, um, to the school committee. So for folks that are listening at home and they, you know, they're concerned, I have some grave concerns about the 43 jobs that are not gonna be there in the school department next year. Um, it's, it, this has really been a struggle. So, um, Mr. Chairman, it's up to you how you wanna do this. Councilor Allen, would you like to ask a question? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. Um, so on the, uh, on the trash fee, I mean,
1990 was a long time ago. I don't understand why that's not by ordinance. Um, they presented to us like with the report, like this is what it costs this year. And, and, and we get level funded as part of the budget process. I don't know why that's not presented every year as this is where we're at or we anticipate, you know, 'cause I mean, that's 35 years ago. So politics is is an interesting game, right? Two years is a pretty short leash. So, you know, do you wanna be the body that sets the rates? That's up to you.
I, I would suggest that it shouldn't be here, but that's been my suggestion all along. And I try to get it to be moved and it, it didn't get moved. It is what it is. I don't know how to fix that without, you know, this is yours. It's not mine. I can't fix that. Councillor Adams Sure. Thank Mr. President. So I guess the question, not to put you on the spot, go ahead. I believe you have the ability to raise the rate without coming through us right now. I'm told I do not. So, because the rate is, I, I don't wanna say
unknown what the procedure is. Remember the name Blac, remember the name Blac. He was an IT guy in the tech department in 2002. He's the one that inputted the last rate based on what I just read to you, but I don't know why it was inputted at 2025. I've called Happy Daily. I've called Deb Strikers. I've called the, the whole gamut of people to try to figure this out. My sense is though, it goes back to an adjustment. Now remember what the adjustment is. A fee can only raise enough money to cover the service.
A tax can go beyond that. So as a fee at $95 back in 2002, it would've gone way beyond whatever our, um, whatever our trash fee was. In fact, It would've been like $5 million. And at $5 million, that would've been $4 million more than what the, to, to cover the trash fee. So I really can't answer the question. If it was, was me doing a budget? Truthfully, if it was me doing a budget, I would confer the rate setting to the department.
I would say to the people of the department, it is up to you. You guys wanna run this as an enterprise fund, run it, run it as an enterprise fund. But your revenue must meet your expenses. And the only way to do that is to do it by the rate adjustments. And you must walk up your rate adjust. It's wholly unfair to look at this the way we have to look at it. Now, I know that, how'd you like to be sitting at home going, Jesus Christ McKay, you're going from $85 to $260, you think? I don't know what that means to people. Of course I do. But then again, we could do what Montgomery does.
You know what Montgomery does wanna take a shot at what their trash fee is? It's $175 a quarter. That's $700 a month to have your trash removed by a private vendor. A year. A year. I'm suggesting two 60. I mean, that's the number. Because that number, if you set that rate and then you're willing to confer the rate setting authority at a later time, date, whatever, you wanna look at this to the DPW and then you tell the DPW, you make sure
that your rates match your expense. Now you got something going. But until, You know, until we're there, I don't know where we are, That's what happens. Just a follow up. So, so here the question would be if the, if the ordinance says $95 per quarter, I believe, in my opinion, and I've talked to the attorney about that yesterday, but if I'm reading an ordinance, it says 95, you have the ability, in my opinion, to make that 95, make it 85, make it 65 as the mayor. Can you tell if you tell me
that right now it's done tomorrow. But I don't think she agrees with that. I don't think she does either. But I do. I'm not gonna go against council, you Know what I mean? The easiest way to fix this, in my opinion, the easiest way to fix this is in a two step process. Here's the first step. Change this, the ordinance right now to $65. Once it's changed to $65, if you like that you're comfortable with you, you understand why we're moving it to $65 a quarter. Once you've done that, then make a decision as to whether or not you think it's best done at the DPW or it's best to hold onto it.
That's a decision this body needs to make. I can't, I don't have any say there. I can only kind of explain to you the back backdoor processes as to how the, you know, municipal finance works. But you know, councilor Sullivan, I think you get this pretty much this is, uh, this is, you be, you've been in my position. I mean, I I think you, I can't just change a rate that's that's set by council as much as I'd like to. I just don't think I can do that. Oh, I, I'll, I'll spare. 'cause I think I can probably answer the historical, I think he actually got a typo in the ordinance is what you got. I think it actually was entered correctly by the computing center.
Um, it was never $95 a quarter. Um, it was to cover set expenses as you laid out, which was buying the landfill, capping the landfill, having it monitored, um, potentially as the land landfill. That's why it was done. It wasn't actually ever done as a trash fee. I'm not saying we didn't use, use the money for that. So that was that. And I'm, you know, I will not bore everybody as to why it never changed, but it never, it never changed for all those reasons. So I, I feel your pain on that and I don't really have a lot of questions on, I voted
to send it to the DPW just for that reason that it would be reviewed. So, but I would like to know just on the health insurance, so who and what are, and if you don't wanna do it here tonight, I'm happy to take this into committee. Um, who on our behalf has been trying to negotiate with the insurance companies and what if they're saying 35% increase, what was their first offer? Vicky, can I, because I can't remember. I know it's the Healthcare Trust that negotiated the rate. Yeah, but there's an advisor or a company, whether it's, I mean like privately we use Hub, we used to use other,
I can't think of it. We, I think we Still, I mean, I don't know. I don't, you know, I'm not looking to put a company on the spot here either. But it just seems like that number is just, and I understand you and I have talked a couple of times and I understand it only takes a few individuals to have a bad health experience that raises those rates. And we have been historically, hugely fortunate that we have not had that situation. And last year must just may have been a really, really bad year, or this year may be being a bad year. But who's pushing back on that 35? So actual the rate that the Health Trust voted was 28%.
So HUB came to us and said 35% will keep the trust as it is now and maybe add a little bit of money to it. So they gave us examples of 7%, 10%, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, whatever those percentages were. And he did his, um, extrapolation of how much would that eat into the trust with the current, um, claims that we're having, the current claims that we're having to pay right now. And so at the 35%, if we went up to 35%,
we wouldn't be eating into the trust, right? With two, with the 28%, I think we might eat a million and a half, $2 million out of what's in the trust now. So if you go to 28% though, what does that save you on your bottom line for your budget purposes? Forget about eating into the trust for a second. Oh, It doesn't save us anything. It doesn't Save us anything. So there's a little bit of a, there's a little bit of a, I don't mean slight of hand 'cause I don't mean it that way at all. You remember last year you cut from the insurance rate. Yep. Remember you took a million dollars from the insurance Rate. Yep. We've put some of it back. Put some of it back. But the delta there is gonna be about
a million dollars between what we budgeted at about 16 million. Yep. It's gonna go to 17 million. Yep. I took my number from 16 million the budgeted FY 25 number. Yep. And then from there took the new number that needs to be budgeted at. Hold on, I I've got the number 5.2, But what's the percentage? So it's not a, it's a total of 36% from FY 25 start point. It's actually now, if you figure it that way, it's back probably about to 28% of it. So in 24 to 25, we increased as a trust,
we went up 7%, which was because the claims were, we had whatever, Just for the record, this is why I don't like holidays. 'cause if we didn't have holidays, we'd be sitting much better, but go ahead. True. But if you had to trust that had 16 million, 17 million bucks in it, that would be, but it's kind of a lot of money. But, but we're, but we don't now. We don't now. Correct. Okay. Because though we kind of hit that, you know, we were always plateaued and all of a sudden the claims are higher. So last year when we did the budget, the trust hadn't voted on that 7%.
So that's why it was at 16. I think we took 5% of what Annie's number was because we weren't sure what the trust was gonna vote. The trust voted 7%. That's why we're gonna be short in FY 25. Mm-hmm. So when we, when the trust met and we had all our calculations from Hub, 35% would get us to not dipping into the trust that we have now, but we, we decided that 28% was a better route to go. So we would only lose a little bit and then look at it next year to see if the claims
'cause this, to see if the claims come down. Okay. So you're telling me you didn't budget 35%? No. Okay. Well that's, that's the number that the Delta from the starting number, the starting number of FY 25, not what it's gonna end at, started at 16 million. If you get to the 21 million, that's where we're at. That's 36%. But to your point, by adding in money back into it, that number is probably about 28% all the way back again. Okay. So is there not gonna be, and I, I'm happy to stop and take this to committee.
I'm not looking to take up all the time. Yeah, go ahead. But, but are you, so does that mean that there is not gonna be a request in this current fiscal year for free cash? For that million dollars? And the only reason I'm asking is because when Annie Larkin was in front of us, she had in, in front of finance, she had indicated she needed the cut money back, which was I think was like $250,000 and that she was going to be back to us mm-hmm. For a million. So is that not gonna happen? No. She needs the money. No, that will Happen. Okay. So, so then we're not back to the 28% then We're not back to the 35%.
We, we we're not back to the 35%. Okay. No, But we're not even back to the 28 because, well, Because is there gonna be a 28% difference between 17,000,029? Oh, okay. But Okay. Alright. Whatever it is, it's a big, big number. It's four even if that number No, No, no. I I but I'm just saying I think there's a savings there someplace, um, to get closing that delta is all I'm saying. Sure. I'm not telling you it's zero by the way, I didn't solve all the problems. No, 28% for the health care added $3.4 million
to the budget on top of what we already budgeted. No, Which was at 7% from If I had the number I'd give it to you. Yeah. Okay. I can, okay. 1.7, 1.735 I think Council me Thank you Mr. President, thank you for coming and speaking to us. I I, I have a little bit of a question. If the trash fee that we have the ordinance for was originally set up to help with the landfill closure, which is money that comes out of the health department's budget, right? Landfill. Then how is the $95 not appropriate for both the money that needs to go
to health about the landfill and the money that you need for the trash collection? And if what you want is a trash fee that's 65, why are, why are we coming to this body to have a change in an ordinance when you could be collecting 95 in order to pay for all the things that do need to be paid for? I don't, I don't understand why this is an US problem and with the fact that the amount raised with the increase in the proposed trash fee being exactly the same as the 2.5% increase in
from the tax increase. It feels like rather than doing something that is already legal, that is already in your control, that you would take the hit for you are coming to us asking us to do something that doesn't need to be done. And I would like some explanation as to why we are not exercising the ordinance that you already have to cover the fees that you already have and how if the landfill closure was part of what those fees should go to, then they are not going to that and you're not including the landfill closure stuff
with the trash fee together in what you think that number would be. Councillor Mellow, I could answer one of the seven questions that you just asked. You Can take 'em in order. However, No, I'm not gonna take any of them. I am here in order to take the heat. That's why I'm here. I'm also here to fix the problem. That's why I'm here. I don't have the authority that I know of. As I indicated when I said that I had done the research to just change the fee, I can't just go to $95. I can't do it. If I could have done that,
I would've changed the fee. As I've already said today. I think I said I would have it done tomorrow morning. That's what I said. So this isn't a matter of me trying to put the hit on you. I will take responsibility for this whole thing. I understand what the magnitude of the problem is. Leaders lead, that's what they do. And it's harder to lead when things are going wrong than when things are going right. That is why I'm here today. If you wanted to, I could have simply given you a budget on May the fifth walked in, said here's my budget, thank you very much, and walked right back out the door instead, rather than get into it this way, instead I decided
to come to this body, say to you, here are the difficulties that I see. These are the difficulties that I'm having. We have three weeks, two weeks to kind of sew this back up together. Two, which I had said several times now together to make this thing work. I'm also very, very, very cognizant that I am the one that's asking for a 2.5% increase and a two point half percent increase in the tax rate. I'm aware of that. That isn't on you, it's on me. I get it. I know who it's don. I totally understand it.
I grasp the gravity of what I'm doing. What I'm telling you is if I believe that I had the authority and I tried to do the research to find out how that mechanism got here in the first place and I simply couldn't find it. Which if you remember, that's what I said. If I thought that I had the authority to raise that trash fee, I would raise it as soon as I got here tomorrow morning at eight o'clock. So I don't know what that whole was about. I just don't, I don't know. Do we have anything that I can answer? So I don't want to get into a heated argument either about this whole thing. Okay. So we need to figure out how to fix the rest of the,
uh, the ordinance. Okay. So what is the law department telling you at this point? The law department tells me that to go into the ordinance, make the appropriate change, change it to $65 quarterly and then just move forward and then enact it and adopt it. That's all you have to do. Yes, council, Thank you Mr. President. My question to clarify is why is the current ordinance not usable now? Like what, what is the, why is the mayor and the department unable to enact
what is already encoded? That is the question I'm asking. As I have said several times now. I'll say it one more time for clarity, please. I don't know. I simply don't know if I could get to the answer. You can roll your eyes all you want. Councillor Mellow. If I could get to that answer, I would do it tomorrow. But I can't get to that answer because I'm told the answer sits with counsel. We are executive legislative branch. That's the way this works. If I could do it, I would do it tomorrow. If I get a ruling from law, it says go do it tomorrow. You can guarantee the adjustment's gonna be made
and it'll be done tomorrow and it will be on me. Let's be clear, I'm not passing the buck on any of this to you. I am standing before you telling you what I believe to be is the best course of action. I could be wrong. There's always that possibility. And if somebody can get to me and correct me before it comes to you on May the fifth, God bless you. I'm all ears. Alright, unless there's anything further, thank you for making the presentation. I Appreciate your time. Thank, thank you. Thank
you very much for Your consideration. Thank you. Moving on, item two, councilor Figgy. Thank you Mr. P requesting immediate consideration. Approval to authorize the mayor transfer money between departments within departments in between personnel, service and expense. Effective May 1st, 2025 to July 15th, 2025 pursuant to MGL L, chapter 44. Section 33 B. Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counselor. Now this is something that we do every year. This is holla. Mayor is able to
and the auditor are able to close out the books. Historically, we've always had a limit on, on the amount. So I'd like to amend this to, uh, be appropriate enough up to, uh, $5,000. Anything after that needs to be approved as a transfer. Second, Can motion made it second in further the discussion? Councillor Sullivan? Didn't we bump it to 10 mil? 10,000 last year? We did last year. I'll amend the amendment to 10,000. Second. Second Motion. Made it seconded. Anything else on the amendment? I'd just like a list of those transfers at
the end of the fiscal year As noted. Okay, We did that last, uh, we will call on the amendment please. Oee? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Spell Randy? Yes. Shandy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Peggy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane. Yes. Meow. Yes. Anything further before we vote on the actual I? Media consideration? Seeing none. Roll call Madam City Court. O fee. Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bill. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Sorry. Um, Daniel? Yes.
Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Thank you. Item three. Council Figi. Thank you Mr. President. Please add Mad City Clerk. Read items three through seven and refer to finance Second. Motion. Made it seconded Madam City Clerk. Three appropriation of $1,072,804 83 cents from free cash to the engineering department. Construction account for costs. Costs associated with sidewalk, sidewalk upgrades and repairs. Four appropriation of $250,000 from free cash to the Oeg account to replenish the amount cut during fiscal year 25. Budget process five. Appropriation of $16,768
and 20 cents from free cash to the off street parking purchase of service account for drainage improvements at the Central Street. Lot. Six appropriation of $15,625 from free cash to the city clerk's office. Additional small equipment account for the purchase of 11 pole pads. Seven. Appropriation in the amount of $950 from free cash to the Conservation Commission. Purchase of service account to place and balance for any tires for the department's vehicle. Any further discussion on sending to finance? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now in the hands of finance Item eight, councilor Figy. Thank you Mr. President. Like a motion suspended rules for immediate consideration for items eight and nine.
Second. Motion made it seconded for immediate consideration. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension counselor. Thank you Mr. President. Request acceptance of an in lieu of tax contribution in the amount of $532,054 from Russell Gas and Electric Light Department for FY 26. Placed on file Second. Motion Made it second. In any discussion? Seeing none, roll call Madam City Court. We don't have to Accept it. Oh, KY Yes. Sullivan Y Can can I just have a point of order?
Sure. Is this to place on file or to actually accept it? To accept It. Okay. Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bill. Strandy. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane. Yes. Noah? Yes. Item nine. Councillor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. Requesting acceptance of an individual for tax contribution in the amount of $1 million from Westville Gas Electric Light Department for FY 26. Second. Motion Made and seconded. Further discussion. Seeing none. Roll call. Madam City Clerk Oniskey. Yes.
Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Yes. Burns? Yes. Tanya? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane. Yes. Miller? Yes. Thank you. Can I get a motion for regular order? Motion to return to regular order. Second. Motion made. And second. All in favor? A. Aye. Opposed? Not. Back to regular order. Item 10. Council ky. Thank you Mr. President, would you please ask Madam City clerk to read item 10? Refer to l and o law on the city planner. Second. Motion made it seconded. Madam City Clerk. 10. Submitting resolution authorizing the mayor to execute documents relative
to an agricultural preservation restriction at 16 acres on North Road. Thank you. Any further discussion? See none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 11, council Winky. Yes. Thank you Mr. President, would you please ask Madam City clerk to read item 11, uh, and place on file and I will have a few comments after this Second motion made it seconded. Further discussion, Counselor? Yes. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this is an ordinance that we had passed, uh, second reading. I believe it was last, our last meeting. Mm-hmm. Uh, it's come to, uh, the mayor's attention who brought it
to my attention this evening. There is wording of open space versus open land. The ordinance refers to open space, which was really meant to be open land. You think it's the same but open space has has a, a, a, a more detailed meaning than open land. Open land is, if you look outside, there's a field. No conservation restrictions, no restrictions where open space could have restrictions. Uh, several, uh, neighborhoods have open space.
Um, and we just want to clarify it so it'll be coming through with a few changes. With those specific changes. Anything further? See? None. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 12, councilor Harris. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, please ask Madam Clerk to be 12 and 13 and refer to the Personnel Action Committee. Second. Motion Made it seconded. Honor city clerk 12. Submitting their reappointment of Shannon Reed to the position of first Assistant city solicitor for a three year term to expire in May 20, 28. 13. Submitting the reappointment of Megan Bristol to the position of assistant city solicitor for a three year term to expire in May, 2028.
Any further discussion? Sending to personnel action. Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? None in the hands of personal action. Item 14, councilor Harris. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules for immediate consideration and I'll explain why. Second Motion made it seconded to suspend the rules. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension counselor. Okay. Uh, thank you. The item is submitting the job description for the airport manager. Second Further discussion, counsel. Thank you. This job description is exactly the same one
that we approved a few few years back when we hired a airport manager. I'm not really sure why this is coming into us because there's zero changes in it. So I, uh, we did immediate consideration last time because there was no change and I'd just like to have immediate consideration for this 'cause it's on the agenda. Anything further? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Petitions for Mons and other papers. Item 15, councilor Figi. Thank you. Present. Uh, motion to accept and place on file.
Westfield Gas Electric General Manager Tom Flaherty, submitting of 2025 Depreciation appropriation for the gas electric department amount of $7,713,066. Second. Second. Motion made it second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none. We'll call Madame City Clerk Kki? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Belt. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Thank you. Item 16, councilor Fanon. Thank you Mr. President. Item 16.
That's AR Associates Inc. Submitting a zone change petition for Alice Wilkis for a portion of 1 46 and one 70 Main Street. Um, 1295 from rural residential to residency to yield further residential opportunities from the subject properties. And please refer a motion to refer to zoning planning and development Planning and schedule a public hearing at the earliest practical date. Second motion. She made it second. In any further discussion, what's our next available date? I would bring it to Second meeting in May. Second. Meeting in May, May 15th. Yeah. Okay.
Uh, any questions, any comments? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Item 17. Councilor Fanny. Thank You Mr. President. Item 17 is Michael Ventress owner submitting a zone change petition for TV Realty and Development Inc. For zero lock House Road from industrial A to re C to construct multiple duplex units referred as zoning planning and development Planning and schedule a public hearing at the earliest practical date. Motion made and seconded. So that again is at our second meeting in May. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 18, councilor Fanon.
Thank you Mr. President. 18 is AR of associates submitting a zone change petition for Michael s Sitz for a portion of 66 Holyoke Road from residence B to resident to Business B to use the rear area for business purposes and refer to zoning planning and development planning and schedule of public hearing at the earliest practical date. A thank you. Anything further? All in favor a Aye. Opposed reports of committees. Finance. Item 19. Councilor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. On April 10th, the finance committee met regarding the appropriation in the amount of $25,108
for free cash to the Health Department Sanitary landfill purchase of service account to replace security fencing around the perimeter of the transfer station. And on a two zero vote, voted to remove the item from committee without action. Second. Motion made and seconded. Anything further? Counselor? Yes. We received a memo from the health director stating that she no longer has this in her plans and does not need the money so we can return it to free cash. Very good. Anything further council or, So I would just add, um, certainly thank the department head for this. Um, I do think over the next few weeks here,
we're gonna have to be paying a lot of attention to the free cash in the current budget, which is gonna be needed. My guesses for the next budget given the presentation tonight. So I appreciate that this was, uh, pulled back by the department head. Okay. And I think some of that money was savings from that welder. So Yes. Thank You. Nope. Anything further? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Item 20. Councilor Solo. Thank you Mr. President. Finance Mattin on a three zero vote recommends the appropriation and the amount of $145,581 and 80 cents from free cash
to the fire department's supply account to equip the new north side engine. Three with specialty firefighting and rescue equipment. And I move approval. Second Motion. You made it seconded. Further discussion counselor? Nope. Given my conversation just a minute ago. With regards to the free cash, I think this is a public safety issue. This is a vehicle that we counsel voted to purchase a number of years ago. It has taken more than two years to get delivery because it is a specialty, uh, piece of equipment which will be deployed on the north side. Um, the council may remember,
we've since bought a couple other, uh, vehicles that are actually going to be delivered shortly. They will not need, um, this level of equipment added on. Historically, the city has taken these dollars to buy the piece of equipment, the truck, um, from the ambulance account, which was the true in this case as well. So the actual vehicle was purchased with, with ambulance fund money, not general fund money. And then the general fund has outfitted it with the specialty equipment. Um, hence the $145,581 80 cents.
The equipment is, um, items like, uh, jaws of life, stabilization equipment, water rescue, um, ice rescue. Um, it, this vehicle, um, does go onto the turnpike, um, in emergency situations, obviously. Um, and is really the first responder to the north side. Coming out of the north side station. The current, um, vehicle that's in, um, up in service there will move back, um, and be the backup. I think it was gonna be vehicle nine. If I'm either six or nine, I forget, forget the number. Um, so we're not getting rid of the current one.
It'll be used as a backup. Um, you know, all, all, all important here, I think. Um, and with that, I would just encourage my colleagues to, uh, move approval to vote. Focus Anything further on the fire truck. Roll call. Madam City Clerk Ky. Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane? Yes. Mellow? Yes. Thank you. Adam? 21. Councillor Figy. Thank you Mr. President. On April 10th, finance committee met uh,
two zero vote water. Recommend approval of the transfer of $296,915 from the PEG UN-designated account and the PEG vehicles account to purchase a sprinter van that will be customized for uses a mobile production vehicle. Second. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counselor. And thank you. Uh, the department head, uh, Pete Cole has been working on this for the past two years. Uh, this van will have a 40 foot mass with a camera attached to it. It will be, uh, equipped with radios
that will connect to the police station. This will allow for mobile transmissions. Um, in case of a trans traffic vent, currently he needs to load the equipment that he is using to do these mobile operations into his personal vehicle. Uh, via the graphic arts department at the technical academy, you will have students able to staff the vehicle and run the programs. The program at WTA has recently been at chapter seven, four approval. The costs are 80,000 for the vehicle. 217,000 for all the customization and electronic equipment.
Anything further? Councilor Matthews Kane. Thank you Mr. President. Um, can I ask two questions through the chair, if I may? Sure. So what is the need for this vehicle and what happens to the PEG undesignated account at the end of the fiscal year? Does it get swept to free cash or does it have to stay in that account? The PEG account is an enterprise fund. So the funds that are left over stay, uh, the word is that he, Mr. Coles will be back looking for some additional funds when the FM radio station comes online because the license has just been approved by the FAA.
Um, as far as the need for this vehicle, this will act as a mobile command center if ever needed by the police department for a traumatic event. It'll also allow for expanded programming through the, uh, PEG access, uh, possibly covering such items as the, uh, special school committee that's gonna be Monday night at wis. Uh, any kind of sporting events could be also added to the program. And because of the WTA chapter 74 for program, it gives the kids the ability to use the equipment
and the training they're receiving on that. Good. Second question. No, I'll go ahead. Defer to my counselor. To my Left. Councilor Burns. Where, um, where's this, um, vehicle gonna be stored? You know, where's it gonna be stored abuse? I mean, is it gonna be secured and Yeah, probably in the, uh, the enclosed area at the WTA Oh WTA. Thank you. You're welcome. Councillor Matthews Kane and then Councillor Mel, I, I defer to the counselor. Uh, thank you. Um, thank you Mr. President. I, I am wondering, um, will, are we still anticipating the PEG account being used to pay
for the city's internet bill this year? And will this expenditure allow for that to continue? Yes. Yeah. I haven't seen the budget yet, but my understanding is that there's enough funds to do that. Thank you. And if I may just say, I am thrilled to see PEG money spent on PEG stuff. So I am a big, I am very glad that we can spend it on actual PEG item. Thank you. Councillor Sullivan. Yeah, I would just add, and this will not make the counselor across the way happy. I actually asked whether or not there were other items in the current general fund
budget for 26 where these dollars could reasonably be moved over such as data or technology. Um, and was told that, uh, the mayor had indicated no. And that, um, this was the appropriate use for these funds. So I will support this tonight, but I did ask whether or not we could move some of those monies. And I know I would not have had a unanimous vote on that. Anything further? Councilor Maths came. So, um, this is hard to say 'cause I think such wonderful things of my, of p Coles, I have a hard time with. This is so much money,
it's over a quarter of a million dollars. And I feel like there are other ways that we could spend the PEG funds. So we've been told over and over again that we can have remote participation at council meetings because the acoustics don't work. And I've seen other cities and towns, they have, um, sophisticated setups where there's a camera in front of every counselor and there's a microphone and there is a, um, huge screen on the wall where the people, the council is in person and simultaneously on the screen, some counselors are working remotely.
Citizens can participate remotely. I would love to see PEGS funds spent on something like that that allows for greater participation and remote work. And that would be a really great use of PEG funds. So I, I'm not gonna support this, although I think extremely highly of peg, uh, sorry of Pete. It's like Peg Pete Coles in the work he does. Um, so I'm gonna be in no respectfully Anything further. Roll call. Madam City Clerk Ky. Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bill. Trendy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Fiy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? No.
Meow. Yes. Thank you. Legislative and ordinance Item 22. Counselor Adams, I think Mr. President, uh, Eleanor has met on a two zero vote and accepts a memorandum of proposed changes to the marijuana ordinance submitted by Assistant city solicitor. Alec Eric Valez. I second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counselor? Yes. Thank you. Um, we sat in, uh, ano for a while and a lot of the changes, I don't know if everybody has 'em, but there were several changes that were actually from the state. One word here, two words here, calling something else. Do you know something different now?
So the majority of the changes that we have in front of us are from the state that we really can't do much with. We have a little bit of a leeway to change, no marijuana smoking of any kind on the city streets. And that's what we voted upon doing through the police department. It gives them a little bit more authority if we change it to one way or the other. And they would prefer that we make it any smoking no matter what marijuana on any city streets. So that's what we decided to do.
And that's the biggest change here. Besides all the state changes that they would like us to change. Counselor Matthews came. Thank you. Um, so I read through this. It's a lot. And one thing that I was concerned about was people are gonna be able to explain accessory devices, which is like the paraphernalia that goes along with it. And I got confused 'cause it says, you know, this kinds of devices are already visible and we can't, I'm trying to read from it. It is legally and constitutionally problematic to impose this restriction on just marijuana retailers
as opposed to all places where such devices are sold. But then when you look at what it says, you're saying, no person shall do it. You're not saying, and if you wanna follow along, I'm on page 1 93, or sorry, in the packet. Yeah. 1 93. So it's saying no person shall display it. And then the reason given for removing it is because you can't restrict it to marijuana dealers. But that's actually not what the ordinance is saying. And then further along in 1 98, they change to people,
to marijuana establishment. 'cause they're saying we can't say people, but it, it, it's, so there's internal contradictions within the document. Um, so I'm on 1 98 and it says this section is subject to confusion, may con conflict with state law as written. It begins by setting fines for violations by persons without defining, the term is not clear if persons could include marijuana establishments and the law person is regularly used to describe it goes on blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But we said persons earlier, like, I don't know why it would not be okay here. And it's okay earlier.
That's a great question. I kind of came in at the end of this at l and o so I wasn't there for everything when I switched over. So there was so much going on here. And I know one of the questions actually was the, the equipment to smoke marijuana, I thought they'd removed that from the stores, but they're, they're like, you know, they're doing it now. They wanna sell the, I don't know, the bongs or whatever you wanna call 'em. Is that right? Yeah. Um, it's like they were like, basically if they're, they're selling 'em now and we're just very hard to enforce it and kick 'em out of all the stores. Um, I I think the biggest question I don't was,
was the, the medical marijuana. They said it's very difficult for us to try to enforce that if someone's got me medical work, we want everybody not to smoke it. And if we give 'em a fine, they certainly can appeal that. And the judge will probably say, I'm sure they're gonna say you're fine with it. But it's very difficult for them right now with the laws that are kind of, they don't even know kind of where this is going. Yeah. And I don't know about the persons. I can't answer that. I don't know if Councilor Anki might be able to, Well if I may, Mr. President, the, the pages
that are being referred to from like 1 92 to you, another 10 or 12 pages after that, those are the notes that we were given. They don't specifically, they don't have to match the ordinance. So it was a means of explaining, uh, some of this to us because it, it did go through, uh, you know, quite a few things. You know, mostly it's changes of, of verbiage that the state uses, uh,
which is also spelled out in here establishment rather than facility license rather than, Um, What is it? I don't know. There's a, there's a few things in here where, where it's just, it's the verbiage that the state uses has to match what the city uses. So that's, that's the majority of this. Anything further? Um, Council burns. Yeah. Thank you Mr. President again. Um, kudos to my two colleagues on, on the committee. 'cause we spent a lot of time on this. You know, actually Councilor Harris was there most of the time also. So she knows.
I I just in what the attorney, uh, Valdez spoke about, it sounds to me is the C CCC doesn't even have their stuff together. Right. And we're just at this point, it, it, it's, it's, it's every month, every day, every year, whatever, it changes. I mean, they can't even get a chairman there. Nevermind, you know, write a, a regulation. So, you know, as, as written here, I mean, this is about as good as we're gonna get. Um, and it's, again, it's infl it's gonna change. So again, thanks.
You know, my colleagues for, for all the work they did and and attorney about this. He did a, he did a good job. So, um, with that, I would just, uh, get it back forward. Councilor Alley? Yes. Thank you Mr. President. So this is the first reading, so couldn't either the committee or even refer to law to look at that section and to say this is, This isn't a first reading. This is not a first reading. No, No, no. Just a memorandum. I stand corrected, but I stand corrected. He says it is an ordinance. Alright, so we're both standing. Um, so, but then,
but they have time to let say just review that section and just clarify. Right? Yep. So this is by reading first, reading by title. Yes. Correct. Okay. If there's specific questions, if, uh, they, anyone with a question, which I wish we had when we were discussing this for about eight meetings, but you know, now will do, could it's time as any, uh, please email the chair, which is me. Thank you, Officer Adams. Would you like to read the, uh, resolution motion For first string by title only?
I'm gonna read A memorandum of proposed changes to the marijuana ordinance. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Councilor Motion for second reading. Final passes to the next meeting. Second. Motion made it seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now on for second reading. Item 23. Council ky. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, LO met and upon a two zero vote voted, uh, approval of a resolution to approve and accept the conservation restriction at 1342 East Mountain Road. Second, she made it second. Further discussion Council?
Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, there was a, a lot on East Mountain Road that was, uh, developed with open space and a conservation restriction, um, to go along with it. They had enough. Uh, this is right nearby East Mountain Country Club too. Uh, what they did was split it up into five smaller lots, uh, instead of, um, instead of larger lots, which leaves eight acres of land undeveloped. So it really helps, especially in that area.
Uh, you know, they could have done two acre lots, but instead wanted to maintain eight acres of undeveloped land by making the lots about an acre and a third each. Uh, the restriction would prevent development. Uh, the owner keeps, uh, actually owns this open space, this undeveloped land. Uh, Boston has approved of this and that area can't be altered without permission from the city Council. Sullivan, you have Just in terms of the owner, the current owner, or the lots that are left, the owner of those lots, The current owner, which is unusual.
I mean, typically it's, you know, HOA that controls this, but that doesn't actually have to be that way. So the owner of the, the property that got split up, the main property, let's say, still maintains the, uh, I'm, I'm just worried about maintenance down the road, but I've got no problem. Anything further? Would you like to read the resolution, Sir? Yes. If I may. By title only resolution approving and accepting a conservation restriction at 1342 East Mountain Road. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Item 24, councilor Adams. Yeah, Eleanor has met in the 2, 2 0 vote. Um, motion to leave and committee on an order of transferring care, custody management, and control of certain parcel of land, known as the former St. Cashmere's Church located at 38 Parkside Ave. The adjacent lot on Kame Street from Westfield Public Schools to the city of Westfield. Second. Motion Made and second and further discussion, counsel? Yeah, we were told that all the paperwork has not been completed. There's a couple things they need to finish before we vote on this. Okay. Anything further? All in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Item 25. Council Ky. Thank you Mr. President. April 16th, ele O met and upon a two zero vote voted to remove from committee without action and without prejudice. The following, an ordinance amending chapter six, buildings and building regulations by adding Article eight, residential rental Property Registration. Second. Second, second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This was per request of Councilor Figgy who brought the ordinance forward. So, uh, I would like to ask him if you'd like
to speak at all upon this. Thank you Counselor, If it please, is the chair. Um, in 2018, I began to work on this ordinance along with several, uh, other city department heads and, uh, personnel. Every time we seem to be ready to bring this out for council approval, something happens. Once again, we've ready to bring it out. And we've had the presentation from the, the mayor about the budget. Now is not the time to ask to add any kind of personnel, especially in 43 school. People are being cut.
So based on that and not wanting to have a languishing committee any longer, we will. I, I ask to have this withdrawn with without, uh, action and without prejudice. Uh, I will be hopefully able to bring this out at a later date for our consideration. So thank you for your Anything further. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Uh, personnel action committee. Item 26, Councillor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. 26 is the reappointment of Allison McMurry to the position of city engineer for a term to expire July, 2028.
Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion. Councillor Harris? Yes. Um, I have a few words and then a few more words. You can combine them if you want. It's an important, um, position. The Personnel Action Committee met on oh 4, 0 8, uh, 25. And on a three zero vote. We voted to approve, uh, and recommend this reappointment. Second Motion made it second council. Thank you. Uh, the mayor has requested the reappointment of Allison, uh, Westfield City engineer. And in her letter to the mayor, she stated that she wanted the opportunity to continue serving a city engineer.
That it's been an honor to serve our community, and that she remains deeply committed to the continued growth, safety, and infrastructure improvement of our city. She further states that worked di diligently to oversee and execute key projects that enhance the city's infrastructure. Fostered strong relationships with city officials, city departments and residents to ensure efficient project implementation and address community concerns. She believes her experience, technical ex expertise and dedication to sustainable development is an asset to our city. Along with her looking forward to contributing
to the city's long-term vision and ensuring that our infrastructure meets current and future needs. She included a list of accomplishments of our engineering department as well as her professional achievements. All the counselors have received all this very detailed information. A brief summary includes she had all roads and sidewalk, net network scanned, creating a comprehensive asset management plan, oversaw and managed replacements and or milling or pavement preservation throughout Westfield. Created and received state approval for Complete Streets Plan.
Elevating the city to tier three, status coordinated with mass trails and EEA on design of Columbia Greenway Extension from Women's Temperance Park to South Hampton Connection. Worked with McMahon Associates to instill the Franklin AAV school signal and traffic improvements and with the DPW and police regarding safety issues, and also did road safety on Mechanic Street. Began. SS four, A action plan for city, which are comprehensive safety plans aimed at reducing and eliminating serious injury and fatal crashes. Initiated construction
of the 4.3 million Westfield River Levee multi-use path. She's creating a public facing platform for GIS. She received many grants for traffic management, complete streets safety improvements for for many streets. And regarding flood control, cleared the little river levee from Ponds Hollow Road North to the end of the levee. Managed design and construction of an emergency repair along Little River Levee Co. Uh, coordinating with the Army Corps, uh, with the goal of receiving certification. Began design on Abrook Dam and Powder Brook Dam for watershed assessments.
Managed contract bidding for levy and dam maintenance. Created a comprehensive culvert plan assisting every culvert in the city. This plan supports future grant applications regarding her professional development. She is on many boards, has multiple certifications, and has worked with our local schools regarding promoting interest in stem and discussion on erosion and bridges and judging science fairs. Our counselors also received letters of support for her. Reappointment from personnel director Anne Larcom, Westfield Public School Supervisor of Science, technology and engineering.
Lauren Kagan, Westfield Public School stem coach. Lindsey Ayer, acting director of DPW Francis Kane and Westfield's Chief Procurement Officer Tammy Teff. During our discussion, one of the, uh, questions that Councilor Adams asked was, what do you think we need the most? And she responded, that depends on who you were dressing at any point in time, but certainly roads in general. When we enhance the road, she said, and sidewalks, we service all and it involves safety for all. Councilor Adams also asked her that if we have, uh, whatever money's come up in that department, continuing on,
will she, uh, continue to put that toward the roads? And she replied. Yes. Then a brief discussion ensued regarding the process of private roads going to being public roads. Councilor Figgy stated that I'll add that. He, she, he was very impressed and thankful for the work that she's done on the levies. Anything further? Councilor? Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanna say that when we first, um, hired this engineer, uh, I reached out about flood control because obviously, you know, that's a thing for me. And I, she met me out on the powder mill Brook dam.
We started talking about the dam, redesigned arm brook and powder millbrook. We have been discussing the little river levee since she got here. I, I find her very responsive and very responsible with everything that has been put on her shoulders. And given the fact that we are outside of ordinances without a flood control commission, I appreciate the responsiveness and transparency that is coming out of her department. And I have her it, I fully support her. I hope everyone else will, and we should all be very grateful for the work that's being done. Thank you. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call Madams court.
Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Shandy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fania? Yes. Ye yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. License committee Item 27. Councilor Matthews Kane. Thank you Mr. President license met and on upon a three to zero vote, approve the annual fortune teller junk dealer and junk collector license renewal for 2025. And I, uh, make a motion to accept a submitted without reading. Second Motion. Made it seconded for the discussion. Counsel. Just a short discussion. 'cause it was a short meeting.
This is just for the public. This is something that we do annually. When people get their initial license, there's a complicated application process and a public hearing. Once they receive that approval every year, they just have to submit a renewal application, a copy of their current business certificate, their workers' comp affidavit, and they have to pay off any taxes that they owed. The committee also checked with the police and none of these businesses have any outstanding issues. Um, I hope everyone Will support this. Anything further? All in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Unfinished business item 28. Council burns. Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. A motion for second reading and final passage of an order. Of an order laying out Kaitlyn? Way second. I Motion made and seconded Further discussion. Council? Yes. Anything? See? None. All in favor? A. Aye. Opposed motions, orders or resolutions? Item 29, councilor Melo. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, item 29 is, I would like to amend slightly by removing the referral to committee so that it may be acted on tonight.
Uh, so I will give the mo amended motion of councilors Alley Mellow and Morgan Alley for a resolution. Opposing sighting of lithium bat stor lithium battery storage facility next to the aquifer, uh, to be emailed to the energy facility citing board attachment to DPU e DPU filing at mass, Becca and to Donna dot Sharkey at mass Becca by close of business on May 13th, 2025. Second. Motion made and seconded. As amended. As amended. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, these are, this is exactly the same resolution
that we did in December, except Department of Public Utilities has been replaced with energy facilities citing board. Um, the planning board is reconsidering adding another letter for the public comment. Uh, there's a request in front of ZBA to do a similar letter. Board of health is considering making a public comment. And so the idea is just that we continue the city's solidarity with the state to, you know, make sure that they know that it does not belong here. Anything Councillor Solo? I've got, no, I voted for it before. I'll vote for this. I, I, I do just want to put out a word of caution with some
of the other boards and commissions that serve in an, a adjudicate adjudicatory, uh, role later on down the road. Um, it would be similar to a judge coming out and saying, I don't like this person. And when that person shows up in front of 'em, um, they're not exactly gonna get a fair hearing. I don't want to see our review process and our permitting process compromised by trying to get every single board and commission that could potentially have a role in authorizing a permit or not to make a public statement ahead
of anything even being in front of them. I think that's dangerous in the sense that we will disqualify those boards from being able to rule if they have to. Most of these don't even have anything in front of them at this point. So I think everybody just needs to be careful as a, as a board. And quite frankly, even in some cases as individuals from those boards going out too far and taking a statement and and saying where they're gonna vote before there's anything in front of them. It's 'cause you don't want to get everything disqualified and have it end up with some other board, commission
or court that we have no control over. I have no problem with this in front of us here tonight. I just think we need to be really careful about other boards, commissions and individual commissioners asking them and, you know, really campaigning to have them take positions. I think that's not ultimately in the best interest of where even the people that have, you know, want this vote here tonight where they ultimately want to be. So I think everybody just needs to be careful about how they proceed on this. Anything further? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Any announcements? Councillor Figi? Yes. Uh, thank you Mr. President. Uh, there were some questions when we had to vote on the SOI for the new vocational school about, uh, placing an item onto the, uh, a non-binding item onto the, uh, ballot. And according to the city charter, the city council may on its own motion, but shall upon request of the school committee in the case of a measure originating with the committee and pertaining to the affairs under its administration, submit to the vote of the registered voters for adoption
or rejection at a general or special city election, any proposed measure or a proposition for a aul repeal or amendment any measure in the same manner and with the same force fact it is provided for submission of a petition. So that should answer any questions about who, who is responsible for initiating putting a non-binding referendum about the school on the ballot. Council Sullivan. I just wanted to go back on the, um, fire department, uh, vote that we took at item uh, 20. Um, we had had a discussion and committee, um, about, um, tariffs.
And this number covered the cost of what we're, were estimated to be the increased costs due to tariffs. 'cause much of this equipment and the vehicles actually are from Canada. Um, and we were told from the department that they have built in what they believe is sufficient money to cover the additional costs of whatever the policy may be in place at the time that we take delivery. Thank you. Councilor Hall. Thank you, Mr. President. So first of all, I'd like to wish everybody a happy Easter. Um, and I want to thank the mayor, um, for agreeing
to use the, uh, community calendar, um, to post information. Um, so residents can go to the, um, get information and links to the energy facility siting board, um, either for the remote public comment hearing on April 29th, um, or to submit written, um, comments. So there'll be live links, which make that a lot easier for people to click onto a zoom meeting and that sort of thing. So that'll be on the community calendar and I'm sure it'll be tomorrow unless somebody's sister has a baby tonight. Thank you. Anything further? Having a Okay.
Seeing none, councilor Harris. Motion to adjourn. Motion made it seconded. Happy Easter everyone. Uh, goodnight.