Or, yeah, or executive session to start at 5:00 . Good evening. I'd like to call the May 21st, 2026 meeting of the Westfield City Council to order. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Here. Mello? Here. Morganelli? Here. Oniske? Here. Adams? Here. Ali? Here. Bean? Here. He may be late. Feltri-Andy? Here. Burns? Here. Fannian? Here. Figgy? Here. Harris? Here. Kneppek? Here. Thank you. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. Reading of the record of the meeting of May 7th, 2026. Councilor Figgy. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting of May 7th, 2026 as presented. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now we have an executive session pursuant to MGLC 30A, Section 21A3, to discuss strategy with respect to litigation in Commerce Insurance v. City of Westfield, as an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body if the chair so
declares. It is intended the council return to open session. So we are now going to go into recess, and we will be back as soon as we're done . Roll call. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Oniske? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ali? Here. Yes. Feltri-Andy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannian? Yes. Figgy? Yeah. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. Thank you. Yeah, we got to go to 315. 315, folks. 315. Got to go upstairs The Norwegian maples? His father was a big guy. He had Grayson. I'll call the meeting back to order. Next item is public participation. Anyone wishing to address the council may do so by stepping forwardGive your name and address to the city clerk, and they
go in three-minute increments, which may be extended for a total of 15 minutes. Anybody like to address the council? Donna Lisi, 287 Shaker Road, Westfield. I am pleased that the city council is considering a moratorium on data centers. The pause on development will allow an opportunity for more research to be done, as well as provide additional time for community input through public hearings, which is crucial. I believe the health and welfare of residents are of paramount importance. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the installation
of these facilities due to the numerous health risks associated with them. People in other states with data centers have experienced health issues, and research backs their claims in the following ways. Number one, constant noise pollution. In Manassas, Virginia, residents are experiencing migraines, stress, anxiety, and sleeplessness. People have a low quality of life because virtually there is no silence for them to enjoy. Harvard Medical School states that noise pollution has associated health
risks and can cause or worsen cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, sleep disturbances, mental health and cognition problems, memory impairment, attention deficit, and childhood learning delays. Number two, air pollution. Researchers from UC Riverside, RIT, and Caltech say these massive facilities depend on diesel backup generators and electricity sources, which when in use, create criteria air pollutants, including fine
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. These small particles penetrate deep into the lungs and additionally can cause lung cancer, stroke, heart attacks, asthma, cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, and premature deaths. A less known psychologically disturbing aspect of data centers can be found in articles by "Fortune," "Deuterium," "Business Insider," and "Ars Technica," where Oracle co-founder
Larry Ellison is on record saying, "Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on." Did you know they are constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on, and that all our personal information is stored in these data centers? This includes every email, Google search, text, phone call, and photograph on your phones. I believe that many people still don't know this or the degree to which their constitutional right of privacy is being
violated. People deserve to know the truth, and we have a right to clean air, water, silence, and privacy. What would the citizens of Westfield want if they knew more of the facts about data centers? May their voices be heard and respected. And now that you know, what do you want? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Please. Ron Rue, 79 Woodsong Road. I'm proud to have collaborated with Councilors Fannian and Matthews-Kane in removing
over 100 bags of garbage from our city streets. Our action improved city health. I'm inspired by the continued gratitude, forethought, and factually sound approaches of our city representatives employed daily. I'm speaking in support of the proposed data center moratorium. In an article from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, published March 23rd, 2026, states, "Noisy jet engine-like diesel generators are increasingly powering data centers, which will drastically increase noise and air pollution." An "Indianapolis Star" May 11, 2026, article
states, "Google's first permit application in 2024 only listed a couple dozen diesel backup generators. Google modified the permit and asked for 140 more generators on the site." This technology is moving too quickly and requires oversight. I support a moratorium on data centers until city officials can get a better idea of the health impacts of data centers. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Good evening, everybody. My name is Mary Ann Hiya, and I'm the president and CEO of Berkshire County Arc.
Based in Pittsfield, but serving all of Western Mass, particularly in the Pioneer Valley. My address is 235 Berkshire School Road in Sheffield, Massachusetts, and maybe I don't have a right to speak because I'm not from the Westfield area. However, I am here tonight just to thank the council for considering the appropriation of the $200,000 for the building of another group home on Cabot Road. Just want to thank you for your consideration, and I was here last
week. I spoke before the finance committee. And this follows through with our mission to be able to provide community living for people who otherwise would have to live the rest of their life in a nursing home or in a rehab facility. AndSo thank you for your consideration. We currently have four beautiful residences in the Westfield area. We also have a brain injury community center right here on Franklin Street. We have over 200 staff who work in the
Pioneer Valley, many of them from the Westfield area. So we feel like we do make a significant contribution to your beautiful community, and we hope to continue to do that to fulfill our mission. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Councillor Feeney. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a letter from a constituent, and I will read it for you. This is from Charlotte Alexack, 136 Cabot Road, and she is in support of the moratorium for the data centers in Westfield. She is concerned about pollution of the air and the water, especially concerned
about the over-industrialization of the north side of the town, which has drastically changed over recent years. It is her opinion that businesses are vital to the success of Westfield, and she would like the city to consider other, more appropriate projects that will not significantly harm the citizens. Thank you. Charlotte Alexack. Thank you. Councillor Ali. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a text here from a Dave and Donna Burgoyne, 7 Atwater Street, and it says, "We are opposed to the construction of a data center due to the environmental health and energy cost concerns." Hi, I'm Jonathan Guido from 17 Chestnut Street to
further appreciate the moratorium of the data center, along with a petition of 26 names that also agree with the moratorium, mostly due to the concerns of the non-reusable-- well, the usage of the water that will not be returned to where it is being taken from. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. You can give that to the city clerk. You can give her the petition. Thank you. It's just students and teachers also. Anyone else? Okay. Hi. Mary Ann Babinski, 114 Rogers Avenue. I, too, am here to support the item 20 on tonight's agenda,
which is the 12-month moratorium on the new data center projects. Whether you know a little, a lot, or nothing at all about data center facilities or more than you ever wanted to know, this moratorium will afford the city decision-makers and residents time to learn about their pros and cons, benefits versus risks, and give ample time to have questions and concerns addressed. In my opinion, having the time is a step in the right direction, a step that will provide
opportunities to make better decisions that will better protect our drinking water, the air that we breathe, and the public's health and safety, among a whole bunch of other things that you will hopefully give yourself time to find out about. Please vote to pass this moratorium. I ask you that wholeheartedly. It's worth it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Jessica Britton, 36 Casimir Street. I am speaking tonight in favor of the moratorium. I think it's important that we pause and really evaluate as
this new technology is evolving. This isn't just a Westfield thing. This isn't just a national thing. This is a global issue. There are many issues with all of this technology, and a lot of people are pushing back. So I would find it very wise to pause and listen to your constituents in the public, and hopefully you'll do that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Grace Taylor, 53 South Maple Street, right here in Westfield. I am also here for a moratorium on the data center.
And I just want to bring to light also that this will end up costing the taxpayers money. Not only am I against the environmental concerns, which are grave and terrible, but these data centers also come with a cost to the taxpayers of Westfield. It will cost us money to use the water. It will eventually cost us money to upgrade our electric and things like that. So please consider this period and maybe even longer periods in the future as well. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
Mike Squindo, Executive Director of the Council on Aging. I live at 12 Pond Road, Wilbraham, Massachusetts. Mr. President, members of the City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight about agenda item number two, a resolution to authorize the mayor to enter into a seven-year lease agreement with PVTA, providing us with a 2025 4350 Cut Van. This vehicle would provide us with an ADA-compliant vehicle to provide transportation to Westfield seniors and individuals living with disabilities. I would like to thank,
briefly, Mayor McCabe for seeing and supporting the vision of this program when I first presented him with the idea of partnering with PVTA about two years ago. I'd also like to thank my staff, the COA board, you as members of the council, for all the support getting to this point. You may recall last fall that you approved a resolution accepting a grant for $60,000. This would bring the vehicle to allow us to now operate that grant.Um, I just want to share a couple of quick points with you that were not in the packet.
Based on the math that I've done in the first 12 months, for every dollar that you invest in this program, you should see a return through either the value of the vehicle, and if we get another vehicle, an additional value of the second vehicle, plus the operating grant, somewhere between $3 and $6 coming back into the community through non-local funds. Finally, I just want to share an example of why I think this service is so necessary for Westfield residents. About a year ago, we had an individual dropped off at the senior center after a hospital discharge. I don't know why she chose to come to the senior center,
but due to there was no transportation available in Westfield for her. She ended up waiting with one of my staff until 7:00 p.m. that night to get a trip from a cab company out of Amherst to come down and bring her home. And I'm pretty sure we all know that that's not a very cost-effective service for anybody, let alone for seniors on fixed income. So, this will allow us to actually begin standing up a very cost-effective and local controlled efficient transportation program. So, I thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Anyone else?
Knee surgeries are no fun, so don't laugh if you don't mean it. Take your time. My name's Sherry Sperry. I'm here with my husband, William Sperry from 6704 Road, and I just simply want to say, I'd appreciate it if you would do the moratorium, and for all the reasons that we don't even know about yet. But we've been researching it as much as we can on YouTube, and the people that have allowed this to come in have found that it has done a lot of damage to their whole area. And, I think--
I forgot what your name is. My name's Jessica. Jessica said pause. It's always better to wait and find out for sure on which way you want to go, but I'm against it myself because I love our resources. I want to have good water, I want to have good air, and I want our children and grandchildren to have that. So, I thank you all, and I just hope that you approve that. Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask one more time, but I don't think there's anybody left. Okay, seeing none, communications from the mayor. Item one, Councilor Knapik. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. A motion requesting immediate consideration
approval of an appropriation of $50,000 from the Department of Public Works, Land and Natural Resources Division, full-time hourly account to the judgment account relative to matters which are the subject of litigation. Second. Motion made and seconded. There is no further discussion on this item. Roll call by Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? No. Oneski? Yes. Adams? No. Ally? Yes. Bean? Abstain. Oh, abstain. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapick? Yes. Thank you. Item two, Counselor Figgy. Thank you, Mr. President. I make a motion requesting immediate consideration and
the approval of a resolution to allow the mayor to enter into a lease agreement with the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority for a 2025 40350 with the Council on Aging Mobility Assistance Program. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Counselor? Thank you. I think Director Squindo was quite elegant in the reasons to support this. I would just like to recap a couple of things. This is a lease. It's for seven years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, therefore necessitating the need for the council's approval of the lease
because it's over three years. There's no cost to this. There's no city match to this. The city is responsible for the routine maintenance and repairs, fuel, insurance, et cetera, that goes along with providing this. The council will provide driver training for anyone who is going to be operating this vehicle. And, it's just the number one request from seniors in Ward 2 was for transportation. Mm-hmm. This remedies that quite nicely. As it was illustrated of the situation of the taxi from
Amherst, that won't be necessary. Currently, there is transportation available through the PVTA. However, it is very difficult to obtain- Mm-hmm ... very difficult to coordinate, and you may get a one-way ride. So, this will alleviate that. So, I encourage all of you to support this. Anything further from the council? Seeing none, roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ally? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapick? Yes. Thank you. Item three, Counselor Knapick. Yes, Mr. President, thank you. A motion, do we have Madam City Clerk read
items three, four, five, and six and refer those to the Finance Committee, please? Second. Motion made and seconded. Madam City Clerk. Three, appropriation of $2,432,242.42 from free cash to the Department of Public Works snow and ice control accounts to cover the fiscal year '26 deficit as follows: $1,857,648.17 to the purchase of service account, $771,722.33 to the supplies account, $111,357.92 to the overtime account, $1,699 to the additional capital equipment
account. Four, appropriation of $28,131.40 from free cash to the fire department purchase of service account for body work repairs on the repair vehicle. Five, appropriation in the amount of $26,568 from free cash to the fire department supplies account to replace six sets of turnout gear that have exceeded their service life. Six, transfer of $124,380 from the police department full-time hourly account to the additional small equipment account for the purchase of 87 body-worn camera units and the associated software and data storage services for all sworn officers of the
Westfield Police Department. Okay. Now sent to Finance. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Councilor. Do we want to read that resolution? For two? For number two. Yes, please. We'll go back to two and read the resolution in. By title only, if you would. Gladly. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Westfield authorizing the mayor to sign a lease for a 4D350 cut van. Thank you, Councilor. Item seven, Councilor Allen. Thank you, Mr. President. Have Madam City Clerk read item number seven and refer to city properties. Second. Motion made and seconded. Madam City Clerk. Seven, submitting an order transferring care, custody, management, and control of a
certain property known as Fort Meadow School on White Street from the school department to the city for the purpose of declaring the property a surplus and disposing it in accordance with MGL Chapter 30B. Thank you. Reports of committees. Question. Does that also require a public hearing on that or not? No. No. Not for that. No? Okay. Thank you. Reports of committees. Finance. Councilor Knapik, I don't know who's got eight and nine. I'll take eight and nine- Okay ... Mr. President. Councilor Knapik. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. On item number eight, appropriation in the amount of $131,400 from the free cash account to the Parks and Recreation Bullens Improvement Account for renovations to the dugouts at Bullens Field.
This will just be an update as it relates to the-- The committee voted three to zero to pull it out of committee, because the answer that we got from the DPW director was that this project, though it was well-intentioned, there's a lot of work that needs to be done at Bullens Field. And the process that we had the meetings about was what was involved with the dugouts and whatnot. Long story short, it was a working group that was commissioned by the Park and Rec Commission, got together, and part of that discussion was a broader approach to the
whole complex. And with that, we asked that some creative efforts be put into looking at a design service, so that we can begin the process of what improvement would look like. And Mr. Brown reported to us that he was able to find money within this year's appropriation to procure a design service to start the process of taking in stakeholder inputs to come up with a strategy to improve Bullens Field, not just the dugout piece, which was complicated in itself. So, we're happy with that. Obviously, it's one of those things where everybody wanted the dugouts to be
new, but after vetting it out a little bit, it was not really a well-conceived plan. So, we're happy. I think the committee is. We heard from Mr. Brown that that's a pretty good approach, and we would like to have that removed from committee. And that was a vote, three to zero. Anything further? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item nine, Councilor Knapik. Thank you, Mr. President. Item nine was discussed a number of times with the Veteran Service director, and there is a overall willingness with the subcommittee to do something about the Hero Act.
We also took in information over the course of the spring related to this, in general, just senior exemptions, asset and income limitations. That's a much larger discussion. This was going to be just on the Hero Act. We will bring up the Hero Act again in subcommittee with our intention before the end of the fiscal year to bring a proposal to the City Council to take a vote on to begin the process of implementing some fashion of the Hero Act, whether it's at 25%, 50%,
75%. We do believe in discussion that 100% all on the city is way beyond our reach right now. But I think it's important to demonstrate that we should begin the process of doing something about it. And we'll explain all that, but it'll be later in the month of June. So, for now, it'll be leaving committee. Yeah. The vote was to leave the committee through June. Just make a note, Madam City Clerk, that Councilor Burns and Councilor Matthews came. And just a point of order. If any of us have to abstain from this, can that be let us know?
Yeah. When it comes time to take a vote, you would, yeah. All right. Or veterans would have to. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Okay. So, this is the leaving committee. Leaving committee for, likely it's going to come out later in June with a recommendation to council. Perfect. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Tell the other councilors that they can come back. How do you record their vote? What? Is it an abstention that would- Yeah. Item 10, Councilor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. 10 is the appropriation of 200,000 community preservation on designated reserve balance account, the CPA Cabot Road group house account, for the construction of a new house
for four adult individuals with brain injury. And when the Finance Committee met, we voted 2-1 for that item. Second. Motion made and seconded. Yes. Councilor Standish. Thank- Thank you, Mr. President. I was advised from the Code of Ethics Commission under advisory 05-02, voting on matters affecting abutting property. So therefore, I need to abstain. Okay. So noted. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Further discussion. Councilor Figgie? I move for the motion. Sure. Well, I think the motion- Councilor Harris ... should go first. Oh. Councilor Harris.
Councilor Harris. Thank you. Some information on this is that Jay Vinsky stated that on April 9th, the Westfield Community Preservation Committee recommended CPA appropriation to develop a single family home for four low-income individuals with brain injuries. Creating community housing is a valid CPA expenditure and has been historically been the least represented category of CPA-funded projectsAt the meeting of the Community Preservation Committee on 2/12/26, of which Counselor Fenian did attend, the Community Preservation
Committee, all members were there, and Tim Gray of Berkshire County Arc recommended the proposal, stating that they had acquired the property at Cabot Road, dealing with people with brain injuries that can benefit from a support system in this community. He noted, although he does not know if the residents will be from Westfield, everyone must meet the income guidelines as set forth in the 50% area income. The project meets the general project evaluation criteria by meeting the goal of CPA by creating community housing. This will consist of four permanent units of affordable housing, four
bedrooms, and fully wheelchair accessible. The project uses multiple sources of funding and leverage from state funding and private financing. A local bank will be providing a first mortgage, and they're hoping to receive the 200,000 from CPC, which recommends it. They've also put out to bid and have a contractor ready to start construction as soon as the funding is locked in. The house will be built and occupied within seven months. One of the members of the Community Preservation is Mr. Kelly, who most of us know, and has been in housing for a long time,
and he said that he's dealt with the Berkshire County organization and has no issues with them. Thank you. Anything further from the council? Yes, Counselor Finch. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I'd like to state that I think that the Arc does a great job with what they're trying to do. However, I'm opposed to the idea of the $200,000 of CPA going to a program that's predominantly funded through the state or federal government. The city of Westfield needs to take care of the city of Westfield. Through their discussions with finance, they never guaranteed anybody from
Westfield would reside in this facility. It was brought up that we have used CPA funds for housing of this sort before. There's a perfect example, the Domus House over on State Street. That was specifically designed and built around three brothers from Westfield. Also, the Domus facility paid taxes until the mortgage was paid off, and then it doesn't. So we somehow get back some of the CPA money through the tax rolls. In this situation, we're looking at a $25,900
a year tax bill that will not be paid by this organization because they're tax-exempt. So if we give them 200,000 from CPA, we have no way of getting any of that back. I really think that the residents of Westfield are who we should be taking care of with our CPA funds. So those are several of the reasons why I will be a no vote on this. Thank you. Counselor B. Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree wholeheartedly from the Ward 2 counselor across the way. My other side of this, and I was the
one no vote on finance when it came out of committee, and the reality is, is that this project is $1.7 million for a house, for four bedrooms. That's my problem. The mission obviously is extremely needed. We understand that it's a great mission. I'm not questioning that. And when we cited this particular facility, it was never discussed that they were coming back to ask for money through CPA or any other means. And I did ask that question of the planner. So for me, it's the cost
of the project, 1.7 million and an additional $200,000. Not additional, but that $200,000 would go to that. So that's my problem. I know we always talk about getting low-income housing, but we are doing our fair share on these facilities across the city, and including low-income housing, but I'm not sure that a four-bedroom unit will even make a dent on what our percentage needs to be when it comes to the state. Thank you. Anyone else? Counselor Matthewski.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to be supporting this. We're supposed to spend a chunk of our CPA funds on housing, and historically we have not really been able to do that. There's not a lot of projects that come in front of us that fit. And this is serving people who are really needy, who need this service through often no fault of their own. I think it's important to support people like that. I'm going to be a yes. Anything further? Counselor Mellon. Thank you, Mr. President. To the counselor across the way's point, I don't know if you've ever been to a facility where they rehab from brain injuries, but I can totally see where the costs would inflate to
that level in order to make sure that it was a safe and accessible place for people to move. I went to Spalding when it first opened up, and I can understand where you would end up with very expensive modifications to make a home accessible, particularly with the equipment that comes when your brain doesn't move your body the way most people do. I understand the frustration about CPA spending, but if we don't go over it with the actual committee and talk about what they approve,
I don't see where we get to quarterback that later atYou can't tell me to trust the experts about all the other things, another thing, but not about the CTC. Right? Either we're going to go over it and talk about what should and shouldn't be funded, or we're going to take their recommendation and do something with it. But I've been in places where brain rehab happens, and I understand the expenditure, and I understand the value, and I'm in support. Thank you. Anything further before we vote? Seeing none, roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matheson. Yes. Mello?
Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Honiske? No. Ally? Yes. Bean? No. Beltrandi? No. Burns? No. Figgy? No. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. What do we got? Six yes, five no. What do we got? Six, five. Six, five. Six, five. Okay. Do you need seven? Seven would be the- Majority Do you need seven? Majority. Seven. Seven? Yeah. Oh, it fails. You need seven. It fails. Six, six. Who's out? Motion to reconsider. He had to- No, they come and go so quickly. Did he have to abstain? Yeah. There's a motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, now under reconsideration. Any discussion, counsel? No. Whoa, I take that. Can we vote on the reconsideration? The reconsideration should be next meeting, I would think.
Right. I think so. It would be next meeting. Yes. Do you want a discussion point? Is there a discussion point available? Yeah, I just thought he just voted. That's why I was- Yeah. He called for a vote already. Yeah. Well, he did. So no discussion? We already voted. Okay. That's fine. We can take it up next meeting. Yeah. Take it up at the next meeting. How did the vote come out, though? This vote failed. It was all in favor unless you want to- No, the reconsideration vote was a voice vote and I didn't hear anybody say no. We weren't asked to say no. Let's do a roll call on the reconsideration. Thank you. I can't hear. What's the roll call, sir? On the reconsideration for the next meeting. Thank you. Matheson? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Honiske? Yes. Adams? Oh, sorry. Ally?
Yes. Bean? No. Beltrandi? No. Burns? Yes. Figgy? No. Harris? No. Kneppek? Yes. Okay, for reconsidering, we still- Yes. Seven, four. Seven, four. Yes, it passes. Okay. It's on for the next meeting. We'll discuss it at the next meeting. Item 11, Counselor Kneppek. Thank you, Mr. President. Forgive me while I check a note here. They can come back, right? Yes. Yeah. Yes, they can come back. Yeah. We have to do it over next week. Yeah. We are on item 11. Item 11. Yes. Mr. President, the Finance Committee has met and recommends on a two in favor and one abstention vote to accept the in lieu of tax
payment contribution in the amount of $552,397 from the Westfield Gas and Electric Light Department for fiscal year Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. A little bit of discussion here. One of the benefits of being around a while, I have a pretty long history with a couple of other counselors here as it relates to this. I think as we get into a very difficult budget season, a couple of things we need to appreciate. The effect of inflation on different aid sources, okay? That's clearly an issue. The state has backed away from its relationship
with cities and towns. That's an issue. And that's frankly why the city's mayor has put forward a proposal last year, and I think it was a six and a half percent levy increase, 4% proposed for this year. And, one of the areas that is of curiosity is the gas and electric, in lieu of tax payment. So interestingly enough, I had the audit department pull a few numbers going back to like 1981 on that. And, in '81, we were paid $158,000 and change. In 1995, $475,000 and change. And then through much of the 1999s and early 2000s, it was in at about
$250,000 and change. And years ago, in my first time on the council, we had numbers going all the way back to the 1940s and in through the '60s, and there was some years a half a million dollars that was appropriated. It is important to point this out. It is the sole domain of the Municipal Light Board members, who are elected by the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the city of Westfield, the voters, to represent the interests of the Westfield Gas and Electric and the ratepayers. That is without question. The issue in front of us today is a certain amount of fairness and equity that goes associated with being a municipal light plant in a
territory where its ratepayers have no ability to buy utility costs, gas, and electric on the open market. We are a captured market. A lot of people would like solar in Westfield. There's a way to do it, but it's really not that cost-effective. All these other things are great reasons why we have a gas and electric department. But here's the real issue at hand. In the early 2000s, we had a situation, and Counselor Adams was here then, and Counselor Bean was here, where the gas and electric, the board was brought into discussions with the council, and there was a movement, potentially,
to value the municipal light plant to the city of Westfield and potentially sell it. The problem back then was an enormous cost to natural gas prices, and the gas and electric had not had a hedge fund set up yet, where they got pretty much caught, where we were getting hammered on gas prices, and they didn't have a backup supply that was in reserve, if you will. And there was a lot of different reasons on our gas supply that are different today that today we wouldn't have that situation. That all being saidPart of that working group between the mayor, the council at the time, and the light board,
was to take the politics out of the in lieu of tax payment and try to put it to a formula-based strategy. And that's the way it would be done if this was an investor-owned utility territory. So every light pole, gas line, building, asset, physical plant asset that the gas and electric has, if this was Eversource or National Grid territory, there would be a fair taxation value associated with that, declared by the Department of Public Utilities, and it would be taxation at the commercial industrial tax rate paid to the city of Westfield. Okay? What that number would be, I think it's north of $3 million if we were an investor-owned utility.
Now, believe me when I tell you, I'm happy that we're not. However, that all being said, at that time, this working group agreed that, and this is from recollection, because I haven't been able to dig up the actual document at the time, but I know the G&E has it. We would agree that we would use the annual Department of Public Utility plant value assessment and tax that by 70%. And that would be the in lieu of tax payment, minus deductions that they would make associated with maintenance of the traffic lights and certain other things that they would do periodically in kind to the city.
It appears that somewhere in the mid-2010s, a vote took place, and they capped the plant valuation. Because if you remember, every time we do road construction, and we put new gas lines in the ground, and we do all these other infrastructure improvements, the value of the plant goes up, and we did a lot of construction through the 2000s. The plant value that I come up with from the DPU site doesn't add up to the math that we're getting sent over here, even if you do a 70%. Okay? So I think it's time, and we don't even index it to inflation, because if you go back
to the last X number of years, it comes in at around $550,000 over the last, I don't know, 10 years, something like that. That because of all these other factors, all things being equal, there's great value for the G&E to be a municipal light plant because they have no competition. Apparently, they get paid very well over there, and I'm not begrudging the pay. I think it's fair to say that a 5% discount when you pay early, geez, I'm thinking by what I'm looking at on their ledger sheet, we could probably do a little bit more, like 25%, potentially. Or with city fiber, that's wonderful. That's the next topic. Million dollars for field, that's great.
But maybe there's so much cash over there, they could do a little bit more there. I think it's time to bring a little bit of light to these negotiations, work with the mayor's office, this body, the Municipal Light Board, and go back to the table and say, all things being equal, it's of great benefit to the citizens of Westfield and the ratepayers of the Municipal Light Plant that we exist together. But that number needs to be adjusted because it's tremendously dated. And it's not about a money grab to the city. I think it's very well chronicled, and I put some information in the
share drive about the erosion of state aid. As of, for instance, in the early 2000s, unrestricted local aid was $2 billion plus. Today, it's $1.3 billion across the state in real numbers. We are literally hemorrhaging money, and we're pushing the burden onto the residential taxpayer in the worst possible way because our partners in state government have forgotten about us, and there's something more, I believe, out of fairness that the G&E could do for the city, not because we're looking for more money, but because we got to be mindful of delivering city
services within the 2.5% tax levy. So the group took a vote, two zero to one, to accept it, because that's what we do. But I think we should use the next upcoming year to put all these numbers back on the table and reissue, and revisit the formula. Thank you. Anything from anybody else? I don't think there's anything left to say. I'm pretty passionate about this. Nicely done. Because we're left with the budget problem that we got to get to in the next few weeks, and everybody's looking to tug a little bit here, and I think there's more could be done on that other side. That's all. Councilor Matthews-Kane? I just want to say I'm grateful for the councilor on my left's leadership on this
issue. Thank you. You're welcome. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ally? Yes. Bean? Abstain. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppik? Yes. Thank you. Item 12, Councilor Kneppik. Thank you. Item 12, Mr. President, the L-- or the L&O. Geez, that's an old one, huh? The Finance Committee has met- I think you're not- ... and has voted, I believe it's going to be two, zero and one again, to recommend to the council that we accept the in lieu of tax contribution in the amount of $1 million to the Westfield Gas and Electric Light Department for FY27.
And remember, this money goes to pay the fiber fields. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, council? I think I've said enough tonight on that topic. I agree. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ally? Yes. Bean? Abstention, please. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppik? Yes. Thank you. Item 13, Council Bean. Thank you, Mr. President. Give me one second here. Just having a little problem here with my computer. Yes. Okay. Finance Committee has met with a three-zero vote for the appropriation in the amount of $40,000 from the
ambulance undesignated fund account to the fire department overtime account to cover overtime wages for the remainder of FY26. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Counsel? Yeah. We had a pretty lengthy discussion in finance on the matter, and I know we're all fairly sensitive when it comes to overtime within departments. In this particular case, the new chief, who's been there for three months, is starting to get his arms around it, and that they are at this given moment, if this doesn't get approved, they will run out of overtime as of June 1.
So, this particular appropriation will cover them till the end of the year. At this given time, they have eight members out, and then they have two unfunded positions. So, that's the major cause of the overtime. We talked about all the things we normally talk about, including the minimum manning issue, and the chief of fire said that if you give him a little time, he'll get his arms around it. I believe they were budgeted for 375,000, and with the additional 40, that'll put them upwards over $400,000. So,
I believe last year, we kept them right around the $300,000 mark, if I'm not mistaken. So, he knows the importance of it. We did approve it in hopes that they'll manage it a little bit better. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ally? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. Thank you. Item 14, Counselor Bean. Thank you, Mr. President. Finance Committee has met with a three-zero
approval for the appropriation in the amount of $40,000 from free cash to the engineering purchase and service account for repairs of control system improvements to the water fountain at Half Mile Falls Park. So moved. Second. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Counselor? Yeah. This is one of three projects that'll be coming in front of us once they figure out the other two when it comes to the fountains. We all know where Half Mile Falls Park is. The majority of this, and the $40,000 does also account for a $2,000 contingency beyond the bid. And at this given moment, we have a vault that has
the pumps and the controls at a lower level near the river, and that's causing all the problems. It's flooding within that vault. Don't ask me why. It's been there for quite some time now, although we think the two green bridges are brand new, but they're not. So what this work will do, it'll move the vault up at a higher level. It'll replace the controls as well as the pumps to keep the water out of that. Right now, it's not keeping up with the water going into the vaults, and it's causing all sorts of havoc. Thank you. Anything further? Counselor Harris.
Thank you. Actually, at that meeting, I agreed totally with the design and everything that Randy had done. It was excellent. But I disagreed with the 40,000, and I thought it should be put into the engineering budget for next year. It's not an emergency. It's been like this for years. No one goes there, and I just think that the most appropriate spot is in their budget. So, it's not that I disagree with the design or anything, because Counselor Bean is absolutely right. It was a great design. Anything further? Yeah. Counselor Morganelli. Thank you, Mr. President. I concur with Counselor Harris on that.
I just think we don't need to spend that money right now on that. Yes, it's been in disrepair for a while. It probably should've been given maybe a facelift with some plantings inside the fountain until they have the money in the budget to fix it and make it a fountain again. I'm sure the vocational school with the horticulture program could have done something very creative with that. I'm going to be a no vote on 40,000. Whether it's 5,000 or 400,000, I'm still a no on it. Counselor Fannion. Thank you, Mr. President. I also agree with the two previous counselors on the
reasons not to approve this. What was the vote coming out of committee? Three-zero. No. Two-zero. Oh, sorry. Two to one. Two to one. Yeah. My apologies, Counselor Harris. That's all right. Counselor, you do a great job. Counselor Morganelli. And one further thing. This is coming out of free cash, which is the reason I'm voting no. Anything further? Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? No. Morganelli? No. Oneski? Yes. Adams? No. Ally? No. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? No. Fannion? No. Figgy? No. Harris? No. Kneppek? Yes. Five yes, eight no. Motion fails. Item 15, Counselor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President.
This item is the appropriation in the amount of 187,000 from free cash to the engineering purchase of services account for the redevelopment of the Angie Holmes property at Westfield Middle School, and we voted 3-0 to recommend that item. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, councilor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This information is from City Planner Jay Vinski. The request for additional funding to include the former Angie Holmes property is intended to support the full redevelopment of the Westfield Middle School parking lot project. The project proposes the redevelopment of both the main and rear parking lots at Westfield Middle School through the
incorporation of safe routes to school recommendations and stormwater best management practices. Planned improvements include demolition of the existing parking areas and removal of two trees, construction of new parking facilities with one-way circulation to improve safety and efficiency of student drop-off and pick-up operations, installation of eight new trees and nature-based BMPs such as tree trenches and bioretention basins, and a reduction in overall impervious surface area. This project is intended to improve traffic safety
conditions, particularly during peak school hours, while also reducing localized and regional flooding impacts and mitigating heat stress. In addition, the project will serve as a real-world resiliency demonstration for students by incorporating sustainable infrastructure elements that can be used as educational tools both during and after construction. The need for additional funding is the result of timing associated with the original grant application. The grant application was submitted well before discussions regarding the demolition of the Angie Holmes property occurred. As a result, the original project design and
grant award only contemplated improvements in the existing school parking lots and did not include redevelopment of the former Angie Holmes site. The prior funding request associated with the Angie Holmes property was strictly limited to demolition costs only and did not include any site redevelopment or parking lot improvements. At the time, the request was solely intended to address demolition of the structure itself. The engineering department is seeking the opportunity to incorporate the newly cleared parcel into the larger parking lot redevelopment project in order to create a more cohesive and functional final design, and I
went by that and the house is down. Yep. Today. Yep. Councilor Adams. I'm going to be a no vote. Number one, I drive by it every day. There's 20 to 30 parking spots that aren't even used. There's no reason when we're in the deficit that we're going to be, to spend 187,000 on making a parking lot bigger. My understanding, if they have the grant for the rest of the parking lot, do it. But for now, I'd put green grass there until we can come up with some more money that we don't have right now. And if, like you said, Councilor, if they had the money to do everything except for that little piece,
keep it grass for now. Let it settle, and if they really need it, which they don't, because I drive by it every day, why make more parking lot if they don't need it? So I'm a no. Councilor Figgie. Thank you, Mr. President. I worked with our former city engineer, Allison McMorrie, on the original grant to redesign and redo the existing parking lot. If you'll recall, I was the one that was trying to sell the Angie Holmes house. Mm-hmm. But we weren't allowed to because of the eminent domain issues. I think at this point, I agree with the previous councilor that this is not a time to spend
$187,000 more to create a parking lot. If you look at how it's broken down as the estimate, it's just a lot of money, and I don't think it's the time to do it. Besides, I'm not a building expert, but I know that if you take a house down, you fill in the cellar hole, it tends to settle. So if this, we pave over it and it settles, what's it going to do? We're going to have to do it a second time. Mm-hmm. So I think it's prudent to give it some time to settle and to see if we actually really need it or not.
Green grass isn't a bad thing. Yeah. Anyone else? Councilor Alli. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I have an issue with the money, but it's also, putting in a parking lot is not that complicated. I think the city could even do it or there might be another option that doesn't cost 187,000. Councilor Matthews-Kane. Through the chair, may I ask a question? Please. So the other changes to the parking lot are still going to go through, even with a no vote? Mm-hmm. Yes. Okay. If I may. Councilor Figgie. Thank you. I spoke with Director Brown today about this. It is out for bid at this point. If the motion fails, they'll just withdraw the bid.
Right. But the original grant will be spent on the parking lot in South Middle to make the improvements that they want to make. Right. So this 187,000 is just to add that piece where Angie Holmes's house was. Right. Mm-hmm. Anything further? Seeing none. Roll call, Madam Speaker. Matthews-Kane. No. Mello. No. Morganelli. No. Oneski. No. Adams. No. Alli. No. Bean. Yes. Beltrandi. No. Burns. No. Fannian. No. Figgie. No. Harris. No. Kneppek. Yes. Two yes, 11 no. Motion fails. Legislative and Ordinance Committee, item 16. Councilor Oneski. Thank you, Mr. President. L&O met on May 19th and upon a
3-0 vote, voted to recommend an ordinance to meet today's traffic concerns on our city streets involving electric motorized bikes, electric motorized scooters, and electric motorized skateboards. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, councilor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This was an ordinance that was worked on with actually two versions of L&O. And Lieutenant Parrish from the Traffic Commission, traffic officer also in Westfield, and Shanna Reed.
The need for this, I think we could all understand. Whenever I mention that I'm working on an ordinance of this nature to people, they say, "Oh, yeah. Somebody just came out of the Burger King on this motorized bike. They cut across the street. They jumped on the sidewalk, almost hit people." The bike path is having some issues as well because any of these bikes can go on them. Really, in my mind, the only difference between a mini bike and what's now classified as an e-bike is a combustion motor versus an electric motor.
So, I think we've all had close calls with a lot of these bikes, also the scooters and motorized skateboards that you're seeing all over the place. So, let's see. Obviously, the pedestrian and automobile safety was high on the list. There's a lot of other towns adopting their own ordinances, and the state is also looking at an ordinance for this. So, in a nutshell, well, it's not going to be a nutshell. It might be a while, but- ... because it took quite a few meetings to get this taken care of.
We're looking at a pedal bike, which is what most of us probably grew up pedaling, a Class 1 bike, which is an electric bike that only goes up to, I think, 19 miles an hour, but you need to pedal it to use the electric assist. A Class 2 bike is a bike where you don't need to pedal to use the electric assist, so you could just jump on it, hit a throttle, and go with a Class 2 bike. A Class 3 bike, also known as a moped, that goes even faster than the Class 2 bike.
You may have pedals on it; you may not have pedals on it. Of course, a human scooter is driven by a kid or a human. They also have electric and motorized scooters, and a skateboard as we know it. You run your other foot on the ground, but now there's electric skateboards, which you see all over town. So, what's being proposed is a regular pedal bike can be on streets, it can be on sidewalks, but it can't be on sidewalks in business districts, which are the
core district, Broad Street, mixed residence, business district, or commercial office enterprise district. So, that's this area around here, generally. Going down Court Street, going down Broad Street, and in the core district. And the reason for no bikes there is because there's businesses, doors are opening, and people could speed by on bikes, and it causes a danger where we have a lot of pedestrian traffic. A Class 1 bike, which is the pedal assist, would be allowed on streets, not on any sidewalks,
again, not in business either, and it can be used on the bike path or rail trails or multi-use trails. You just can't use the throttle to do it. Actually, there is no non-throttle. I'll correct that. So, it can be on all of those locations. Class 2 bike, this is one, again, that you can pedal, or you can just hit the throttle and go. That can be used on streets, no sidewalks, no business sidewalks. It could be used on the bike trail, but you have to be pedaling. You can't use just the throttle alone, like you would a mini bike.
A moped can be used in the streets if it's got a compliance decal from the state. Can't be used on sidewalks, no business sidewalks, not on the rail trail. A regular human-powered scooter can't be used on streets, could be used on sidewalks, no on business sidewalks, and it can be used on the rail trail. An electric scooter or motorized scooter can be used on streets if it's got a compliance sticker. Can't be used on sidewalks, can't be used on business sidewalks, and not on the rail trail. Human skateboards can't be used on streets,
can be used on sidewalks, can't be used on business sidewalks, and can be used on the rail trail. Electric skateboards can't be used on streets, can't be used on sidewalks, can't be used on business sidewalks, and can't be used on the rail trail. Now, on the rail trail, there's going to be a 15 mile an hour speed limit for any bike, motorized, non-motorized. It wasn't meant for a racetrack. It's meant for people to recreate, walk. It's a recreational path. It's not a racetrack. So, a 15 mile an hour speed limit
will be set on there, except for city vehicles being exempt. There is one error that I noticed on the actual written document, which does not exclude the pedal bikes on the business sidewalks. They should be excluded on the business sidewalks.So, that is it in a nutshell. Questions? Councilor Adams. Yeah, I just want to thank Councilor across the way because you need a law degree to figure this out. This is a nightmare, not only for the citizens, it's a nightmare for the police department. I was on LNO when we first started this, so
I think a lot of the issues we're having in town, it's with children and the parents buying these vehicles for their children that don't realize what they're doing with them. I've seen several accidents already with these things, and I think the most important thing, everybody had the issue with the rail trail. The only way to do it is the way they actually did it, because it's 15, but it's also no throttle. So, no matter what bike you have, you can't use the throttle, because you have to pedal it, and it has to be 15 miles an hour. So,
there is no other way to do it that the police can actually regulate it, except for the way that Lieutenant Parrish and the LNO did it. And as far as everything else goes, I don't know how a regular police officer's going to figure this out. But we're going to do the best we can do because people are getting hurt. Every day, there are people getting hurt. So, LNO's done a great job, and I think the police have done as good a job as they can. We may have to tweak some of these, but we had to start somewhere. So, kudos to the LNO and the police department for at least coming up with a base that we can start with. Councilor Matthews-Kane, then Mello, then Figgie.
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to also thank the councilor across the way and all of LNO. I know this is a big problem. It's taken a long time to address it because it's so complicated. I do have a question through the chair. I wish I'd asked it earlier. It just occurred to me. So, in the Court Street District, you cannot use the sidewalks. But one side of Court Street is a sidewalk, and the other side is a multi-use path, meaning it's one of those wider sidewalks. So, I think it's legally unclear, at least, what you can do on the other side.
If I may. Please. Yeah. That's a great point, Councilor. Our intent is to allow it on the multi-use path on the other side of the street. Okay. Although, you're right, the Court Street District, it sort of says one thing and the opposite, depending on how you look at it. We could straighten that out on the second reading. Okay. Councilor Mello. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank you guys for the work that you've put into this. It means a lot to me. But I also have a question. On the street I grew up on and the street I live now, there
are no sidewalks, and as written, it looks like walking to the corner store with a kid on a scooter is going to be illegal. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Really? Can we fix that, too, in second reading? Your concern is having a scooter, a human-powered scooter- The human-powered scooter and skateboard. There are some streets without sidewalks, and when you and the kids walk down to the corner store, you're going to go get an ice cream, you're going to break the law if you let them ride their scooter? When you're on a street that's so busy there's no sidewalks? That seems stupid.
We're going to put Terence like... Can we fix that? Can we write underneath, "If no sidewalk is available?" Well, I think it's dangerous having someone riding a scooter or a skateboard on the side of the street. Yeah, but- Not a regular sidewalk ... we don't have sidewalks everywhere. Like, really? In front of your house, and there's a cul-de-sac, and the little kid can't... Really? Hang on. I'm sorry. Councilor Figgie. Oh, go ahead. And then Councilor Harris. I'll yield to Councilor Harris. Sorry. I think what Councilor Mello is saying, what you picture, and I see this downtown all the
time because I live in that area, but a young mother with her two little kids, and this little kid is five years old, and he's pedaling on his little scooter like this, and what you're saying is that they can't do that, and that's totally unreasonable. But what you're thinking about is the older kids who are out of control. So, I don't think any police person's going to come and arrest this little tiny four-year-old. A carton. It's like- A carton ... Abner Gibbs, when they used to pick their kids up. All those little kids had little teeny scooters, and that's
what they have all over the sidewalks. That's what they did. And that's what she's confused- That's what I'm confused about, yeah ... she's concerned about that. Well, especially if someone got hit, and then they'd be like, "Oh, well, you're at fault because that's illegal." That's more what I'm... If I may, Mr. President. We could certainly consider. I understand your point completely, and we really didn't. I won't say we didn't think of it, but this is what we came up with. Yeah. I think if we had something without a parent, that you can't do it without a parent,
that might be- Yeah ... more suitable ... or if it has no sidewalks, right? And there's a lot of streets that have no sidewalks. Yeah. Let's go without a parent. That would be okay. Councilor Burns. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I'd like to thank Councilor Niski and Councilor Finn and Councilor Allie. Myself, I was also involved with this quite a bit and sat through a lot of meetings. I do have a problem with itNot the wordings in general, but specifically on the bike trail. Class two bike, you can just take your phone, you can just go into an app, and you can make it
a moped. And no matter how much... I wish Captain Dickinson was here tonight. Maybe he could explain it more, but they're just not going to be able to patrol that bike path. And I've been up there many times. It's widely used, and those things just fly around. Personally, I don't know why anybody would be on a bike path on an electric bike going up and down the bike path. What fun is that? That's just me. But I would like to vote for this, but if that's in there, I cannot vote for this. So I guess I would like to make an amendment to not
allow class two bikes on there also. Second. Motion made and seconded on the amendment. Any discussion besides? If I can. Yes, Counselor Howell. Thank you, Mr. President. So the real intent was to deal with the nuisance and the safety, and then allowing the police to be able to see something, because they can tell whether or not you're pedaling. So it wasn't really to go after the four-year-olds, however they were moving. It's just you've got all this craziness that's in the street and everywhere else, and it's like this allows them to be very clear. You're not supposed to be on the sidewalk because of the danger, or
you're pedaling or not pedaling, and they could easily identify that. So it was really the nuisance and the safety aspect of it rather than the spirit of the law. Anyways. Counselor Adams. Yeah, just to follow. So, and Counselor, I know what you're saying. However, by eliminating the throttle, it takes away the class two bike. I have every one of the bikes. I own them all. It ain't the bike, it's the person riding it. I could go out and buy a Corvette that goes 150 miles an hour, but I can't drive that down the street at 150. It's the kids, it
isn't the bike. So like I say, there's purposes for every single bike, but if I can't use my throttle, I have to pedal it. So that's the only way that they really can come up with how to govern the bike trail. There's no other way to do it. You never pedal. I'm not on the bike trail. He's got a Corvette that has training wheels. But that's the only way that they can govern this. We went back and forth a million times. He has a Corvette that has training wheels. The only way to do it is to do it the way they're doing it. You just can't take a chance on this. The bike trail, it was federal, state, and local money. That was for bikes.
It was for pedestrians. I just saw something recently. I read it. I forget where it was, but I'm seeing a moment. But I just read it where the state's coming with mandates on it to register these vehicles to... I know we have to have something, but why have something when we can't have everything? They shouldn't be up there, period. Like I said, my friend and colleague over here, I would love to vote for this, but I cannot vote for this if those class two bikes are allowed on that bike path. Counselor Figgie, then Counselor Feeney.
I would just like to remind all, first of all, you guys did a phenomenal job. Mm-hmm. As I read through this, it checks all the boxes that I am, except for one. A year or two back, we passed an ordinance that allowed bicycles on sidewalks- Mm-hmm ... unless posted. Mm-hmm. So does that ordinance interfere with this? Do the two ordinances conjoin, or are they conflicting? Conflicting, yeah. If I may, Mr. President? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Once this passes, we're going to go through all of the other ordinances. I've got a handful, I don't have them with me, that contradict
some of this, but we wanted to get through this particular ordinance, and then we'll go back through and take care of the rest of those, amending them. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. And a job well done. Counselor Feeney. Thank you, Mr. President. To Counselor Burns' point, on Section 17-414, letter C, all users required to obey the 15 mile an hour speed limit on the bike trail. Does that help you understand that it doesn't really matter what kind of vehicle it is or what class it is, they can only go 15 miles per
hour, or else they would be in violation? But who's going to- Who's going to enforce that? Who's going to enforce that? Lieutenant Parrish was there, and he is in favor of how this was written. So however they're choosing to enforce it, that is up to the police department. But going over 15 miles per hour would be a violation, no matter what kind of vehicle. Even a pedal vehicle, he said. At the very least, can we hear from Captain Dickinson next meeting and put this maybe- Well, it was Lieutenant Parrish that was- No. Well, he was going to speak about the bike trail.
I see in the minutes here. If I may, Mr. President? Yes. We had the Traffic Commissioner there, Lieutenant Parrish. He's also in charge of traffic with the City of Westfield. He was charged with- I realize that ... coming up with all of this. So to ask his superior to come here and talk about it, I don't see a need for that. So there's amendment with a second. Counselor Matthews-King. Thank you, Mr. President. This is really challenging. We've all brought up important points to think about. One point that I want to raise is one thing that I see, over the past decade in my neighborhood, I see kids
doing unwise things on the bikes. I also see a lot of adults commuting on their bikes in a way I never saw in the past. They clearly look like they're going to their job, and I sometimes see that on the bike trail as well. So I want to- Want to make sure that we keep these kids safe, but I also want to try and find a way that adults who are commuting on these bikes can use them in as many places as possible. Councilor Morganelli, I'm going to move this question. Thank you, Mr. President. No, I just want to say I do concur with Councilor Adams on some stuff, and some other things that were said. The sidewalk
right out here going up to Westfield State University, you see the way this is written, so college students that have a motorized skateboard couldn't come downtown with the motorized skateboard. And I just think that's a detriment. For me, it's more about speed. And the 15 mile per hour, maybe even should be 10 on a sidewalk, on a motorized skateboard. I don't see how the speed isn't more important than the actual mode of transportation. Some people can get on a pedal bicycle and ride pretty darn fast
and out-speed a motorized scooter. So it's all about responsibility, it's all about speed, and it's all about having respect for the sidewalk, and the other people that are on the sidewalk, or the rail trail. I think barring motorized scooters on a rail trail is inappropriate, too. If somebody wants to ride from here down to the Connecticut coast on our rail trail, you can do that. It goes all the way down. So. All right. So we'll move the question. Councilor? Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. To go back to Councilor Matthews-Kane, your concern with people perhaps using their bikes to get to work,
the class ones, twos, and the mopeds are all allowed on the street. So if they truly were using this for work purposes, they still would be able to do that. All right. This ordinance needs to- Well, we've got an amendment. We've got to do the amendment first, then the- What was your amendment, Councilor? To, what were we? Eliminate the class twos. Class twos. On? On the bike trail. Bike trail. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Opposed. Ooh, that didn't sound good. That didn't go well. I guess I'm a no. All right. So- Sorry. So, if I may. Yes. What I'd like to do, bikes are out
now, they're causing problems. What I'd like to do with the councilors who had suggestions of the scooters and the skateboards with parents on the street, and cleaning up this ordinance with the multi-path trail being in the Court Street district, which is a conflict, I'd like to have first reading on this, correct these minor changes, and then go for second reading and final passage at our next meeting. All right. So would you please read it by title only? Yes. If I may,
an ordinance amending code of ordinances in Westfield that Chapter 17, Traffic and Motor Vehicles of the Code of Ordinances be amended- Thank you ... by adding electric bicycles, scooters, mopeds, and skateboards. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Opposed. Motion for second reading and final passage at our next meeting. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Yeah. Two opposed. Now on for second reading. Item 17, Councilor Alli. One second. Sorry about that. Where are we? 17. LNO has met and voted to keep item 17 in committee.
Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on that, sir? No. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Still in committee. Natural Resources, item 18, Councilor Melo. Thank you, Mr. President. Natural Resources has met, and on a three to zero vote, we decided to remove item 18 from committee with no further action. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Councilor? Sure. Just a bit. This was a report that came in from a local nonprofit regarding some resident complaints about high water bills. They looked into it and found out it was about pressure.
The residents added regulators, and everything turned out fine. We kept it in committee to make sure that everything stayed fine. It did, so now we don't need it anymore. Thank you. Any further discussion on removing from committee? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 19, Councilor Melo. Thank you, Mr. President. Natural Resources met, and on a three to zero vote, decided to remove item 19 from committee with no further action. So, it's just- Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Councilor? Sure. This was a violation from MDAR.
There was a restriction, an agricultural restriction. A barn got built. The barn wasn't allowed. They sent a letter. The barn got taken down. Everything's fine. We don't need it in committee anymore. All right. Any further discussion? No. Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 20, Councilor Melo. Thank you, Mr. President. Natural Resources met yesterday, and on a two to zero vote, recommend taking item 20, scheduling a public hearing, and sharing with planning board. So moved. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Councilor? Yes, please, and thank you. On the council share is a draft of
what a moratorium would look like from us. The definition for data center is the same as the one used at the state. A moratorium requiresThat we give it a specific time, that we say exactly what we need that time for, and then we have to do what we say we're going to do in that time. So, what it asks for is a year, extendable only if public health is in danger. And it allows us to take a look at what the environmental and public health consequences of these installations
are, and allows us to get expert information on where in the city they can go without causing danger. We decided that since we have to have some kind of permanent zoning ordinance about it, the permanent zoning ordinance is not allowed to make it so that they're not allowed anywhere. Right. And if we're going to pick somewhere, we need to have the scientific basis to do that. And if it turns out that the scientific information says that there is no safe place to put these in the city of Westfield, then that information needs to move on to the Board of Health, because we're not allowed to regulate that things
don't happen here, only they are. So, our idea is to take this moratorium and let it go to public hearing so that we can hear what the voters think about this, and people can speak to planning about this. Planning can share with us what they think, and then we can put it all together. So just clarify what you're doing with this, please. We would like to schedule a public hearing for City Council and send to planning so that they may do the same. Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now off to planning board and plus public hearing, Kate? Yep. At the next... Second meeting in June. Okay. June 18th.
Perfect. Unfinished business. Item 21, Councilor Ownesky. Thank you, Mr. President. Make motion for second and final reading of an order of taking for Cardinal Lane by right of eminent domain. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion, sir? No, just a continuation of making these streets public ways. Perfect. Roll call please, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Ownesky? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ali? Yes. Speen? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yeah. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. Thank you. Item 22, Councilor Ownesky.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, could I read order of taking by public way for, title only? Yep. For the first one. Our next item is second and final reading of the layout order for Cardinal Lane. Second. Motion made and seconded. Do you want to read it? Yes. If I may, an order laying out Cardinal Lane, so-called as a city way. Thank you. Roll call, Madam City Clerk Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Ownesky? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ali? Yes. Speen? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. Thank you. Item 23, Councilor Ownesky. Thank you, Mr. President. Make a motion for second and final reading of an
order of taking for Big Wood Drive by right of eminent domain. Second. Motion made and seconded. Would you like to read it, sir? Yes, an order of taking of real estate for a public way. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Ownesky? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ali? Yes. Speen? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. Thank you. Item 24, Councilor Ownesky. Thank you, Mr. President. Make a motion for second and final reading of a layout order for Big Wood Drive. Second. Motion made and seconded. Would you read it, sir? Yes, an order laying out Big Wood Drive, so-called as a
city way. Thank you. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Ownesky? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ali? Yes. Speen? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. Thank you. Motions, orders, or resolutions item 25, Councilor Figgy. Thank you, Mr. President. Motion by Councilors Figgy and Matthews-Kane for a resolution for the City of Westfield to adopt the provisions of Chapter 399 of the Acts of 2024, and specifically, Chapter 40, Section 71, of the general laws to install and operate a school bus
detection monitoring system on school buses to enforce violations pursuant to MGL Chapter 90, Section 14 and 14C, refer to LNO and Law. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Councilor? Yeah. This is a new way of enforcement of people who go by buses with their red lights on. There are several companies out there that will install the cameras and do the monitoring and issue the citations. Currently it's a $250 fine for passing a bus with its lights on.
Unfortunately, the city only gets half of that. The commonwealth gets the other half of that. Under this law, if we accept it, we get the whole $250. We did have a representative of one of the firms present details of this, and that's where we're at. First step is to accept this resolution. I have been in contact with the legal department, and we will have a resolution when it gets into LNO. So we're all set to rock there.
Perfect. Mr. President? Yes. If I may, through the chair. Councilor, the school department transportation, did you talk to them as well about this? This was a meeting that was with the traffic Lieutenant Parrish. Yeah. Along with the school department transportation, as well as the city councilors. The whole thing started with the transportation director for the schools. Okay. And Lakrensky was there? Yes. All right. So would this be part of a bid package associated with the next school bus contract? I don't think it will be, because there will be a contract between the city and the agency that will install, maintain, and
monitor the cameras. And Lakrensky's okay with that? Yes. Okay. Anything further? I'll go into LNO and Law. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Any announcements? Everybody's all announced out. Thank you everyone for coming tonight. Councilor Harris? Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Good night, everybody.