... like this, it's gonna be a lot. Yeah, we'll be talking first. (gavel bangs) I'd like to call the Special City Council Meeting of December 9th, 2025 to order. Roll call please, Madam City Clerk. Burns. Here. Fanon. Here. Figgy. Here. Harris. Here. Matthew Skeins. Here. Mello. She will not be with us. Morganelli. Here. Oniski. Here. Sullivan. Here. Adams. Here. Ally. Uh, he will not be with us. Bean. Here. Beltrandy. Here. Unfinished business. First item and only item, vote on fiscal year 2026 tax rate.
Okay. Councilor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. Last year, I made a motion of 1.65 and that was because things worked out. The Mayor had given us some extra money and it was beneficial to both commercial and residential, um, to have that factor. However, this year is far different. We received no money. Um, the residents were taxed with waste management extraordinarily high. The fee for sewer went up and the fee for water went up in the last five months.
So we have a few different circumstances. If you look at 1.75, which I know some of you are totally against it, but if you do look at 1.75 this year, the residents would pay $22 extra a month and business would pay $115 a month. In front of you, you have the 10 highest assessed value companies from $37 million down to $10 million. Granted, there are a lot of small businesses, but both big and
small can write off many things on their taxes that residents cannot. Including their trash pickup, their water, their sewer, the parking, the air equipment, uh, on a sliding scale, their heating, their air conditioning, their donorship. So they have a, an advantage over the residents as far as being able to mitigate the increases that would come to them. This is not residence versus commercial. This is not commercial
is, should be punished. I'm trying to do what is fair to the citizens because of the extraordinary circumstances. So that would be my suggestion at this point. I'll make a motion for 1.75 and I know there'll be d- lots of discussion and I have month by month the increases that we could have and that commercial would have. And I'll make a motion for 1.75, giving commercial $115 increase a month and residents $22 a month. Second. Motion made and second. Any other? Councilor Sullivan.
No, I know we got a letter from the Mayor, and, um, I would just like it... I don't need it read in full, but just for the public that's listening, the, the letter, the bottom line is that the Mayor has, um, decided to not use any free cash to try to- Yes. ... mitigate any increase here. So I just want it incorporated in... I don't need it read into the record, but I'd like the letter to be incorporated- He- ... into the minutes of the meeting. He actually asked us to read it into the record, but I don't have it. I have, I have it. (clears throat) Either way. Want me to read it? Sure. "Greeting councilors, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your request for
an addition- ... to add another one million of free cash to the budget. It's my understanding this special public meeting held on 12/4/'25, was to address a tax levy shift, not the budget that was passed by the same body in June. Since my office did not receive an invitation to speak, I know it's a legislative matter, not an executive matter, I did not know my input was sought. Had I been asked to attend, I would have arranged to do so. During the original budget process in spring of 2025, we had many discussions about why adding free cash in the FY '26 budget was not a good
idea. Using free cash is not a best practice as articulated by the city treasurer, the chief assessor, and the city auditor. They are the full-time employees paid the experts in budgetary issues. They take their work seriously and put a great amount of effort to protect both the city and the taxpayer. Their position and mine are ******** by Sean Cronin, the Commonwealth of Mass Division of Labor ser- local services. Against that backdrop, I still included two million of free cash into the FY '26 budget, thereby reducing the taxpayer burden by $128 annually according to Councilor
Figgy's math. That means the reduction to the taxpayers was addressed by my office and approved by the City Council when the budget was deliberated during the appropriate timeframe and passed in June 2-, 2025. Any discussion about the use of free cash only appropriate during the budget process. To do so now is untimely. According to the DLS, free cash should be used to, one, assist with capital improvements. Two, one-time expenditures. Three, emergency or contingency appropriations. Four, depth stabilization. Five, funding resources, stable issue
fund, OPET, et cetera. Given that this is universally regarded as proper and best practice, adding more free cash is not appropriate. Respectfully, Michael A. McCabe, Mayor." Thank you. (clears throat) We have a 1.75 with a second. Any other... Mr. President. Yes. Just a question, uh, is this a, is this, there are amendments to this or do we, uh, we propose new motions for a new rate? Or do we amend the pr- um, vote to amend? Yeah, you can vote to amend.
'Cause I, I can't remember the pro- the- Okay, yeah. ... exact process of it. Was it amended or So we got 175 with a second, so if you wanna do something else to amend it- Yeah. ... we can vote on the 175. It's up to you. It's all fine. Um, so we, we heard from the, uh, the Chamber of Commerce that visited here. Um, and, um, you know, I, I'll say it again that a vote that, a vote for tax shift that sends a message to the business community that we are more business friendly will evident- in essence will, um, help the residential tax rate because we're gonna bring in more businesses
here. That's- that's how it's supposed to work. It's up to us to make Westfield attractive to businesses and build, uh, more business here. Um, so we can't do that if we, if we raise the rate for businesses and 1.75 is, is far above many, many other municipalities in the state. Um, a lot of them are close to where we are now or even better. A lot of them are better than 1.65. Um, I really think it would, uh, uh, I, look, I don't wanna pay any more taxes than,
than I have to for my own home in Westfield, but, uh, but I'm willing to, um, to put, you know, to, to play the cards right and, and vote, uh, for a, a tax shift that benefits businesses and allows businesses to thrive, not only survive, but thrive. Uh, if the, if the pulse of the, the business community, as we've heard from the Chamber, is that lowering the rate and the, and the rate that we were asked to, to, uh, consider was 1.61, and if we did that, um,
and shifted it that way, uh, then it would, it would in essence, uh, send a message to businesses and make us more favorable to bring businesses in here. Uh, we, we have a lot of property. We have property that could, uh, certainly, um, house more manufacturing, create more jobs. Businesses don't use a lot of the city's resources like residentials, residents do. Um, they pay for their own, they have their own trash pickup. They have their own snowplowing. They have their own other, other services that they pri- provide for their business. Um, I just think it would be,
uh, wise to consider what the Chamber, uh, has, has proposed to us. Um, and like I said, if it's our job to bring businesses in here, it's, it's a job from the mayor's office, from the people who are, do the planning of the city, um, to, to continue to, to bring business in here. Uh, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna propose, uh, that we amend, um, and, and I was gonna go for a, a middle of the road, but seeing that it was so high at 1.75 for the ... I'm gonna go 1.61. I'd like to
make a motion for 1.61 and, and the, uh, for the Chamber's, um, request. Do you have a second? I'll second for purposes of discussion. Okay. We have 175 and we have a 161. (clears throat) I think we're going to vote on the 175 and get- (background chatter) ... with that right now. (background chatter) Yeah. What's that? I think we're going to vote on the 175 and deal with it right now. Is this the amendment? You'd vote on, you'd vote on the amendment side. It's an amendment first though. Hmm? It's amended first. As amended, so you gotta- Yeah. You gotta do the amendment first.
No, What's that? The amendment would be first then. Yes. So on the 161- Mr. President. Yes. I'd, I'd like to amend it to 1.65. Second. Motion made and seconded at 165. Can I discuss that for a second? You sure can. (gavel clacks) First of all, we're in a no win situation here with whatever we do. Um, I think we fiscally did this correctly when we did the budget, not knowing what there was for free cash coming in. Next year, we should just cut a $3 million, and he has, the mayor has to come to
us to, to fill that back with free cash. That's probably how we shoulda did it, but I think we were doing the right thing 'cause we didn't know what free cash was. We've always used free cash to give the, the residents a break. Now, he gave us free cash last year, but in his message to us this year in writing, he shouldn't be doing that. But he, we've done it every year I've been here. I think it's foolish that we have to do this when we have no development director. We're trying to sell the city, Counselor, you're absolutely correct, with nobody to do it.
(background noise) I, I don't agree what the mayor's doing. I'm not the mayor. And he's gonna say I can do what we want, but we can also do what we want. He can come to us for any free cash he wants and we can say no to it. You know, we're trying to work together here, but he knows we need to bring business in, but he hasn't... He tried to put a person in there that didn't last very long, but he hasn't tried again. So I'm not sure if he's trying to sell the city or if he's trying to do it himself. I don't know what he's trying to do. So we are handcuffed here no matter what we do. So I'd like to go to the middle of the road and go 165 to keep it
even for the businesses and for the people. I'd love to give the people a break, but if we do that, we're hammering the businesses without a community development director, we're not gonna have the business to come into town. Counselor Sullivan. So I'll, I'll support the 165, um, and I appreciate the counselor's comments about cutting the budget $3 million next year. That, that is, that is really the purpose of the motion I had made back in June, which was to take the million dollars out of engineering and that could be replaced, not that those aren't
all important projects, they are. We all, I think, for the most part support those. And that would have at this point had the mayor put a million dollars worth of free cash back into that account to make it whole. So I think this body- Um, you know, we- we ultimately have the financial purse strings as long as you pull them at the right times, because of the strong council form of government that we have. Um, so it's just when those levers get pulled. So I would encourage people to pull those levers, you know, next June when the budget is- is ready to be
prepared. And then, you know, the list of the top 10 taxpayers, um, I think ... And it's a little hard to tell because they've got corporate names, so they're not all necessarily lined up to what we know the company to be. Um, but I think seven of those either came in or did expansions back when I was mayor, and the other three were here before I was here, as mayor. So, you know, that- that shows you that there really hasn't been any significant growth, particularly at the top of the taxpayer list. Um, and just for comment, additional comment, most of those people all came
in with tax incentive agreements that are now paying full freight, which is listed here on- on the ... And I'd like to, uh, thank the assessor for that, um, for the- for the list here. So those numbers that are there. There has got to be a new growth strategy because we are out of whack between the residential burden and industrial and commercial. We've let that get out of whack. Um, and so there needs to be some work done on that. But I mean, I think, um, I While I totally appreciate and I will say she has been the most consistent
voice in this room, um, when it comes to the tax rate, um, Councilor Harris across the way, um, I- I, with all due respect, would support the Councilor Harris? At 1.65, the commercial will go up $32 a month ... uh, $71 a month and residence will go up $32 a month. So we've got three options here. We've got 175, 161 and Any more before we vote? I'll I'll support this motion. Council Fanion? Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I appreciate the comments made for the 1., um, .65 shift. I appreciate the conversation relative
to bringing in more business. However, the comments that were previously made that this is an unprecedented, um, circumstances this year with the fees going up for our residents on, um, solid waste and the water, I think that we do have to give the residents more of a break than we have to for the commercial. Um, I'm disappointed that the mayor did not give us any free cash. I feel if he did give some free cash, I'd be more inclined to go with the 165, 166 range, in that area. However, that free
cash did not come in. Free cash has been given several- several times in these ... in the past years. I went back 10 years and looked at the amounts of free cash that were given. There was $2 million sometimes, $1.5 million, $1 million. Um, so it's disappointing that we aren't using some of the $13 million that we do have in free cash to help out the tax rate, and that would help the businesses and the residents. But I feel like this time, um, I do have to support the residents and go in the 175, 174 and 173 range. Thank you.
Is that a motion or are you gonna stick at the 175? Excuse me? Is that a motion for 174 or are you just gonna stick with 175? I'll make a motion for 174. Second. Second. Got a second? She said second. Okay. Any more? Council Morganelli, you had your hand up. Okay. So let's go with the first one. We're gonna roll call these. The first one being 174. 4- 4. We're gonna work back. Yes. 'Cause if that ... If the amendment passes then that's what it is. Okay. All right, 174. I think you gotta go that way. Okay. You gotta go back.
Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Burns? Yes. Fanion? Yes. Figi? No. Harris? Yes. Mathews-Kane? No. Morganelli? No. Olesky? No. Sullivan? No. Adams? No. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? No. Four yes, seven no. Okay. So that brings us to number two, which was Uh, 165. No, 165. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Burns? No. Fanion? No. Figi? Yes. Harris? No. Mathews-Kane? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Olesky? No. Sullivan?
Yes. Adams? Yes. Bean? No. Beltrandi? No. Five yes, six no. Okay, so- We are at 161 now. That's the 161? Mm-hmm. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Burns? No. Fanion? No. Figi? No. Harris? No. Mathews-Kane? No. Morganelli? Yes. Olesky? No. Sullivan? No. Adams? No. Bean? No. Beltrandi? No. So now you're at 175. Councilor Olesky? Yes. Uh, motion for 1.68 shift.
Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the 168? Councilor Harris? Thank you. The 168, residents will pay $29 extra dollars a month, business/commercial will pay $84 extra a month. Anything further? Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Burns? No. Fanion? No. Figi? Yes. Harris? No. Mathews-Kane? Yes. Morganelli? Yes. Olesky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes.
Beltrandi? Yes. Eight yes, three no. 168 it is. Excuse me? You have to vote on the res after. We have to go over the, uh ... The res after. Okay.Let's see. Motion for the, uh, voting on the, the res factor, which is Do we have a second? Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion. Can, can we just verify with the, that's, that's the right number? Yes. Given what we just voted?
Yes, it's- Okay. Just wanna make sure. Yeah. (laughs) We've, we've messed up by a number before, so- (laughs) Not this group, not this group. (laughs) We already voted to shift. I know, I know. Okay. Councilor Matthews-Kane. No, I wanna talk at the end, after we do the residential. Oh, okay. Anything further? We're gonna roll-call, Madam City Clerk. Burns. What was it? Yes. The res factor. Fanion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? N- Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Morganelli?
Yes. Olesky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Councilor Matthews-Kane. So this is for the public. Um, as Councilor Harris has spoken, a lot of fees have gone up this year. And I had someone call me up about the trash fee and I explained that that person was eligible to apply for a discount, and I just wanna drive the point home that the community of Westfield has a lot of abatements that people can apply for, if they fit under certain categories. If you're over 70, there's two abatement programs for those who meet
income and asset restrictions. Those who wanna learn more can call the Assessor's Office. I spoke to the assessor. She said more people have been coming in to ask about this. She's happy to speak to them and let them know what their options are. Um, there's also tax relief available for blind residents and disabled veterans. That's also through the Assessor's Office. There's a new senior circuit breaker tax credit discount for trash. It's a 50% discount on the fee, and applications can be found on the DPW website. We also have a senior work-off program, and
people can reach out to the Senior Center for more information. We have a veteran's work-off program and that can, uh, be assessed through our BSO, Julie Barnes. And this is a community where we take care of each other. We have these programs to help people out. I just hope people will reach out and see if they can apply and to help with this. Thank you. Anything further? Councilor Harris. Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. (gavel bangs)