Good evening. I'd like to call the June 18th City Council meeting to order. Roll call, please, Madam City Clerk. Adams. Here. Ally. Will not be with us tonight. Bean. Here. Beltrandi. Here. Burns. Here. Fannion. Here. Figgy. Here. Harris. Here. Knnapick. Here. Matthews Kane. Here. Mello. Here. Morgan Ellie. He will not be with us. Oniski. 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. Reading of the record of the meeting of June 4th, 2026, and special meeting June 3rd, 2026. Councilor Bean. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes without reading. So moved. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Public participation. At this point, anybody wishing to address the city council on an item that is not the subject of a public hearing tonight may do so by stepping forward, stating your name and address for the city clerk, and we do this in three-minute increments, which may be extended. Sure. My name is Lieutenant John Parrish.
I'm with the Traffic Bureau, City of Westfield. Myself, and Sheena Reed, have come up with an ordinance today that is going to come before you, to limit the e-bikes and e-motorcycles in the city. With the big audience that I have here, you will know it's an issue in the city, just driving around it. So, once you read it, it's pretty self-explanatory. It's short and sweet, so law enforcement can understand it, so the public can understand it, and so the public can understand it. So, that's what we're looking to go for here. So, I hope on second reading, it passes today. The main focus is for safety of our children, safety of our motorists, and everyone
else in the city. So, I hope it gets a favorable recommendation today at the council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Chris Stager, 60 Wood Road, Westfield. On behalf of the friends at the Columbia Greenway Rail Trail, we also support the item number 21 of the ordinance to regulate traffic up on the rail trail. We spend a lot of time up there. We know there's some need to put some guidelines in place and some rules, so we wholeheartedly support the ordinance as it's written in place. Thank you, sir. Bob Hamel, Wildflower Circle in Westfield. I also am concerned about the rail trail regulations.
I am in full support. However, the regulations as I have seen them so far indicate regulations on the sidewalk, and I have no problem with that. However, the city has constructed many multi-use trails in the last few years, and the only way to distinguish them as being multi-use trails is, as you have done in the past on some, is to execute a yellow line down the middle, allowing for the usage of those multi-use trails. They're not specifically sidewalks under the definition of sidewalk. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on an item that is not a public hearing tonight?
Boy, this is a full house. If I may, if the public's done. Councilor? Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to read a letter from Chris Padden, clarifying some information that Captain Dickinson discussed at our last meeting. "Hello, Bill. We've spoken about the incorrect information in the Westfield News article stating that Westfield Police would be assigning the community police division to Hampton Pond State Park. The Westfield Police Department will be adding the old Apermont Way area to patrols after having issues of illegal and
unsafe use of the road and adjacent shoreline. Large unruly crowds blocking the road, excessive noise of crowds on the shoreline, swimming in prohibited areas, alcohol consumption in prohibited areas, unattended children on the shoreline and in the water. Hopefully, this explains that it's not the state property being patrolled. The disruptive behavior is a huge problem for waterfront homeowners, especially the homes on Long Pond Road." Thank you. Thank you. One more time, anyone want to address the council on something that is not a public
hearing tonight? Councilor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a comment from Rosemary Moran in Ward 4 regarding senior discounts for water, sewer, and waste management, and she hopes that people will reexamine those, because a lot of people have fallen through the cracks. And also, she wanted to say that she was against data centers. Thank you. Anyone else? Any other comments? Okay, public participation is now closed. Councilor Figgy. Motion to suspend the rules to take an item out of order. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, council? I'd like to move item 11 to be the next item of discussion.
Second. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on moving the item? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? So we're going to take all of you now, because we don't want to have you hanging around here all night. You want me to read 11? Please. Number 11 is the public hearing to consider a zoning petition of the City Council to impose a temporary moratorium on data centers. Thank you. Public hearing is now open. Councilor Mellor. Thank you, Mr. President. Hello, Councilors. I've never done this before from the podium, so it's new and I'm a little nervous. Usually, I'm banging on the podium and yelling at people when I'm here. Tonight before you is an amendment to the zoning ordinance
that adds a definition for what a data center is and adds a 12-month moratorium on data center development in the city of Westfield, during which time the Natural Resources Committee can work with local area experts, including professors from UMass Amherst and researchers from Harvard University, to answer the questions, where can the city support the land use of data centers without impacting public health, drinking water, and air quality?
And what conditions or performance standards, if any, are able to mitigate any impacts on drinking water, public health, and air quality? So when I spoke with the city planner and the law department, they let me know that there are a couple of things you have to have for a moratorium. The first of which is a rational basis. So the rational basis is that we have not had the adequate resources gathered together to study the impacts of this kind of development on our natural resources, the water, and the health of our
citizens. And the law department told me that I had to be really specific about what that means. So I brought visual aids. If you will, we're going to look at that screen, okay? Oh, but I need the mic. Look it, I'm playing the part of Rob Levesque. Okay. So, on the screen over there is a lidar map created by MassMapper, which is a state utility, that shows the elevation of the city of Westfield. Now you can see Southwick, because Southwick has the divot that makes the crazy line between Massachusetts and Connecticut, and we're just north of that divot. And you can see that the darkest green spots are the lowest
lying areas, and they are in the center of the city. And you can also see that around the city are several mountains that are named in the document in your council share if you really want them. Oh, I'm going to click this one. Okay. So this is also a map from MassMapper. The exact same area, but the water is what you're looking at. That is permissivity and aquifer. So the darker blue is more water, and where it's blue, the water in the ground moves quickly,
measured in, I want to say square feet per day? Yes. Thank you. My eyes are okay, but they're not that good. Okay, so the normal view that we get when we look at zoning of our aquifer is now laid over it. So you can see where we usually say this is where the aquifer is, and you can see that the blue permissivity range extends far beyond that. What I'm trying to say is everything that isn't mountain and bedrock is aquifer. Okay. So now let's talk about natural resource impact. A couple of years ago, MassDEP granted the city
some air monitors, and then they granted a local nonprofit in the city you guys might know, some more air monitors. And that is the purple air map of those air monitors. Now you may know that Springfield has often been called the asthma capital. Right? Very well known for asthma problems. That's August of 2025. That is a screenshot of real monitoring from DEP monitors in our city, where we are dwarfing Springfield in air quality issues. So this is that lidar map with our EJ
communities laid over it. You can see the neighborhoods around the airport and down in the bowl of the city are adversely affected and have historical impacts. This is a newer map from 2026. Remember when the Energy Facilities Siting Board was here, and we had a lot of meetings with them? Well, in the last few years, they have been creating regulations about how to site new energy facilities, and part of that is a program called Mass EnviroScreen. And Councilor Budinski, over there, by the way, through
her persistence and another woman from town who talks a lot about the water, originally, nothing north of the turnpike was included as an overburdened community. And nothing north of the turnpike was required to have a second look under the Energy Facilities Siting Board ruling. And because of the persistence of those two women in this town, you can see that the northern section, either side of Southampton Road, have been included as overburdened. So when someone wants to site an energy facility here,
they need to do a cumulative impact analysis to find out how much more burden our residents will experience. So you might say, "Okay. You've got pollution." But how do you know it affects your residents? The state keeps track. So this This is a form, because it's too far away, I can't read it. So this is from the Massachusetts Environmental Public Health Tracking program. Westfield is in blue in this first set. This is heart attack hospitalizations. We don't want to be more than the state average. This is not what we want to win.
That's not winning. Are our residents affected? Yes, they are. Okay, what about asthma? Well, it turns out if you're an adult male, you probably don't go to the doctor as often. I don't think you're actually having less asthma. Females have more asthma here than the state average, and so do our children. So what are we doing? But wait, Kristen. Wait, that's not enough, just asthma and heart, right? Okay. Well, a year ago, two years ago, how long was it? Maybe a year and a half. The Restoration Advisory Board at Barnes Air National Guard Base gave the community members of the Restoration Advisory Board a $20,000 grant
to have the health impacts of our PFAS pollution discussed at one of our meetings. So this is both males and females, and it is the standardized incident rate of cancer. And as you can see in that little dark blue, any number over 100 means that there's more cancer here than the state average. So that's breast cancer, kidney cancer. That big, tall purple one, what is that? Leukemia? Mm-hmm. But wait, there's more. They separate it into male and female, because you don't have the same ones. This is all in your council folder for today's meeting.
Not exactly in the share under your agenda packet. Okay, and there's one more of these after that. But there's still more, because the CDC has a program where you can look up what the rates are versus other communities in your area, because maybe it's the whole Pioneer Valley. It might be everybody. So let's take a look at that. This is from CDC's PLACES program. And the purple is asthma. Look, we are all in trouble unless you're going to East Longmeadow. That's asthma. But we also have cancer. And you'll notice some sections of town are highlighted more than others.
And you also know that in 2019, because Mary Ann and some other people in town were making a lot of noise, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry came to town and tested the blood of 459 residents to see if we were impacted by the PFAS that was in our water. And what they determined was that 92% of participants had more PFHxS in their blood than the average American. And you think, "Oh, that's just this little thing," right? PFHxS, the half-life is 35 years. So right now, the amount of PFHxS in my blood, in order for
that to go down by half, it will take 35 years. I will be 87 years old before that comes down by half of what it is now. And 92% of us had more than the average American. So the argument for being careful about zoning and pollution based on public health is clear. So that is the end of my little slideshow. I will tell you that on Tuesday night, the planning board had two recommendations for us to consider.
The first was that they would like a date. Instead of just saying 365 days or 12 months, they want an exact date, which would be 365 days from second reading, final passage. So, one of the moratorium copies on your council share has that date in there. The other Jay Vinsky asked us to add it, was the phrase, primary use. Such that if someone needed to have an ancillary server room and they needed to build a very small add-on in order to have it, that would not be officially prohibited just outright.
If it was a situation where it supported the primary use and it was not itself a data center being the primary use. So those are the two additions from the planning board. I do not have an objection to either. I grilled planner Vinsky over what adding the word primary meant, and I am satisfied with it. So if you would like to discuss it, of course, I'm not here to tell you no. But I did already grill him on it, and I'm okay with it. I would also like to say that because the public hearing, and I don't mean this for you, but because the public hearing is on a
moratorium for data centers, if you have questions or comments about data centers in general or any particular project, anything that's not specifically the moratorium, we want to hear what you have to say, but you can't say it here now. So to get that information to the committee, there are clipboards on this table with yellow legal pads. They will come to the NRC committee. You can ask us anything you want, but that's not what tonight's for. Tonight is about the moratorium.
And I'll tell you, it's a little warm because I love the fact that there are all these people here. You guys are great. But it's warm, and you want to not spend all night here standing up. So, as people speak, if you agree with it, go ahead and signal that, but maybe let's not repeat the same exact idea all the time and save each other's time. Sometimes people snap when they're in agreement, so it's not too loud. You could raise your hand in agreement like this. But we want to hear from everybody. We want to let everybody say everything. But if you all have the same thing to say, let's just support each other
and get the job done faster. Okay? Kristin, just con- Just confirm to everybody that this has gone through the law department. Indeed. The law department and the city planner and the planning board has made their recommendation, which is included in the version in front of you. Thank you. You're welcome. So at this point, any questions from the council? Are any questions about this moratorium from the general public? Just the moratorium, not the data center. Come on forward, state your name and address, please. Hello, my name is Milo Baron, and I live on 106 Roosevelt Ave. Mine is less of a question and more of a comment. I support the moratorium.
I personally live up in Train Fields, and in two days, I will be one year out from my clear cell renal cell kidney carcinoma, which is a very aggressive cancer that is resistant to chemotherapy and to radiation. And I dodged a nuclear bomb at 25 to have that taken out. And as of December, I'm six months cancer-free, and hopefully in July, I will be deemed cancer-free as well. I think it is our duty to protect our community, and it is our duty to not allow that to seep to the rest of the basin as well. So-
Thank you ... thank you. And congratulations. Hi, Paul Corey with the Service Star Data Center project. I know it's a little bit of a tough crowd. I just have a couple of comments and a question to follow. First, there's going to be near zero water usage at the site- So again- ... with absolute- Again, let me- Hang on, please. Everybody just calm down here. It's always- I really can't have you talk about the actual- Okay, the- This is about the moratorium only. Okay. Well, with respect to generally on the moratorium issues, data centers can be implemented with zero water usage,
and they can be powered by- Again, I got to- ... existing renewable resources in the grid. I got to do the same thing, sir. If I do this, everybody in this room is going to get up and tell me the reasons why they don't want it here. That's not what we're here for. Can I ask one question then? As long as it's related strictly to the moratorium. I just want to clarify whether the moratorium applies to the existing Service Star data center that's been approved by the planning board. I am not an attorney, but that's something that you could certainly ask that question, send it into the law department unless somebody here wants to answer
it. Kristin knows. We did ask if that... So zoning ordinances cannot act retroactively, so a permit that has been approved is a permit that has been approved. Whether or not the company that has the permit enacts that permit in the right amount of time and in the right way is a separate issue that is not on discussion tonight. Okay, so at this point, I can ask if there's people that are in favor of this. Come on up, sir. Do you have a question, perhaps? I think ... I'm Julian Flaring, 27 Holland Avenue. And when I heard about the moratorium,
it talked about the rationale being drinking water, public health, and air quality. And when the Service Star released information about this state-of-the-art closed loop cooling system, I'm curious about what that will do to the local temperatures. So again, that is related to the project that is not before us. So that's something that Councilman Mello has had to make cap- ability for you to write stuff down to get answers. I can't let you do that tonight. That plan- Well, can I... I just wanted to raise it as a question because the whole reason for
the moratorium is for us to have adequate resources to study. So I think that that's an important thing to be studied along with that. And that can be done through that process. Okay. Thank you. John. Hi. Rich Labree, 47 Bigwood Drive. Hello to many of you who I know personally. One of the things that I was told Tuesday at the planning board meeting was that this was a done deal, this data center. Since then, I've had an occasion to do some reading, and I found at least three ways in which this can be stopped. This moratorium, excuse me, is step one in that process. Should the council have the intestinal fortitude to approve the
moratorium, the mayor could, if at his will, call a building inspector, and a building inspector under Mass General Laws has the authority to either suspend or even revoke the current building permit. That would stop the project in its entirety through the course of this moratorium. Thank you. Thank you. Kathy Labrie, 47 Bigwood Drive. My husband. I support the moratorium. However, Service Star is no longer a company. How can we be doing business and meeting with a non-viable company?
The council signed a 40-year pilot agreement based on the representation that Service Star was a robust, capable entity. Has the city conducted a new financial audit to verify that they actually have the capital? Or are we, you, holding open our city's resources through this memorandum for a corporate shell that is simply trying to flip a permit to the highest bidder?
Okay. All right. Hi, my name is Anne Dolan Mangold, and what I have to say is maybe a little bit more of a suggestion. When I've read about what's being considered during the course of a moratorium, one thing that I did not see, and I think it's pretty important, what happens when in 10 years' time, these data centers are rendered obsolete? Yes. We've got to consider the fact that technology being what it is, today's data center, the monsters that we've all seen pictures of,
may be dead in the water in another five, 10, certainly 20 years. Thank you. If I may, Mr. President. Okay, so all of these questions are terrific questions, but they're not about the moratorium. So if you have more questions like that, write them down so that the Natural Resources Committee can answer them during, if they vote for it, the moratorium. Okay? But right now, President Veltrandi would like to know if anyone has a question about the moratorium itself and what it
does. Does that help? You're good. Thank you. I'm trying. Donna Lecy, 287 Shaker Road, Westfield. Question of fact. I have a couple. Number one, during the moratorium, will the NRC please determine the answer to the following? If a data center requires extensive electrical infrastructure build-outs, including high-capacity substations, transformers, switch gear, and transmission corridors- Ma'am, these are things that you have to write down because we could do this all night, and this is directly about the moratorium
This is about the moratorium. I don't know what you people are asking for, and I don't know if anyone in this room really knows. Maybe more clarification is necessary. I mean, maybe all of you- So a question of fact about the moratorium might be, when would it start, right? When would it be over? Will you be taking applications? No, the applications would also be paused. It would start technically when it was first noticed, right? Because everything is paused right now, and then officially the 12 months would start after second reading and final passage, if that
happens. Those are the questions of fact about the moratorium. Do you have one? Every other question you can send to me, and it will go to the NRC committee, every single one. Hi, Rebecca Operati, 20 Darby Drive. In regards to the moratorium, if passed, would City Council maintain the authority to extend the moratorium if more information was needed? I believe that was in the paperwork that you had originally done. As written, when the 12 months is over... I forgot to say it in the mic, right? Sorry. As written, when the 12 months is over, if it is a public
health reason, the Board of Health can extend it for another six months. But the idea is that we will have a decision about how to zone or how the Board of Health can regulate data centers by the end of that 12 months. Boo. Is the six months the only additional extension allowed? Are there any additional- It's the only extension written into the moratorium, but another act of ordinance could happen then, or an act of the Board of Health could happen then. Right?
So it doesn't have to be all of a sudden you're off to the races, but some other action would have to take place. This moratorium has one six-month extension. Okay. I have one more follow-up. I don't know if that's allowed. Yeah. This is my first city council meeting, so thank you. If the moratorium was extended, would City Council have the authority to propose or pass a ban or no? And I'm trying to be very relevant to this specific moratorium. No, and that's fine. That's a legal question. I really am not the person to answer that.
Okay. Sorry. I'm not qualified to give you that answer. No problem. It's worth asking. Thank you. Well, add it to... Right? It's a question we can ask in the committee Do you want to go to the next section? So at this point, I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the room, which I highly doubt there is, that would like to speak in favor of this moratorium or against the moratorium. Those were the questions, yes. Ray Frappier, Berkshire Drive. I have a question on the moratorium. Is it just another not-in-my-backyard scenario by the people on the North End?
And if so, after all the projects they canceled because of that, when will they start reimbursing the loss in revenue from taxes to the people on the south side of the river? Thank you. Wow. Now from Westfield. Charlotte Alexack, 136 Cabot Road. I'm wondering if the moratorium passes, how will the research and planning, how will that process go? What will happen during that time? Councilor Mello. So the professors at UMass Amherst have already agreed to come to our meetings and hold
presentations where we can ask them all the questions. We will also give them many questions ahead of time so that they can answer them in the presentation. It will be recorded so that everyone can see. They will be on the record meetings of the Natural Resources Committee. And as we compile the science and the information about what is and is not safe here, we will also be sharing it with the Board of Health because if there is something that they need to take action on, we want to make sure that everyone has the science. Everything is going to be transparent, everything is on the record. Thank you. Councilor Mello. Hi there. My name's Anna. I'm a resident of 30 Williams Street.
I have a question about the moratorium. For me, I saw the notice as this was a time for public comment about a moratorium on data centers, and I understand that this contract was in place a while ago, but it's something I enthusiastically oppose going forward. And I'm wondering, as there are many people in this room that are not in favor with a data center going forward, what the other avenues are for current residents of Westfield to participate in their local government and express the discontent, and if there is anything we, the citizens, can do to try and stop
this. There's a- Councilor Mello is your contact. There is a nonprofit group in Westfield that is working on this issue, and there is some interesting information just brought up a minute ago by a gentleman here. So are you aware of the nonprofit in Westfield working on it? Okay, so, it's called Westfield Residents Advocating For Themselves. You can find them, wraft.org, right? And they're working on it. Thank you. Is there anyone, again, that would like to speak against the moratorium? Against the moratorium. I don't see it, right. His name? Yeah. Yes. Come on up. Give your name and address, sir.
Hi, my name is Jacob Flaron. I live on Ridgeway Street. Okay. I'm a lifelong Westfield resident. I'm kind of wondering how this moratorium got passed. I did not see anything about it, and there's so many people in here tonight that seem like they're either for or against it, but I've never seen this many people in this room. So I'm just kind of wondering how we got to this point without having this kind of public, what's the word? Whatever. You know what I mean. Councilor Mello, would you like to address that? Sure. Thank you. No problem. We're learning. So last year, a bunch of residents started asking what was going on with that data center that got approved here, and where is it? And there were some media articles about it.
In August, there had been an article, there was an article in the Shoestring that looked into it, and people really started asking. People started coming to me as a city councilor and saying, "What is going on with the data center, and are more coming?" And when, a couple months ago, this body decided to put a moratorium on battery energy storage, right, because they're full of PFAS and we were concerned about the water and the air quality. The thing about it is that if a data center isn't using battery energy storage, it's burning fossil fuels, right? And that creates a lot of air pollution, which
can also deposit and end up in the aquifer, right, with precipitation. And so we were protecting public health by passing a BESS moratorium, but then we were upping the level of pollution that would happen by any data center that came in. And so until we can make sure that everything is done without actually making our residents sicker, we want to take 12 months and have the scientists explain to us, "Okay, well, this side of town is higher than that side, so anything that burns up here is going to smoke out the people down there." Or, "The winds always move from this part to that
part, so maybe put it over there and the winds will break up anything." I'm not a meteorologist, I'm not a hydrogeologist, I'm a chemist. Right? So I look at the lab reports when all the work is done. I don't know everything about the air currents and the way the water moves, but I do know the scientists at UMass who do. And so they agreed to answer our questions if we had the time to hold those meetings. And so that is why we're asking for the moratorium, because that gives us the time to have those meetings where everyone can come, including the project proponents and the residents, and people who are for and
against. Everyone can learn the science together. I just want to say thank you for addressing me directly, and it seems like you know what you're talking about. We haven't heard from a lot of other people, but yeah, it seems like you know what you're talking about, and I thank you very much. Thank you. Again, anybody like to speak against the moratorium? Nobody against? Hello, my name's Dan Hooper. I live on 27 Bates Street. My question was what happens in a year from now, when is there another moratorium? I think that Councilor Melo addressed that earlier, but she can probably give you that information.
I didn't catch that. So once we have the answers, we can either create the permanent zoning regulation that says they're allowed over here and this is what we have to do, this is their performance standard, and this is what you do for a special permit, or all that science gets turned over to the Board of Health because they have plenary power, and if this is seriously a dangerous land use for our residents, they're the only ones that can truly stop it. Go ahead. So will there be another vote and another public hearing
after that's known? Yes, because when we make an ordinance, we share it with the planning board and they have a public hearing, and then we have another public hearing. So this whole process that happened this week, once we have a permanent zoning ordinance to put in, this whole thing will happen again. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Again, anyone wish to speak against this? Against. All right, so in the interest of trying to get you guys out of here, we're going to do this-- I know everybody in here is in favor of the moratorium. We're going to do it by a show of hands. Is that all right, Kristen, do you-
Yeah. Whatever you want. All right, so everybody that is in favor of the moratorium, raise your hand, please. Okay. Everybody that's against the moratorium? Well, we clearly have... You good? Make a motion? Motion to close the public hearing. Second. Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any discussion on closing the hearing? Mr. President. Yes. Just a point of order. If we close it, is Natural Resources going to be able to take in additional testimony? No. Not on the moratorium. But we did find out that it is not against open meeting law for us to have first reading tonight. Well, so what I'm asking is, we just told everybody in the room that they can
submit questions for Natural Resources to vet this out. Well, right. But the questions for the public hearing were only about the moratorium. Oh, that's what I'm saying. Their questions about data centers and the water, and the electricity, and the air pollution, that's not about the moratorium. They can send any question they want to Natural Resources. I understand what you're saying. It's a very complicated thread you're needling here. So, obviously we take the vote, but just be aware that if you close it, you're not supposed to take anything that comes in. So I'm not really sure what the process is or what the jeopardy for Natural Resources, if somebody comes to that meeting, puts some testimony in front of it
related to the moratorium, and we've already closed it. Right, but if we were to vote tonight and to vote on July 6th, and Natural Resources doesn't meet until we come back from break- We can also have a special meeting. I'm just generally not comfortable closing off debate. This isn't about who's for it or who's against it, but the subcommittee, my opinion would be it's not supposed to take any additional testimony if the hearing is closed. Right. I'm sorry, may I? Yes, please. But if you were to take that logic out to its furthest conclusion, we wouldn't be
able to talk to UMass, right? Right. That's what I'm saying. The questions they want answers to are about data centers, right? I understand that. And the water, and the electricity- And this is- ... and the air pollution. And this is a moratorium about data centers, and we just took testimony tonight- Yes, but the- ... and we're going to take more. But the intent of the moratorium is for us to investigate the ecological and public health impacts. So their questions about the ecological and infrastructure and public health impacts are the entire point of the moratorium. So of course, Natural Resources will be taking in testimony about that from everywhere. Well, neither one of us are city attorneys on this one, and I would not want to
botch this because a lot of people put a lot of time to come here tonight to take testimony, and I don't see a city attorney in the room to give us a little bit of clarity on this topic. I thought you said, Councilor Melo, I thought you said you got the law department's input. I'm sorry, say it again? Didn't you say you got the law department's input on this? Yes, the law department went over the moratorium with us. Well, I understand that, but did they say we could specifically take a closure tonight and not take in any more additional information? A legal procedure that we get flawed early on could be a problem. Mr. President.
Councilor Finn. Thank you, Mr. President. When we did the moratorium on the battery storage facilities, the point was just to stop any applications from coming in so that we would have time to write an ordinance. So that, we just voted on the moratorium, as Councilor Melo was saying, and then we're taking in information now into ZPD to write that ordinance. So this is just to stop everything and gather information in the committee to write an ordinance. It has no- But isn't when the committee meets and it takes testimony from these experts,
that's still information associated with this process that leads to a decision. No, because the process is stopping everything from happening, so we have the advantage of writing the ordinance. So I think closing the public hearing is absolutely the proper thing to do. I don't see any problem with doing that. Okay. I actually have a question. Please come up. Hi, Joshua Willette, 1650 Westfield Street, West Springfield. So the moratorium is to determine the health impacts of the data center, right? Talk so that we can hear. So, is that going to take into account the uses of AI,
of how AI is being used to get people addicted to gambling, and shopping, and pornography, and manipulate people- So, again- Make people- Sir ... hate their neighbors? That is one of the things that went right on the yellow pad. Okay. I also want to let everybody know, I had some stickers made up, so just come to me afterwards if you want to show your support against it. All right, we got a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Any further discussion from the council? If I may. Can I just come over there? Am I done up here? Yeah. Okay. Sir, you had a question? Yeah. According to what Danny was saying there,
we have a room full of people here with their own opinions. How many people here have worked on a data center besides me? Jeez. There we go. It's not a data center. Okay. How many people build data centers? Right there. Everybody else, your opinions are just guesses. You have no clue. We live here. Hey, please. It comes back to not in my backyard. That's all the way through. We don't want another data center then. All right. That's it. Nope. No, we're done. That's it. We're done. We're done. Roll call vote, Madam City Clerk. Okay. Adams? Yes. Sorry. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes.
Burns? Yes. Fannin? Yes. Figgie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knoppik? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Thank you. Mr. President? Just a second, we got to tell them. We are still under suspension, yes? Excuse me? We are still under suspension, yes? Yes. Yeah. Motion for first reading. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Did you read the first reading? Can you read it because it's not the one I wrote? An ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Westfield, Appendix B zoning, adopted September 3rd, 1987, relative to a moratorium on data centers. Councilor Mello? Motion for second reading and final passage. Motion for second reading and final passage at our July 6th meeting? Yes.
Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now on for second reading. Thank you, sir. Okay, folks, listen. I want to thank everybody for coming here. Unfortunately, the process doesn't allow for a lot of what you guys wanted to do. There is a process that will happen with that. But again, thank you for coming. I've never seen this many people here. So we're going to take a 10-minute recess so we can allow everybody to get out. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Absolutely. Yes. If I was going like- No, this is what I'm trying to say to you, Dean. If you research this stuff and get a legal opinion- Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay Everybody needs to file out. We're trying to get back to business here.
Oh, and then we can start our regularly scheduled 7:00 meeting. Oh, I see. I see what you're saying. That's what you were- I didn't want to make the mistake that I was- Okay ... because that's an incorrect statement. Don't worry about it. It did not. Legally. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Good. Good. All right. So let's-- With all this stuff that we have been looking at, this is a horror show. Okay. Thank you for coming. All right. Communications from the mayor. Then they have recourse. I understand. Item one, Councilor Knapik. Sorry, Mr. President. Trying to clarify a few things here for the constituents. I'm happy to see you. Peach shopping at the city council tonight, I guess.
Item one, Councilor Knapik. Oh, my goodness gracious. This would be a request from the city council for immediate consideration of an appropriation of $1.82,100,100 from the Department of Public Works Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Division's undesignated fund to the Blower Sludge HVAC Capital Project 3143 account to support HVAC and roof repairs. For the sludge building at the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Plant at 149 Neck Road. Second. Motion made and seconded. Before we get to that, Council, would you bring us back to regular order? Motion to return to regular order.
Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now back in regular order. Councilor Knapik. Yes. Apparently, this is a request for a construction project at the wastewater plant. There was one bidder on the project. It was at $4 million. It came in more than what the bond was worth. So in order to execute the project, we need to have a little bit more money in the account to get it to construction. So that's where they're asking the money from. Questions from the Council? Seeing none. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannian? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapik? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski?
Yes. Thank you. Item two. Councilor Knapik. A motion to suspend the rules. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now under suspension. Councilor Knapik. Thank you, Mr. President. A motion to request the Council to appropriate the sum of $2 million from the free cash account to the fund balance reserve for expenditures account to reduce the FY '27 tax rate. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Council? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This is in order to be in order to pass the budget tonight, because this money is needed for tonight. Okay. Any questions from the Council?
Seeing none. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannian? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapik? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Thank you. Item three. Councilor Oneski. Thank you. Still under suspension, I'm asking for immediate consideration for items three, four, and five. Item three is submitting a resolution to accept a gift donation of $5,486 from Sara Phillip and Critical Products LLC to the Parks and Recreation Department for the purchase of new field hockey uniforms.
Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Council? No, I'd just like to thank Sara Phillips and Critical Products for their generous donation. Okay. Would you read it by title only, sir? Yes, I will. A resolution of the City Council of Westfield for acceptance of FY 2026 monetary and in-kind gift donations made to Parks and Rec Department. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item four. Councilor Oneski. Thank you. Item four is submitting a resolution to accept gift donations from various donors in the sum of $4,755 to the Parks and
Recreation Department skateboard or skate park gift account to be used toward renovation of the skate park. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Council? Yes, thank you. This is a culmination of Westfield Bank, Kiwanis, Michael Douthwright, Jeff Burt, Fugees at the Nook, Westfield Gas and Electric, A. Clark Construction. I'd like to thank them for their generous donations. Thank you. Anything further? No. Would you like to read it, sir? Yes, please. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Westfield for acceptance of FY 2026 monetary
and in-kind gift donation made to Parks and Recreation Department. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item five. Councilor Oneski. Thank you, Mr. President. Item five is submitting a resolution for the acceptance of a gift donation of $512.50 from Arrow Fastener, Inc. to the Westfield Police Department to be placed in the community police gift account to be used for community relations and outreach. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Council? I'd like to thank Arrow Fastener for their generous donation. Thank you. Would you read it, please?
Yes. A resolution of the City of Westfield for acceptance of a gift to the Westfield Police Department. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Next item is vote on the fiscal year 2027 budget. Councilor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe we have to do a few motions here. If the auditor could join us at the podium, please. Yes. We have to vote the budget before. I believe we have to officially vote. I think we have to vote the budget. There's the totals, the numbers. Totals across the board, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, hi. Vicki Morrow, City Auditor. Do you want me to read the totals for each department?
Well, I think we need to vote on the total budget first, and then you can break it down. Yeah, the undesignated stuff. Yeah. I thought that's what we had to touch, right? So we're gonna vote on the total budget. Okay. And then we're gonna vote on the individual items that you're gonna do appropriations for, correct? Yes. Mm-hmm. Yep. I will defer to the former chair of the finance committee, as it's been a long time. It was like six years ago. And my memory isn't what it used to be. I think that's how we've done it in the past. That's how we've done it in the past. Oh, thank you. We pass the budget, then we vote individually on the order of appropriation for each of- Yes ... the enterprise funds. If we can just have the total of the budget. The whole thing.
Yeah, it should be in the numbers. Oh, well, I have it broken out. I don't have a total, total. The order, just... Councilor Knapik, do you have the total of the budget? I don't have it handy. I'll have to use my calculator to come up with that. Oh, no. Don't do that. Oh, boy. But I think there's a total- Because I've only ever come and read the appropriations, so isn't it just the total of the orders of appropriation for fiscal year '27? It was as presented. Yeah. Right. Okay. We can vote that way. That's the budget, and then we go into the- And then we go to each individual. Right. Then we do each individual. Okay. So that total is... Let's get a motion to do that. So that's gonna be an order. Yes. A motion- Order ... to Madam City Clerk to read an order.
Yeah. This is hard. Yes. With the amended fiscal '27 budget As presented As presented I think you can just vote on that, and then she'll read the orders. Correct. Sure. Yes. So, roll call? Yes. Yes. Yes. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannian? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matthews-Kaine? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Okay, the budget's done. And now- Now you're on ... do the orders. Okay. I guess I thought you wanted me to give you the totals, and I'm like- So we're at reports of- ... that's not what I did last year, but that's fine. Report- However we need to do it. Reports of city offices, item six.
City Auditor Vicki Leigh Morrow submitting the 27 order of appropriations. You have the floor. Thanks. So, Legislative Department, $213,500. Mayoral Department, $270,712.11. Auditor Department, $477,641.91. Purchasing Department, $927,368.38. Assessor Department, $455,758.95.
Treasurer Department, $1,776,361.44. Collector Department, $304,160.66. Law Department, $523,930.62. Personnel Department, $435,783.40. Severance Department, $615,137.84.
Payroll Department, $164,873.08. Technology Department, $2,224,356.79. City Clerk Department, $456,341.09. Board of Registrars, $40,013. Licensing Commission Department, $5,360. Conservation Commission, $123,046.44. Planning Board, $17,500.
Zoning Board of Appeals, $10,075. Community Development, $298,445.09. Westfield Redevelopment Authority, $10,000. Public Property and Buildings, $416,677.07. Off-Street Parking, $33,537. Airport, $1,165,580.96. Police Department, $9,569,664.57.
Fire Department, $5,930,418.11. Public Safety Communications Dispatch, $1,433,974.21. Building Department, $464,509.16. Weights and Measures, $80,158. Emergency Management, $30,003.51. Animal Control, $299,925.76.
Traffic Control, $44,823.55. Flood Control, $263,300. Westfield Public Schools, $78,185,821. Engineering, $2,139,144.24. Public Works Administration, $360,623.51. Public Works Highway, $2,818,997.81.
Snow and Ice, $400,365. Waste Collection and Disposal, $3,069,788.69. Sanitary Landfill Transfer Station, $573,841.26. Land and Natural Resources, $1,025,199.50. Health Department, $671,503.40. Council on Aging, $586,577.33.
Veterans, $657,138.67. Committee for Citizens with Disabilities, $5,700. The Westfield Athenaeum, $1,174,979.82. Park and Recreation, $403,167.78. Historical Commission, $6,250. Debt Service, $9,426,032.46. Contributory Retirement,
$15,444,403. Non-contributory Retirement, $40,915.44. Insurance, $23,841,685.58. Medicaid, Medicare, $32,000. Certification and legal, $1,200. Unclassified, $2,400, and reserve for unforeseen $139,740.58, for a total for the general fund, $170,090,412
million... Sorry. Too many nines. It's a lot. $170,090,412.77. An order of an appropriation money for the Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment Department. That the following sums be hereby are granted and voted from the income of Sewerage and Wastewater Department from enterprise receipts- Mr. President. Vicki. Hold on one second. Pardon? Mr. President. Excuse me? We have to vote on that order of appropriations. Oh. The first one? Yes. Okay. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppert? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski?
Yes. Please continue. The following sums to be hereby are granted and voted from the income of the Sewerage and Wastewater Department from enterprise receipts in the amount of... It should be 6,000. Sorry, that formula was incorrect. It should be $6,760,001.56 and 280,000 to be appropriated in the general fund for fiscal year 2027, and it be further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in this order and in conformity with the line item budget as submitted by the mayor
as determined by the city council. Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment Department 440, $5,977,000- I think we have to vote that. We have to vote them separately. May I ask a question? Yes. May I ask of the auditor, did you just read the Water Department or the Sewer? This is Sewer. Okay. We must have just different order. Did we skip Water? Oh, no, this was on the back page of this. My bad. Oh, okay. So I turned it over, and I have this one here. Okay. Because we were not on the same page. And that's fine. Sorry. We don't have to stay the same order. Yeah. I think. I should've printed them single, not back to back. Because you have to-
So for each order, we have to vote before she goes- Yes. Yes. I think so, yeah. So this is the second order. This is second for Sewer and Wastewater. All right. And are you done with that? Yes. Okay. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Okay. Adams? I'll do Water next. Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppert? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Thanks. Next order, please. All right. So I will go to Water. I had given Caitlin just before the meeting an updated. The formula was not correct with my indirect costs in here. So the number that was originally
presented when the mayor presented the budget is what this is. The paper that you guys have, the formula was not working properly, so I double-checked it, and so I'm going to read you the true numbers. Just a point of clarification? Yeah. So what's on the sheet here is not the right numbers, is what you're saying? Correct. Okay. Thank you. So this is the next order. Yes. Okay. Water. That the following sums to be hereby are granted and voted from the income of the Water Department from enterprise receipts in the amount of $8,510,997.74 and $264,500 be appropriated in the general
fund budget for the fiscal year 2027, and it be further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in this order and in conformity with the line item budget as submitted by the mayor and as determined by the city council. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppert? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Next order, please. Next order. In the order appropriating money for ambulance services in the Fire Department, that the following sums being hereby are granted and voted from the income of the
ambulance fee receipts for fiscal year 2027, and it be further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in this order and in conformity with the line item budget as submitted by the mayor and as determined by the city council. The total for ambulance is $3,874,088.26. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppert? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Thank you. Next order. An order appropriating money for gas and
electric depreciation account. Whereas MGL Chapter 164, subsection 57, does not require each manager of each municipal light plant to annually furnish the mayor with an estimate of the depreciation attributable to the physical plant, and whereas the amount of such depreciation, once appropriated from certain of the income of the municipal light plant, is deposited to an account under the supervision of the city treasurer, and whereas funds so appropriated are therefore available for expenditure for payments of costs related to the physical plant in excess of ordinary repairs, and
whereas the manager has determined the depreciation amount at. Now, therefore In consideration of foregoing, it is hereby ordered $8,106,050 appropriated from sales of electricity and gas to private customers for the service and installation of appliances and jobbing for the fiscal year to end June 30th, 2027, to be appropriated to the depreciation account. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matheson? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Next order, please.
An order appropriating money for the Community Preservation Act. That the following sums being hereby are granted and voted from the income of the community preservation receipts for fiscal year 2027, and it further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in this order and in conformity with the line item budget as submitted by the mayor and as determined by the city council. The total for community preservation, $672,300. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes.
Knapek? Yes. Matheson? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Thank you. Next order, please. An order appropriating money for stormwater services in the Public Works Department. That the following sums being hereby are granted and voted from the income of the stormwater fee receipts for fiscal year 2027, and it further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in the order and in conformity with the line item budget as submitted by the mayor and as determined by the city council. The total for stormwater is $987,553.93.
Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matheson? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Thank you. Next order, please. An order appropriating money for peg access and cable-related funds. That the following sums being hereby are granted and voted from the income of the peg access receipts for fiscal year 2027, and it further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in this order and in conformity with the line item budget as submitted by the mayor and as determined by the city council. The total for peg access,
$381,238. Roll call, please. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matheson? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Next order, please. An order of appropriation for fiscal year 2027 as amended. That the following sums being hereby are granted and appropriated for the purposes and objects herein stated, and be it further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in this order as submitted by the mayor and determined by the city council. Workers compensation, $150,000, and
unemployment for 50,000. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matheson? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. Next order, please. An order of appropriation for fiscal year 2027 as amended. That the following sums being hereby are granted and appropriated for the purposes and objects hereinafter stated, and it further ordered that all amounts herein specified shall be devoted to the purposes designated in this order as submitted by the mayor and as determined by the city council.
OPEB fund, $250,000. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Veltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannin? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matheson? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oneski? Yes. All set? That's all I got. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's one more. Wait, wait. No. Debt decline. Oh, it's zero. If it's zero, do you still have to do it? Oh. It's on. I don't know. It says zero. We have a debt decline. It's zero. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It wasn't in the budget. Well, I don't know. If we're here- It wasn't part of the budget ... I would do it. It wasn't in the budget, no. Then you don't have to. No. No. Okay, moving on. Item seven, Council Oniski.
Thank you, Mr. President. We're still under suspension of the rules conveniently. Yes. So I'm asking for immediate consideration for first reading for City Clerk Caitlin Bruce submitting order for polling locations for the 2026 elections. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion? No. Anything? Anyone? I can read the order by title only. Please. An order designating the voting places within and for the voting precincts in which they are located. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion for second reading and final passage at our next meeting. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
Aye. Opposed? Now on for second reading, item eight, Council Oniski. Thank you. Again, asking for suspension of rules for immediate consideration for first reading for City Clerk Caitlin Bruce submitting the order calling the early voting dates, times, and locations for the state primary election to be held September 1st, 2026, and general election to be held November 3rd, 2026. Second. Motion made and seconded. Would you like to read it by title only? Thank you, Mr. President. An order designating the early voting dates, times, and locations for the state primary and general election.
Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion for second reading at our next meeting. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Now on for second reading, item nine. Councilor Ownesky. Thank you, Mr. President. City Clerk Caitlin Bruce submitting the order for call of the state primary election to be held Tuesday, September 1st, 2026. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion? Yeah, this is again, motion for first reading, and it's titled, "An Order Calling the 2026 State Primary." All in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Motion for second reading and final passage at our next meeting. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed. Now on for second reading, item 10, Councilor Ownesky. Yeah, and that's City Clerk Caitlin Bruce submitting- Oh, good ... a letter requesting the assignment of police officers at polling locations for 2026 elections to be designated to the police chief. Second. Motion made and seconded. Yeah. So this is just to support the letter. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Petitions, remonstrances and other papers, item 12, Councilor Fannion. Thank you, Mr. President. An application for a special permit, site plan approval
and stormwater permit for a trucking terminal pursuant to zoning ordinance section 3-130, 3-170.7, 3-170.11, 4-110, and 6-10, submitted by Engineering and Land Solutions, Inc., on behalf of AJ Virgilio Construction Inc. Motion to refer to ZPD and schedule a public hearing for the August 20th meeting. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion, Councilor? No. You want to send it to the planning board? No. It's a special permit. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Reports of committee finance, item
13, Councilor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. Number 13 is the successor agreement between the Fire Department Supervisors Association and the city for the period of July 1, 2025 to June 30th, 2028. The finance committee met on a 3-0 vote. We recommend this item. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Councilor? Yes. Thank you. The negotiated contract total cost for the 2026 fiscal year is $13,337.55, according to City Auditor Vicky Morrow. This amount does not need an appropriation, as the original fiscal year '26
budget had salaries for individuals that were higher than actually paid due to retirements. This allows for monies to be used that were already budgeted to cover this cost. The city solicitor states that MGL requires the legislative body of the municipality to vote on this request for the appropriation necessary to fund the cost items of said successor agreement. Some points of this contract include, one, removing the chief from civil service and agree that the assistant chief position, when filled,
also is not a civil service position, nor is it in the bargaining unit. Another item is it adds that each member may be reimbursed up to $2,500 annually for outside training. The reimbursement will cover tuition, admission, and travel expenses, and any reimbursement will comply with the City of Westfield's auditor's policy. Another item is regarding the hours. The hours of duty for the deputy chief in charge of fire prevention shall be four 10-hour days, with a schedule to be approved by the chief. Next point would be that the carryover vacation is
limited to one week. Any accrued vacation not used or carryover will be forfeited. Next item would be slight changes to the sick and bereavement leave policy. Next item would be it adds any bargaining unit member out of job-related injury shall cease accumulating sick time during the time in which he or she is out beyond one month. Once the member returns to either full duty or limited duty of the agreement, the member will accrue sick time in the normal course. The next item would be all newly hired or promoted bargaining unit members
shall earn 12 sick days per year. And lastly, this is a three-year agreement, with the economic impact of fiscal year '26 2%, fiscal year '27 2%, and fiscal year '28 2%. Thank you. Anything from the council? Seeing none. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Feeney? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knoppik? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Ownesky? Yes. Thank you. Item 14, Councilor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. Number 14 is a successor agreement between the United Public Service Employee Employment Union and the city for the period of July 1,
2025 to June 30th, 2028. When the finance committee met, and on 3-0, we recommend this item. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion? Yes. Thank you. Mayor McCabe states that the funds used to fulfill the first year contract obligations associated with this successor agreement, which is the dispatch unit, totals $13,593.12. This amount does not require an appropriation because most of the salaries will be paid through state 911 grant funding. Again, according to the law, the legislative body must
vote on this successor agreement. And three, just in general, the contract lays out parameters of the training, overtime requirements, and sick leave policy of the dispatchers, and the base pay increase is 2% for fiscal year '26, 2% for '27, and 2% for '28, and it's a three-year contract. Thank you. Anything from the council? Seeing none. Roll call, please. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanian? Yes. Fee? Yes. Harris? Yes. Kneppek? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello?
Yes. Oneski? Yes. Thank you. Item 15, Councilor Kneppek. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. The Finance Committee has met and took a vote of three to zero to remove the item from the Finance Committee and refer it to the Legislative and Ordinances Committee, as it is a resolution related to the Solid Waste Pay-As-You-Throw program. The motion is to punt, was that it? Is to punt, yes. Kind of sounded like it. We have done enough in the last six weeks, so I know you- Wow. I'll second that motion. Wow. Motion made and seconded. That's not right. Any further discussion? Councilor Harris. Just a quick comment that this program was supposed to start July 1.
It is not going to start until at the minimum September. Okay. Thank you for that. Councilor Oneski, just for edification purposes, we started to take in some information from the health department director, and it was like, "This is really tailor-made for your committee." Oh, thank you. You are welcome. Nothing further? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Legislative and Ordinance, item 16, Councilor Oneski. Thank you, Mr. President. L&O met June 16th and upon a positive two-zero vote,
voted for positive recommendation for a resolution for the City of Westfield to adopt the provisions of Chapter 399 of Acts 2024 and specifically Chapter 40, Section 71 of general laws to install and operate a school bus detection monitoring system on school buses to enforce violations pursuant to MGL Chapter 90, Sections 14 and 14C. Second. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion, Councilor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I met with the school department, specifically Stefan and Chris Rogers.
People passing school buses is a very dangerous issue, and it happens all the time. The current process is where a school bus driver would write down a license plate number, a brief description of the car, send it to the police, but they really can't do too much because they didn't see it. So, what this is going to do, this resolution, is allow the city to take advantage of a state option that lets the city create
either fines on their own or allows cameras on buses. So, if someone passes, two ways of doing it. The technology way is if someone passes a school bus, the stop sign is out, it films them. It's taping them. And it will read their license plate, and then that video, on a weekly basis, will go to the police department to review it. And the police department will be the ones to determine whether or not they did go past the stop sign on the school
bus or not. If they did, they'll be mailed a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle. And if the city does it, they collect the funds. Right now, if the city was to see somebody go through, stop school bus, half of the money would go to the city or half to the state, something around there. Yeah. So, this will allow the city to collect all of the money if it happens. However, it's not about the money. It's really about the safety of the children who come off the bus and need
to cross the street, and this will really be a deterrent. Let's see. This does need to go out to bid. The Lukrinsky School Bus Company is taking this under advisement. All indications are that they will agree with putting cameras on the buses, outside of the buses, so that when and if someone passes the school bus when the red lights are on, it will show the front and back view. Let me see. Fine would be $250.
There is an appeal process through the-- If they go with a company that actually puts the cameras on the school buses, there is an appeal process through that company, and also there is a legal process for appeal. Questions? Happy to answer. Councilor Adams? Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just had a quick question. And this is the third or fourth thing that's come up that we've changed that cuts the state out. How does this, I guess I'm just curious, because we did it with the trucks, too. How do we just make a resolution and the state's out of it, and they don't get any money? Is it that easy? Go ahead, Ralph. I was going to- Please. All this does, the state passed a law that
allows us to do this. Mm-hmm. So, this is with the state's permission to do it. So, the state cut themselves out. We didn't cut them out. Oh. That's fine. I just wonder, I don't know, is that easy? And all this does is allow us to explore this possibility further. The first step is to accept the state language, and then we can go through purchasing to see if there's a company. And there are several out there that have pretty good terms The one we talked to, a community down east, made over a million and a half dollars on these signs the first year.
Wow. So, we're talking some substantial money. Yes. The meeting I attended before I went to L&L was with the school department, the police department, and a potential vendor. But we're not at that point yet. Until we accept the state language, we can't go to the next step. Thank you. You're welcome. Anything further? Would you like to read the resolution, sir? If I may, by title only. Yes. Well, I'll go a little bit further than that, because title just says a resolution of the City Council of the City of Westfield. Whereas Mass General Laws Chapter 40, Section 71
allows for a city to install and operate a school bus violation detection monitoring system on a school bus to enforce violations pursuant to Sections 14 and 14C of Chapter 90, as well as enter into agreements with private vendors or manufacturers to provide a school bus violation detection monitoring system. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 17, Counselor Fannion. Thank you, Mr. President. L&L has met and gave a positive recommendation for a motion to remove from committee with no action, the street acceptance for Campanelli Drive.
Second. Second. Motion made and second. And any discussion, council? Yes. We discussed this in committee, and this street is more of a driveway for businesses, and there are no residents that live on this street, therefore, we removed it without any action. Anything from the council? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Unfinished business, item 18, Counselor Oniski. Thank you, Mr. President. Motion for second reading and final passage of an ordinance titled Chapter 9, Article 15, Cryptocurrency Automated Teller Machines, ATMs. Second. Motion made and seconded. Anything further? I've only heard positive comments on doing this from residents.
That's it. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oniski? Yes. Thank you. Item 19, Counselor Fannion. Thank you, Mr. President. Motion for second reading and final passage of an ordinance titled Chapter 16, Article 2, Division 4, Stormwater Management. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion, council? No. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oniski? Yes. Thank you. Item 20, Counselor Harris. Thank you, Mr. President. 22nd reading and final passage of an order
titled, "An Order Transferring Care, Custody, Management, and Control of Certain Parcels in the City of Westfield on White Street," the Fort Meadow School. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion, council? No. Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Beltrandi? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knapek? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oniski? Yes. Thank you. Item 21, Counselor Oniski. Thank you, Mr. President. Motion for second reading and final passage of an ordinance titled Chapter 17, Article 11, Electric Bicycle, Scooters, Mopeds and Skateboards. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion, council?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. There were some minor changes that were made between the first and second readings, which are in your shared drive. Counselor Mello brought up that if someone is riding a skateboard on the street, like on your street, with their mother, whoever, a kid. Happened just yesterday. I hope it keeps happening, safely. And there's no sidewalks, that the original ordinance disallowed that. So, we have changed that. Thank you. Also, Counselor Mello brought up that scooters
for mobility, for disabled- Mm-hmm ... individuals with mobility issues. That actually is allowed from the state ADA. However, just to double-check it, we've put it in this revised- Thank you ... ordinance as a minor change. Counselor Matthews-Kane brought up some business sidewalk issues. So, I wanted to thank her and also clarify that right now, pedal bikes are allowed on sidewalks in business areas, except where signs prohibit bikes.
So, namely Elm Street. Well, right now it's only got one faded sign that says, "No bicycles, scooters, or skateboards allowed," but that will change. So, that's already covered under 16-135. At one point in the near future, we're going to modify ordinance 16-135 to add that scooters and skateboards can be prohibited by putting signs in the business district. But that's separate from this, but that's where we're going. So, those are the changes that we made since last time.
Counselor Matthews-Kane. Thank you, Mr. President. I just would like to thank Counselor Oniski for all his hard work on this issue. It's a very complicated ordinance. He's done a wonderful job. I'm grateful. It's going to make the city safer. Thank you. Anything further? Roll call, Madam City Clerk. Right here. Oh, Counselor Adams, sorry. And I think, Counselor Burns, you had your hand up first. Go ahead. Thank you, Counselor Adams. I appreciate that. Counselor Burns. Thank you, Mr. President. By the way, last meeting or first reading, I voted in the negative. After speaking with the chairperson of the L&L, and also Lieutenant Parrish They changed my mind,
so I'm going to change my vote to a yes vote this time, and I appreciate all the work that they've done on this. And of course, it's not final, but it is a good piece of legislation, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Councillor Adams. That was it? I had a kind of a crazy thought, and it only pertains to the bike trail. Why didn't the towns that have the bike trail get together? Because every town could have a different ordinance, which would make it very sloppy for anybody going down the bike trail towards Southwick in Connecticut, because I just went through Southwick and it said no
motorized bicycles. I don't know how you would do this just for the rail trail, without everybody having the same rules. Any thought-- Did that come up at all? Yeah, we could do it just like we're doing it. We can't really control-- There's been no consortium between Westfield, Southwick, going into Connecticut, Granby, all the way down. There hasn't been. It's a monumental task, and I think you are up to it, Councillor Adams. I second that. I just don't know how you could do it, have rules of different towns. Well, it's because it's in each town, just like speed limits could be
different in each town. Yeah, no, I realize that. But- I think the Columbia Bike Trail people, it would probably be in their best interest to maybe do that. Maybe you can refer it to them through L&L, of course. Thank you for your comments. Are we good? Good. Roll call, Vanessa. Adams? Yes. Bean? Yes. Belchande? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fannion? Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Knoppik? Yes. Matthews-Kane? Yes. Mello? Yes. Oniski? Yes. Thank you. Motions, orders, or resolutions. Item 22, Councillor Figgy. Thank you, Mr. President. Motion by Councillor Figgy for ordinance amendments, Chapter 18, Section 18-24A, definition,
residential complex. Delete more than four separate dwelling units, and replace with four units or less. Refer to L&L, Department of Public Works, and Law Department. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion, council? Yeah, there's currently been a disagreement in the interpretation of this ordinance. DPW sees it as if there's four or more, then they don't get curbside pickup. In discussion with Legal, that's not the interpretation Legal has. Legal says up to four. So to clarify this, I have
proposed this language change. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? One last thing. Yes, sir. This affects approximately 68 separate units, group units, of four or less. So, you good? Yep. Anything further? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item 23, Councillor Figgy. Thank you. Motion of Councillor Figgy for ordinance amendment of Chapter 18, Section 18-24C, receptacles, general requirements, five, to amend the fee for additional barrels from $80 per year to $130 per barrel. Refer to L&L, Department of Public Works, and Law
Department, and I'd like to withdraw without prejudice. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Yeah. It was brought to our attention that the current rate for a second barrel is $20 per quarter or $80 a year, which is substantially cheaper than the current rate you pay for your two barrels. This idea I had, after I kept thinking about it, there's more to it than just an additional barrel. How do we prevent neighborhoods from getting together, getting a couple extra barrels, and everybody dumps their trash like a dumpster?
Mm-hmm. So because of that, I didn't want to bog this down at a committee, so we'll withdraw it and bring it back after vacation. Anything further? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Any announcements? None. Council Harris. Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody.