WESTFIELD – The second reading of the $13 million water bond was defeated with eight councilors voting for it, and five against, following a one-hour debate at Thursday’s City Council meeting. Nine votes are required to pass a bond request.
At-Large City Councilor and City Council President John Beltrandi
Voting for the bond were Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski, Ward 2 Councilor Ralph J. Figy, Ward 4 Councilor Michael J. Burns, Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul, Sr., Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski, and At-large Councilors Brent B. Bean, II, John J. Beltrandi, III and Cindy C. Harris.
Voting down the bond were Ward 3 Councilor Andrew K. Surprise, and At-large Councilors Dan Allie, Matthew Emmershy, David Flaherty and Nicholas J. Morganelli, Jr. Allie and Morganelli had voted for the bond on the first reading.
Prior to the vote, several residents from the affected wards spoke, urging the councilors to support the bond. Also speaking was Kristen Mello of Westfield Residents Advocating for Themselves (WRAFT), who referred to a letter from the organization Silent Spring Institute, about “the potential installation of treatment on Wells 7 and 8 for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).” This letter became important during the debate, as several councilors referenced it in their comments.
The following are excerpts from statements of Councilors during the debate as to why they voted as they did.
Ward Two Councilor Ralph J. Figy
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph J. Figy brought forth the motion for a second vote and final passage of the bond. Figy said the council had received “a ton of information, a ton of research.” He reminded councilors that the vote was for a bond, with no specific amounts to be spent. “If suddenly a new treatment comes up that’s better than carbon filtration,” Figy said, implying that it could be considered.
Ward 3 Councilor Andrew K. Surprise referred to the letter from the Silent Spring Institute, which stated that “some PFASs are not well-removed by granular activated carbon (GAC).”
“Those things make me question why we should rush forward with this,” Surprise said, adding that a report from Tighe and Bond that had just been received indicated to him that a feasibility study on connecting to Holyoke Water could be completed in a few weeks. “My suggestion is to table this for a few weeks,” Surprise said.
Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul, Sr.
“Unless I’m missing this, no testing has been done of Holyoke water,” said Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul, Sr. He said the plan would also be dependent on management of the city’s water by Holyoke. “Those are two flaws that I see,” Paul said.
At-large Councilor Matthew Emmershy asserted that Holyoke water was an unfiltered system on which tests are done frequently. “Overall, it’s good water. We don’t have the chemicals in that water coming in,” Emmershy said.
“In my mind this is a political issue at this point,” said Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski, who has been a vocal proponent of passing the bond from the beginning.
“We do not have the latest DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) data on Holyoke water versus trusting the city we live in and the engineers we have. I personally don’t want to depend on another city to give us water. We’re accountable for the infrastructure in our city. We have to be accountable,” said Paul.
Ward 4 Councilor Michael Burns added to Paul’s sentiment, noting that currently Sackett Road residents are being kicked off the Springfield line and will be digging wells. He said Southampton was also kicking residents off their line.
Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski
“We’ve been around the block I don’t know how many times. This bond can be passed tonight. There are things that might change as we go forward. This was all a new process for everybody. We’re still finding out new information. Are we going to kick the can down the road, or give residents relief with filtered water,” said Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski.
Babinski added that she hasn’t seen anyone detail plans or costs from alternate proposals. “I don’t have to hear anything more. We’re here at the moment that we have to pass the bond.” she said, adding that the bond is just an authorization to go forward.
At-large Councilor Dan Allie said the city had money from the $5 million appropriation last year. City Council president John J. Beltrandi, III reminded Allie that the vote on the floor was for the $13 million bond.
At-Large Councilor Dan Allie
“This is not just about the cost,” Allie said, reading from the letter from the Silent Spring Institute, including the assertion that “even after GAC treatment, there will still be PFAS’s in the drinking water including lower amounts of the chemicals that are well removed, and slight amounts of the PFASs that are not effectively removed by GAC.”
Allie said the City Council would support a lot of options. “We’re fighting to get the answers, and we’re being attacked for it,” he said.
At-large Councilor Dave Flaherty began by thanking the Mayor and the Law Department for the information they’ve shared with the City Council. “We got a lot of answers,” Flaherty said. “On the other side, sometimes engineers get myopic,” he added.
“Two things: Are we sure this is the best option? Right now, I’m’ not convinced it’s the best solution. Are we sure we are getting reimbursed? I’m not sure we’re ever going to be reimbursed. I feel we are being dumped on by the DEP. In the best case scenario, it will be a fraction of what we ask for,” Flaherty said, adding, “I still haven’t decided. Those are my concerns, if we’re going to be on the hook for this.”
“This is why I’ll be supporting the bond,” said At-large Councilor Brent B. Bean, II. “When asked the question, what is the most important thing that we do; it’s public safety. Even if there is no way we get reimbursed, would we still do this. I would absolutely still do this even if we don’t get reimbursed,” Bean said, adding that it’s been a “fantastic process.”
“If it was our fault, and we were spraying foam on some property, would we still do this,” Bean asked.
City Council At-Large candidate Matt Emmershy.
Emmershy said that new testing on Well 2 has “popped” with no detectible chemicals. He said Well 1 has shown low-to-mid teens for its levels. He said he would rather support temporary filtration on Wells 1 & 2, than permanent filtration on Wells 7 & 8.
“I’ve heard all of the explanations time and again. I know the DPW and the Water Department did their due diligence. The only thing that is guaranteed is death and taxes,” said Babinski, adding, “There are a lot of maybes. I don’t want to wait for that for people on the north side to get something more permanent. I am satisfied with all the questions and all the answers. I’ve heard information from people on the outside. If you’re willing to buy water from me, I’m going to say anything you want to hear. I’m going to vote to approve,” Babinski said.
“I find it hard to understand why anyone would go outside, when the Ward 1 Councilor has all of the information. If there’s one expert in town, it’s the Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski,” said Figy.
City Councilor Cindy C. Harris
“Our DPW director is a chemical engineer who is extremely capable,” said At-large Councilor Cindy C. Harris, adding that she was sure he had explored all the options. “It is disingenuous for anyone to say that these experts are not doing the best for Westfield. I suggest to everyone that you can count on these people, they have your best interests at heart,” Harris said.
At-large Councilor Nicholas J. Morganelli, Jr., said he concurred about the city’s engineers. “I myself have learned a lot. The one thing I’m learning is scientific evidence that some of these particles do not get cleaned (caught) by carbon. Is granulated carbon the best thing we have right now,” Morganelli asked, adding that going forward he is going to request that departments do extra research.
At-Large Councilor Nicholas J. Morganelli, Jr.
Morganelli also agreed that Holyoke water is a great source of water, adding that filtering and chlorinating Holyoke water is a viable option and worth exploring. He said as the chair of the Public, Health and Safety sub-committee, going forward he will have an update on water safety in the city on the agenda at every meeting. “People are not talking to each other respectfully and professionally. The communication between the body and departments needs to get better,” Morganelli added.
Before the vote, Morganelli reread the bond order, which included permanent filtration on Wells 7 & 8, temporary filtration on Well 2, Springfield interconnect and water tank.
After the meeting, Morganelli said he voted against the bond for two reasons. “One, there is a lot of new information that I’ve personally become aware of, and two, the Mayor said he would be ready to issue a new bond. I was concerned about (Wells) 7 and 8 the whole time. Contaminants are through the roof,” Morganelli said.
Ward 3 Councilor Andrew K. Surprise (WNG File Photo)
“I’d really like to see the Mayor give us a new bond order, even if it’s more money. Residents deserve clean water. I don’t trust Wells 7 & 8 even if we take the contaminated soil out. I probably had an equal number of residents telling me to vote both ways. As Public Health & Safety chair, we’re going to have it on every agenda. The Water Department can have someone there,” Morganelli added. “I was leaning toward yes. This will probably go down as the toughest vote I will ever take on the Council. I want people to have clean, safe water. Wells 7 & 8 – that’s why I read the bond. If it didn’t say Wells 7 & 8…” he said.
“For me, it was talking to the National Guard Bureau. We had to go outside of the city to get the information,” Surprise said.
