MAUREEN BELLIVEAU
WESTFIELD – Westfield Business Improvement District was established in June of 2006 by the city council through the enabling legislation of Mass. General Law Chapter 40O.
Now, a nascent movement of business owners is seeking a potential dissolution of the organization.
In a letter and petition issued to business owners earlier this month, Wilcox Insurance owner Robert Wilcox, Park Square Realty owner Ted Cassell, and attorney Robert Walker are urging residents to disband the Westfield BID because they feel that legislation imposed by Beacon Hill in an August 2012 ammendment is “unfair and contrary to the initial establishment of the BID”, an organization originally based on volunteer membership.
The ammendment, which was supported by numerous elected officials, including former State Senator Michael R. Knapik and was part of a bill to stimulate job growth and boost economic development statewide, eliminated a provision that allows property owners to opt-out of business improvement districts.
Elizabeth Eiss, right, a professional marketing executive, explains various marketing techniques to business owners enrolled in the Westfield Business Improvement District as part of a marketing seminar at the Spiritual Life Center in Westfield last year. (File photo by Frederick Gore)
In addition, the law requires all business improvement districts statewide to hold renewal votes every five years, which require 51 percent in support of the BID for it to continue.
A favorable vote would then require all property owners within the BID’s boundaries to be members and pay the organization’s annual fees.
According to the letter, the movement to dissolve the Westfield BID sprang up following it’s first renewal vote on October 16 of last year, which passed despite receiving only 36 votes of out of an approximate membership of 105.
Non-BID members that originally “opted out” prior to the legislation were not allowed to participate in the vote, but still received a notification from the BID announcing a “retroactive mandated membership”, along with notification that they would receive an invoice for said membership.
“Mandating membership is wrong and is contrary to the freedom we enjoy as Americans,” the letter reads.
According to Cassell, the organization has evolved into something far different than what it was meant to be.
“When it was originally formed, it was a voluntary organization that property owners could opt out of,” he said. “The petition is for property owners who don’t want to be a part of it.”
“We believe it’s against private property rights and that it’s unconstitutional,” he said. “It shouldn’t be imposed on all property owners.”
Cassell added that the BID would be on track to dissolve if 51 percent of the organization’s membership sign the petition, at which time it would appear before the City Council and the Mayor, who will have the final say.
“A lot of property owners in the BID are privately investing in their businesses,” he said. “It’s going to give people more money to invest instead of paying BID fees. They’re like additional taxes.”
Wilcox, who opted not to join the BID in 2006, questions why it took the organization over a year to hold a vote after the state passed the legislation.
“I don’t know why it took them 15 months to hold a vote, but the membership voted to force opted-out members in without their consent,” he said, adding that he had heard that the organization proxied votes and solicited support from BID members to pass the vote. “Chapter 238 has 100 sections, and sections 19 through 24 deal with business improvement districts, which may have goodies stuffed in that our legislators didn’t know were there. I don’t think our City Council would’ve instituted the BID if they knew this is what would happen.”
Wilcox estimates that he pays around $3,600 in annual fees to the BID, which go towards assisting the city in cleaning the BID’s physical district, a large swath of the city extending from Orange Street as far south as Bliss Street, along with “providing business development and marketing services to it’s members.”
“I don’t have an issue with business improvement districts. If anyone wants to organize, have at it,” he said. “I chose to opt out in 2006 and thought ‘if the BID does great, well, that’s a business risk I take everyday.'”
BID Executive Director Maureen “Mo” Belliveau has held her position since May of 2012, four months before the controversial legislation was enacted, and said that she didn’t believe at the time that it would become the issue it has grown into.
“It added to our membership,” she said. “But I can’t recall at that time if people were upset or not. I would think some people would be.”
Belliveau said that she hasn’t spoken to Cassell, Walker, or Wilcox since the renewal vote, and that the circumstances of the situation are obscuring the value of the organization.
“It is a positive thing,” she said of the BID. “We do help businesses with their maintenance, marketing, and development.”
When asked of why the BID’s board chose to wait as long as it did to take a renewal vote following the legislation’s passing, Belliveau said the board had until 2018 to vote on a renewal, but wanted to be thoughtful of the BID’s current and new members.
“We asked our membership, and they wanted to take it then (in October),” she said.
Regarding Wilcox’ statement about proxy voting, Belliveau said that any member can vote by proxy, and when asked of how the new, formerly opted-out members were shut out of the renewal vote, she added that the BID was following state law, for better or worse.
“They technically were not members,” she said. “State statutes dictated that, which is what guided us through the process.”
“It would seem to me, if another renewal vote didn’t pass, we’d begin the dissolution process, which would be unfortunate,” she said. “Currently, we’re moving forward on a daily basis, but I can’t see the future.”
