WESTFIELD – A vote to consolidate and transfer six parcels of land off Elm Street for development by the Westfield Redevelopment Authority failed Thursday night and will be reconsidered at the council’s Sept. 18 session.
The vote to transfer the city land to the WRA required a super majority, nine votes, but failed twice when only eight councilors voted to approve the land transfer.
According to the city’s website “The Westfield Redevelopment Authority (WRA) is a corporate and politic body, established by the City of Westfield and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under former Massachusetts General Laws (“MGL”) Chapter 121, Section 2600, the predecessor to the present MGL Chapter 121B, Section 4 (Chapter 121 was recodified in 1969 as Chapter 121B).
“The WRA has the powers of an ‘operating agency’ and additional powers as an ‘urban renewal agency’. The broad development capabilities of the WRA include the power to engage in ‘urban renewal projects’ and other projects, the power to buy and sell property, the power to acquire property through eminent domain, and the power to designate projects under MGL Chapter 121A.
City Advancement Officer, and WRA executive director, Joseph Mitchell said following the vote that only two municipal agencies, the WRA and the Housing Authority, have the ability to execute an urban renewal plan, which includes assembly of the site for development, which includes development of a Pioneer Valley Transportation Authority bus facility.
“The PVTA is actively pursuing development of the intermodal facility that impacts five of the six parcels,” Mitchell said after adjournment of the council session. “The PVTA’s efforts are a significant part of the (Elm Street) Urban Renewal Plans and they are significantly further along on the process than the city.”
Mitchell said the WRA has the authority to assemble the parcels and facilitate the PVTA portion of the redevelopment project.
Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell said that she voted at the July 7 council session to support the first reading of the order authorizing the land transfer.
“Then I did a little investigating, talked to members of the WRA. They never discussed transferring these six parcels over to their board,” O’Connell said. “They recently met and did in fact vote on this issue.
“I don’t feel we should turn this responsibility over to the WRA. We can respond as quickly as possible when they need us to do so,” O’Connell said. “I feel that we should not abdicate our responsibility and turn over authority and control (to the WRA).”
At-large Councilor David Flaherty said that he also has concerns, but stated he would vote yes when the roll was called.
“We used to have City Council representation on the WRA,” Flaherty said “The WRA is now appointed by the mayor, but we should have someone on the WRA so we have more control.”
Ward 3 Councilor Brian Hoose, in whose ward the Elm Street development is located, said the city is not losing the property.
“Once the project is done, some of that property will be coming back to the city,” Hoose said. “We do things that create more and more delays and that increase the cost. This (transfer) speeds up the process. We are in competition with the world and surrounding communities for development investment.”
At-large Councilor James R. Adams said that during the years the city has controlled the property, no action has been taken.
“We haven’t done anything with it for years,” Adams said, adding that he has trust that Mitchell and the WRA will act in the interest of the city.
“We’re still involved. We’re only giving the WRA the opportunity to do something for the downtown,” Adams said.
The Council then voted, resulting in an 8-4 decision. Several members though that it has passed, but O’Connell sited law that required a two-thirds (9) vote to be approved. Flaherty then challenged the vote on the grounds that President Pro Tem Christopher Keefe had failed to inform the councilors of the required majority to gain approval.
Keefe agreed with Flaherty’s citing of the council’s rules and called for a second vote. Councilors Adams, Christopher Crean, Ralph Figy, Flaherty, Hoose, Robert Paul Sr., Brian Sullivan and Matthew VanHeynigen vote yes, while Councilors Dan Allie, Cindy Harris, Keefe and O’Connell voted no. Council President Brent B. Bean II was not in the chambers Thursday night.
Flaherty, as a councilor on the losing side of the vote, called for reconsideration at the next meeting, a motion which passed 7-5. Councilor Sullivan who had voted to approve the transfer, voted against the reconsideration motion.
