WESTFIELD – The City Council’s Governmental Relations Committee is scheduled to discuss the petition of downtown property owners to dissolve the city’s Business Improvement District tomorrow night following the June 5 public hearing at which both sides of that issue argued, often passionately, to either end or continue the organization.
The committee will bring the issue to the full City Council, which will vote on the future of the BID, perhaps as soon as Thursday.
The Governmental Relations Committee is comprised of Chairman Matthew VanHeynigen, an At-large councilor who was a long-serving member of the Planning Board prior to his election last November, Ward 3 Councilor Brian Hoose whose ward encompasses half of the business district, and Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell, a businesswoman and long-time supporter of initiatives to revitalize the downtown.
The committee can present the council with a positive recommendation to grant the petition to dissolve the BID, a negative recommendation to maintain the current BID structure or give no recommendation at all on the action the full City Council should take.
The Westfield Business Improvement District was established in 2006 and membership was voluntary.
Many of the current BID opponents made a decision to “opt out” under the original 1994 state law which allowed businesses and property owners not to participate in the BID and exempted them from BID dues. Those owners and businessmen feel they were shanghaied into the BID, and its dues, when the law was changed in 2012.
The petitioners, property owners and business owners argued that the current structure of the BID is flawed. They argue that too many of the voting members are non-profit and not-for-profit organizations, which are exempt from paying the BID surtax on property within the district.
The proponents of dissolving the BID have also argued that the district was gerrymandered to include those non-paying members. BID opponents termed the mandatory BID dues “double taxation” and argued that BID was intended to supplement city services to the downtown, not replace them.
The opponents state that they were pushed to action when the state Legislature changed the state law governing BIDs in 2012 and allowed the BID to impose the tax/fee on non-participating members.
The original law, signed by Governor William Weld, allowed businesses and property owners to opt out of membership, while the revised law, signed by Governor Deval Patrick, allowed BIDs to close that opt out loop and force all property owners to be subject to the BID tax/fee.
BID proponents argue that the downtown revitalization effort needs an organization to sustain a “cohesive effort” to improve the downtown district. Those proponents argue that the beautification efforts of the BID have made people feel safer coming downtown and that it has fostered the city center as a dining, cultural and entertainment destination which has brought a substantial number of city residents downtown.
