Westfield Mayor Brian P. Sullivan addresses Special City Council meeting on Tuesday. (Photo by Amy Porter)
WESTFIELD – Mayor Brian P. Sullivan and staff from the Water and Law departments answered a barrage of questions about the $13 million bond for water filtration at a special meeting of the City Council Tuesday evening. A packed gallery came with signs and listened quietly, as no public participation was included on the agenda.
The majority of the questions came from the City Councilors who defeated the bond measure at the March 15 meeting, citing at the time a lack of financial information and questions they had regarding the legal process for the city to recoup the money from the Department of Defense. At-large Councilor Dave Flaherty, one of those who had voted down the bond, responded to the call for questions, sending a list of more than forty to the Mayor’s office before the meeting.
City Council president John J. Beltrandi, III thanked everyone for coming, and asked the Mayor to come to the podium to begin the meeting.
Sullivan said the city’s focus has been on bringing clean drinking water back to the residents of the north side. He also said he hoped to get a motion for resubmission of the $13 million bond at the meeting.
“Some have asked what is the difference in the motion tonight – financially and mechanically, nothing,” Sullivan said. He said he brought with him Law, Water, Purchasing, Treasurer, Collector, DPW, Water Commissioners and his office to answer questions, along with representatives from Tighe & Bond and CDM Smith, who did most of the engineering and preparation for the work to be done on city wells.
Residents brought signs in lieu of public participation. (Photo by Amy Porter)
Sullivan said another question he has been asked is why the city is moving so quickly on the project. “In my world, it’s been a two year process to get where we’re at,” he said. He added that yesterday he signed a contract with Calgon for the temporary filtration system for Well 2, which he expects to be completed by the end of July.
Sullivan emphasized that this was a temporary solution to get through the summer. He said they planned to work through the winter on a pumping station for Wells 7 and 8, to get them running early next year, and then begin work on the station for Wells 1 and 2.
Another question Sullivan said he has been asked is why the city is so over budget on the initial $5 million bond. “That was based on what we wanted to do. Got into this, and realized it wasn’t what we needed to do, “Sullivan said, adding that they were learning as they went, including the fact that they needed full bench-scale testing to be done. “The cost was higher than $5 million,” he said.
He said the increase voted in water rates over a two-year period will come to approximately $80 per year for a four person household, and will cover the bond request. He said as far as why residents are paying, his goal is “not to have that happen.”
“We have sued three manufacturers of fire-fighting foam. It’s a lengthy process,” he said, later adding that the suit is for $50 million. He said it took the city two years to get the information together for Kennedy and Madonna, the law firm that is representing them. “We feel confident that it won’t happen tomorrow,” he said.
Sullivan said they have also filed a tort claim with the Department of Defense for $46.8 million.
Sullivan said he would want any settlement dollars to go to pay down the bond. “I need a vote of nine of you to pass a bond,” Sullivan concluded.
Beltrandi then asked DPW Assistant Director Francis Cain and Systems Engineer Heather Miller to answer questions about the project. DPW Director David Billips is out on medical leave until April.
At-large Councilor Matthew Emmershy, who serves on the Finance Committee, said at their meeting on March 8, they were given little financial information on the $13 million bond, and no breakdown on the $5 million bond. The Mayor responded that Miller’s report, which was on the Council shared drive, had a financial breakdown in it. He printed it out, and gave copies to the councilors.
“The projects are in various stages of design and bidding. Finalized costs won’t be known until contracts are signed,” Cain said, then reminded them that Tighe & Bond, and CDM Smith representatives were available to answer more detailed questions.
DPW Assistant Director Francis Cain. (Photo by Amy Porter)
In response to a question about the status of the city’s water tanks, repair and replacement of which is included in the bond, Cain said the East Mountain Road tank is in dire need of replacement. He said the deteriorated dome has been replaced once or twice, and leaking water had been repaired over the years.
Ward 3 Councilor Andrew K. Surprise asked about the system failure at the Northwest Water Tank last year. Miller said after the tank dropped last year, they took a look at it and found a valve that had been improperly installed. She said it has been operational with no issues since that time.
Surprise then asked if the Springfield Interconnect might not be needed, since the tank failure was due to the valve.
Miller said that currently, two low yield wells (Wells 5 and 6) are being used, and the Springfield interconnect would provide redundancy to the south side when the Granville reservoir is offline.
Returning to the subject later in the meeting, Sullivan said the city is not taking 5 and 6 offline until they negotiate a contract with the Springfield connector.
Emmershy said that DPW Director David Billips had said Springfield water charges a “ridiculously high rate.” Cain said that is due to the standby rate they are currently being charged. He said the Springfield water facility is ready to go, but is currently only used on an as-needed basis which is more costly.
Flaherty said it “just so happened” that his mother-in-law’s father used to be a DPW director in Westfield, and she reminded him before the meeting that in the 1950’s, when Springfield was allowed to use the Westfield land, the agreement was for special consideration for water. Mayor Sullivan said he would check into that original agreement.
DPW Systems Engineer Heather Miller (Photo by Amy Porter)
Surprise also asked about water movement to the north side of the city. Miller said currently only Well 1 is operational on the north side. She said there is water that moves across the river, but it doesn’t move fast enough to meet high demand. She explained that it is not being pumped across the river, but is a gravity-fed system. She said in order for the city to pump water to the north side, they would need a series of pumps, which would be highly expensive.
Emmershy said the new sheet of figures they were given by the Mayor totals $15.6 million. He said adding in the $460,000 for tank repairs and the $2.7 million for the E. Mountain tank replacement, would exceed $18 million.
Miller said there were early planning and contingencies built in. “It’s the best number that we have to go on. We are receiving more information from specific tank designs,” she said.
“This shows $1.7 million in contingency, so maybe there’s some wiggle room,” Flaherty said.
The Mayor also said the premise was to have the contingency for all of the projects combined.
At-large Councilor and Finance Committee chair Dan Allie asked about the temporary facility to be constructed for Well 2. “How much of the contaminants will be addressed,” Allie asked.
Miller said it was being designed to treat all five PFCOs.
Allie also asked if the temporary facility would be able to run through the winter. Miller said it would under normal capacity. Later in the meeting, she added that the approvals in the permitting process would only be good short-term, and it would cost 50% more to run the temporary filtration system.
Allie went on to say that some of the councilors have proposed a lesser bond of $7.5 million to address all but the permanent facility at Wells 1 and 2, in order to first get an agreement with the Air Force. Allie asked whether anyone from the city had contacted the federal overseeing agency to seek to obtain an environmental services agreement (CERCLA), to ensure any action by the city would not adversely affect reimbursement. He also asked whether they had contacted state legislators.
City Solicitor Susan C. Phillips answers lawsuit questions. (Photo by Amy Porter)
“Yes, we have reached out to the legislators. It’s up to us to assert our claim,” City Solicitor Susan C. Phllips said in response to Allie’s questions. She also said there hasn’t yet been an acknowledgement of U.S. responsibility for the contamination.
As for the CERCLA process of an agreement, Phillips called it “very slow and onerous.” She said CERCLA (more commonly known as “superfund”), is being litigated in the courts.
Phillips also said, as of right now, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is “standing down,” and added that PFCO’s are not currently on the CERCLA list for hazardous materials.
Phillips also said in January, the city sat with the Air National Guard (ANG) and the DEP and went over their process. She said the Mayor speaks with them every two weeks.
“I actually spoke with Kennedy and Madonna. I don’t think I articulated (how important) it is that we work as a city. Right now, the advice you’re getting from some of the lawyers directly contradicts what our lawyers are saying,” Phillips said. She said of the three big environmental lawyers in the country, the city has hired two of them. “We’re looking at what is the likelihood of getting the most damages,” she said.
Allie said his point is about not doing work in advance that the government won’t reimburse.
Phillips said in July, 2017, the city sent an eight page letter to the ANG putting them on notice, which is a pre-requisite before filing suit. She said the ANG has six months to respond. The ANG sent a letter on March 14 saying they have completed Phase I of their testing.
Surprise asked why the city hadn’t spoken with Randy Chambers, the attorney with the ANG.
“Because he advises them. We should not be talking to them,” Phillips said. She said at the Jan. 20 meeting with the Mayor, herself, the treasurer, the Board of Health and the Department of Defense; they went over the CERCLA process. “In the interest of time, I disagree with the analysis, and totally disagree with going to the defendant,” Phillips said.
Flaherty said that the Council is being presented with an $18 million bond, and the city is suing the Department of Defense for $46.8 million. He asked whether that is the amount the taxpayers would have to cover.
Phillips said in filing the lawsuit, they were advised to ratchet it up, which was part of the reason it took so long. “We had to put in every cost. It is our best guess of the worst case scenario,” Phillips said. She also said most of the cases settle.
Emmershy asked Phillips what period of time the $46 million in total damages covers.
“I believe it’s the life span or repayment of the bond,” Phillips replied. The city is seeking a 30-year bond.
Ward 6 City Councilor William Onyski. (WNG File Photo)
“I have a comment for Law and everybody. This affects Ward 6 and Ward 1. Doesn’t anybody care?” asked Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski. “This is a matter of trust. Nobody’s trusting the Mayor, or the Law Department,” he added.
“It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we had five line items,” Surprise responded, referring to the short list that was given to the Finance Committee when they first gave a negative recommendation on the bond.
At large Councilor Brent B. Bean, II asked the Mayor what was the alternative if the bond didn’t pass.
“We’re moving forward with Well 2 whether the bond passes or not,” Sullivan said, adding that he didn’t have a backup plan. “This is the plan,” he said.
“I don’t have a question. I want to thank the Mayor and the department heads, and Sue Phillips for coming. I voted one way the last time. I’m going to vote the same way. We are holding hostage Ward 1, Ward 6 and Ward 2,” said Babinski, for the first time at the meeting. She said she had heard some of the questions and answers for the second and third times. “I really hope that the (five) councilors got their questions answered. It confirmed for me the way I felt before. These people have done a wonderful job to protect the residents,” Babinski added.
Flaherty made a motion to suspend the rules, and then made a motion to send the $13 million bond to the Finance Committee. The motion was defeated 8-4, with Flaherty, Allie, Emmershy and Surprise in favor.
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph J. Figy, who chairs the Legislative & Ordinance Committee, made a motion to send it to L&O. Bean said all bond orders should go to L&O. The motion passed 10-2, with Emmershy and Surprise opposed. Beltrandi said all council members have the opportunity to go to the L&O meeting and participate.
Kristen Mello, co-founder of WRAFT symbolically wears tape at the meeting which did not allow public participation, and Matthew Roman prepares to hold a sign. (Photo by Amy Porter)
“I think what it comes down to is transparency, and sharing everything that’s going on. I’m disappointed it’s not going back to Finance,” Surprise said.
“I can’t agree with you more,” Sullivan said about transparency. “We’re here. We want to do this,” he added.
“I want to take a minute to thank everybody in the room,” Beltrandi said.
“This was a great experience – maybe we should do more of it, and work at really trying to correct those things we think are wrong here. We owe it to these people to get our act together,” Babinski said, nodding to the gallery.
“This meeting happened because four councilors were willing to vote against the bond, as we were presented with very little information. I appreciate everything that happened tonight,” said Allie, adding, “I still may make a motion for another bond.”
Ward 3 City Councilor Andrew Surprise (WNG File Photo)
Morganelli thanked the people for sitting respectfully throughout the meeting.
Figy promised to have a transparent L&O committee meeting that will be televised on Channel 15, “in an effort to expedite the process and with all of the additional information provided tonight. Our rules state that all bonds go through L&O,” he said after the meeting.
Flaherty said he wanted to thank all of the department heads and the Mayor for providing the information. “They answered most of our questions. It was very good,” he said.
Surprise was less convinced. “I don’t think the process the Law Department is going through is entirely correct, looking at other communities with the environmental services agreement, and with those who spent money and were not paid back,” he said. “Her answer is we’re filing a lawsuit so we shouldn’t talk to the people who could give us the money through the CERCLA process,” Surprise added.
