WESTFIELD – The City Council’s Governmental Relations Committee voted last night to recommend dissolution of the Westfield Business Improvement District to the full City Council at its July meeting.
The committee discussed the petition, submitted by property owners, to dissolve the BID. The petition to dissolve the BID was initiated by a group of businessmen and property owners dissatisfied with the recent change in the state law establishing Business Improvement Districts within the Commonwealth.
That group, led by Ted Cassell, Robert Wilcox and Brad Moir, submitted a petition to the City Clerk, which under state law, could lead to the dissolution of the Business Improvement District, established in 2006.
The City Council conducted a public hearing at its June 5 meeting to allow both BID opponents and proponents to argue the merits of the BID organization.
Many of the BID opponents made a decision to “opt out” under the original 1994 state law which allowed businesses and property owners the option 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 Governmental Relations Committee members cited that state law change making BID membership compulsory as the reason for their vote to give the full City Council a recommendation to disband the organization.
Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell, who served on the three-person steering committee which led to the creation of the Westfield Business Improvement District, made the motion to support the dissolution of the BID.
“The BID is near and dear to my heart,” O’Connell said. “I have been a supporter of BID, served on its Board (of Directors), but when 2012 legislation, making participation mandatory, passed, that was when the BID lost it.”
“That legislation creates a problem for us,” O’Connell said. “It’s the old taxation without representation situation. I wish the law had not changed.”
Ward 3 Councilor Brian Hoose, whose district encompasses half of the BID area, said that he was swayed by the arguments of the property owners who signed the petition to disband the organization.
“But as many said (during the public hearing) when it became mandatory for a service you’re not receiving a benefit for, there are people paying (the BID surtax) and not benefiting at all,” Hoose said. “I really don’t like having a dualistic model, this or nothing.”
Hoose suggested “putting off a decision to allow time for the people to come up with a Plan B” that would keep the BID intact, but modify the mandatory participation.
“I have a good number of these businesses in Ward 3,” Hoose said. “I’d like to keep the benefits and get rid of the determents.”
Committee Chairman Matthew VanHeynigen, and a long-time former member of the Planning Board, said he has been an “outspoken (supporter) of downtown revitalization.”
“The BID has been in position for seven or eight years. I have seen some benefits, but the law was changed (compelling membership) by the property owners,” VanHeynigen said.
O’Connell said that, “due to the fact that the (public) hearing is closed, we’d just be prolonging this decision” then made the motion to present the full City Council with a recommendation to dissolve the BID.
At-large Councilors David A. Flaherty and Dan Allie spoke after the committee adjourned the meeting. Both Flaherty and Allie said they supported the position of the Governmental Relations Committee.
Allie submitted a Letter to the Editor of the Westfield News in which he states that “The BID or any other similar enterprise or partnership should be locally controlled and managed, voluntary and not under the control of the state. The state changed the rules of participation after the fact and handed authority over to a non-elected, non-governmental agency with the power to put liens on property for non-payment of member dues.”
“The problem with the BID model in Westfield is it is a flawed concept, based upon arbitrary borders, and a gerrymandered district,” Allie said in the letter. “It affects some businesses and property owners, but not others. It exempts or accepts non-profits and government from meeting the same obligations as the private sector, with the ability to inflict penalties for non-compliance. This places an unfair burden on the private sector, and those businesses or private properties located in the affected area.”
VanHeynigen said that he will not bring the issue before the City Council tomorrow because Ward 2 Councilor Ralph Figy, in whose ward the other half of the BID is located, will not be present. VanHeynigen said that he plans to bring the committee’s recommendation out at the July 7 meeting.
