Westfield Business Improvement District Executive Director Maureen Belliveau, foreground seated second from right, listens to the vote to disband the Westfield Business Improvement District during last night’s City Council meeting. (Photo by Frederick Gore)
WESTFIELD – The City Council voted last night to pull the plug on the Westfield Business Improvement District, ending an experiment to foster business and revitalize the city’s downtown commercial core.
The City Council’s vote of 9 to 2 with 1 abstention (Councilor James Adams) came as a result of a petition representing more than 50 percent of property owners in the district.
Some of the property owners seeking to disband the BID cited a lack of progress in fostering business development, stating that the BID was intended to augment city services, not replace them with similar services, such as downtown beautification and sidewalk snow removal.
Members of the Westfield City Council voted 9-2 to dissolve the Westfield Business Improvement District with Councilor James Adams abstaining and Councilor Dave Flaherty absent from last night’s meeting. A standing-room only crowd filled the second floor chamber room. (Photo by Frederick Gore)
The greatest incentive to those business and property owners to dissolve the BID was the action in Boston to change the rules governing BID participation in the Commonwealth. BID membership, when the organization was established in 2006, was voluntary.
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 of not participating in the BID and exempted them from BID dues.
The state Legislature passed a law in 2012 making that membership compulsory and allowing the BID to assess a fee, based on the value of the property, to all qualifying property owners in the district. The BID, which is not a government entity, also has the authority to put a lien on the property of members in arrears on their dues.
“It was voluntary (membership) when BID was formed in 2006,” attorney Brad Moir, whose offices and property are located on Broad Street within the BID boundary, said. “The 2012 amendments changed all of that. In 2013 BID voted to force all owners who opted out to join, but (the opted-out owners) did not have the right to vote because they were not members.”
The Governmental Relations Committee, 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, voted 3-0 in June to recommend that the City Council approve the property owners’ petition to disband BID.
VanHeynigen opened discussion last night, citing “the change in the law making membership mandatory” as the primary reason for the committee’s support of disbanding BID.
“This has been a hot topic for several weeks,” VanHeynigen said. “I think the committee’s recommendation speaks for itself.”
At-large Councilor Dan Allie released a statement to his fellow councilors and the press stating that BID or any successor organization “should be locally controlled and managed” and not under the control of the state or any other governing body.
“The state changed the rules of participation after the fact, and gave authority to a non-elected, non-governmental agency with the power to put liens on property for non-payment of dues,” Allie said, noting that there are only three BIDs in western Massachusetts and Northampton property owners are also seeking to dissolve the BID in that community.
“I would like to propose that we dissolve the BID in a decent and orderly manner, and draft legislation and petition the state for a waiver to allow the City of Westfield to have its own autonomous business improvement program,” Allie said.
Other council members supported creation of a locally controlled organization to foster commercial development and community events.
“This is, for me, a very sad vote to take,” Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell said. “I’m going to vote to dissolve BID with a very heavy heart. I hope we can move forward with a decedent of the BID.”
Ward 3 Councilor Brian Hoose, in whose ward much of the BID district is located, said that he has talked with business and property owners who support dissolving the organization, but with reservations.
“They agree that there have been some benefits to the community,” Hoose said. “We’ll be looking at ideas of coming up with a different organization, what we want and how we want it to work. The change in the state law is the culprit here.”
Hoose suggested that the council wait a year to see if the city can obtain a legislative amendment to the 2012 law amendment.
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph Figy who represents the eastern half of the BID district and who voted against the motion to dissolve the BID said “my fear is that we’ll go backwards. I don’t see a need to rush to judgement here.
“I see both sides of this issue clearly. It’s the hardest decision during my brief time on the council,” Figy said.
At-large Councilor Brian Sullivan, who also voted against the motion, said “BID is bent, it’s not broken.”
“The problem is that people can’t make choices (because of the legislative change in the law), that other people (in Boston) are making those choices for them,” he said.
Ward 6 Councilor Robert Paul Sr., said it is incumbent on the city government and City Council to “come up with a remedy. To say that we’re going to dissolve it and see how it works doesn’t fly.”
