DAVID FLAHERTY
This week I’d like to talk about several issues. It’s a very busy time of year for the City Council. I know most of you have lots of activities and demands on your time – especially at this time of year, but this is the time of year when we need involvement from the public in order to affect the city budget, city services, and ultimately your tax bill.
BUDGET AND TAXES. As you know, I’ve written several articles about the financial realities of the city’s budget. We have ever-increasing expenses, and limited ability to raise funds through taxes and fees. I believe when you look at our current cash flows, operating expenses, and limits on our ability to raise income, that it is mathematically impossible to pay off our debts and obligations. We are currently deferring almost $20 million per year – that’s money your children and grandchildren will have to pay for services you receive today. That’s not fair to future generations.
We depend on state aid for about $40 million, or about 1/3 of our annual operating budget. Unfortunately, state aid has failed to increase proportionally with expenses, and has not even kept up with the state imposed Proposition 2 ½ limits that this city must live with. For those of you who remember pie charts, the pie is getting bigger every year, but the slice that represents state aid is shrinking. This places more burdens directly on the city taxpayers, and it means that in order to control local tax increases, we have to make government more efficient and reduce the growth rates in expenses. Both have proven to be a major, mostly political, challenge. We really need help from the public. If the City Council decides to make budget cuts this year to have a more realistic sustainable budget, we need your help and support.
A huge portion of the expense pie is employee salaries and benefits. Even before the city agreed to new labor contracts, we had already projected budget deficits for the coming years. The calculations were based on the Mayor’s own rosy-looking revenue and expense forecasts provided to us last year. The calculations also assumed that the city would keep ignoring its long-term obligations. I don’t know how anyone can justify agreeing to unsustainable increases in costs when we know the math just doesn’t work. Now that these contracts are signed, and as we enter this budget cycle, we’re stuck. This budget is going to be a real challenge. In order to address shortages in revenue, the Mayor is proposing that we max out Proposition 2 ½ (your property taxes), and that we increase both the meals and lodging (hotel) taxes. This will result in higher costs every time you eat out, and for everyone who wants to stay in a hotel in Westfield. Based on the current estimate, this will bring in about $40,000 per month. That means you and everyone else in town will have about $40,000 less to spend every month on things that are important to you and your family. Local businesses that depend on your spending will see drops in revenue. Drops in revenue may result in job losses. All this because the city can’t control increases in expenses (77 percent of which relates to labor and benefit costs) and can’t accept the harsh realities of basic math.
THE NEW SCHOOL AND WIELGUS FARM. This month the City Council was asked by the Mayor to take 33 acres of the Wielgus Farm on Main Street by eminent domain. The city wants to build a new recreational facility to house a variety of sports fields and activity areas. The Mayor wants to forcibly take this active farmland from Mrs. Wielgus and her family. This is one of the few active farms and large green spaces we have in the downtown area. It’s been in her family for about 75 years. It’s in a flood plain. The City Council has been asked to approve the spending of $260,000 for the acquisition. I’m really opposed to this for two reasons. First, I believe that farms and green spaces are an asset to the community and I don’t feel we should use eminent domain power to take away this working farm from a family that does not want to sell the property. Second, I don’t believe we can afford it. We haven’t been given any budget, nor been asked to approve any money to actually build the park or cover its annual operating expenses. We can’t take adequate care of the parks we already have. We know the city budget is in crisis. How do we expect to pay for the development and upkeep of this new park? Where’s the money going to come from? More taxes? More deferrals onto the future generations?
The real reason for this eminent domain action relates to the Cross Street new school project. The city demolished a recreational facility on Cross Street, and the court has ordered that the city is required to find an approved replacement, before the city can continue building the school. The school folks and the Mayor are starting to pressure the City Council to take this land so that the school project can proceed. They are telling members of the City Council that if the city doesn’t take the land, and the project is held up, that the city will have to refund the state over a million dollars. They are trying to guilt us into voting by saying “we owe it to the children” or “by not doing this, you’ll be hurting the children who deserve great schools”. They fail to mention that the reason they are in this position is because they played fast and loose with the laws and regulations, they got caught by the neighbors, and the court agreed with the neighbors. This is not the City Council’s fault. This is the consequence of ignoring the law and rushing things through without following procedures. In September of 2012, Judge Tina Page said “I find Westfield’s insistence in ignoring its environmental responsibilities to its citizens as well as the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth particularly ironic, where it simultaneously seeks to build an elementary school to educate our future leaders.” She nailed it.
I don’t think we should attempt to correct one mistake by making another. Mrs. Wielgus and her family should be entitled to keep their land. If the city wants to build more parks, there are several other options, but before we even get that far, we should have a realistic sustainable budget that shows that we can build and maintain such a facility. Superintendent Scallion ended her presentation before City Council the other night saying “If you want to leave footprints in the future, don’t drag your feet”. I’d like the end my conversation about this by saying “Don’t stomp all over the rights of Mrs. Wielgus, in order to make up for the mess created by a myopic, heavy-handed, law-ignoring administration”.
THE SIGN CASE. Speaking of consequences… I know many of you are furious that even though the Mayor was found to have violated federal law, that he is not personally facing the consequences – he’s making the taxpayers foot his legal bill. This is absolutely wrong, and the arguments suggesting that he should be covered by the city’s indemnity clause are severely flawed. As far as I’m concerned, he owes the taxpayers of Westfield $93,000. Federal District Judge Ponsor wrote a very thorough 46-page summary judgment. In this judgment, there were several findings of facts. He ruled that Mr. Knapik violated our First Amendment Rights, while acting outside his scope of duties, when he ordered city employees to remove our campaign signs that were placed across the street from his house. Nowhere in that document, nor in any subsequent document, does it say that the mayor acted “unintentionally”. On pages 37 through 39, Judge Ponsor explained that Mr. Knapik acted “outside his normal ambit of responsibility” and was not protected by qualified immunity. He completely discounted Mr. Knapik’s claims about a safety issue when he said “the defendant’s safety justification collapses…. in the face of the undisputed fact”. When Mr. Knapik argued that it was all an “innocent mistake”, the judge said “defendant should have known” and “demonstrated indifference”, and that his actions were “particularly egregious”. The city’s indemnity clause says that an employee is not covered if he acts outside the scope of his official duties. It also says that an employee is not covered if the he acted in a grossly negligent, willful or malicious manner. The summary judgment covered both of these.
I’d also like to address the claims that we were suing for “money” damages. That just isn’t true. We were entitled to sue for damages, and we filed the appropriate claims for that as part of the legal strategy. However, we also made it very clear that we wanted ZERO DOLLARS for damages. Attorney Pikula knew this a long time ago. He asked me a direct question about that during my deposition over a year ago. He was told that we were not seeking monetary damages. When the judge asked us about damages during an early hearing, we told the court (while Attorney Pikula was present) that we were not seeking monetary damages. When we filed our motion for summary judgment, we didn’t even attempt to make a case for any monetary damages. His claim about damages is another attempt to discredit me and the other plaintiffs, while discounting the clearly illegal actions of his client, Mr. Knapik.
SENIOR CENTER. The City Council will be voting on a $7.5 million bond request for the Senior Center. This is pretty much a done deal. There are over 8,000 seniors in town, and over 2,000 used the Senior Center services last year. The seniors have been waiting years for this, they’ve been promised this, and I don’t think anyone will be voting against the building of this facility. The longer we wait, the more it costs. I know the price is shocking for many people, and I’d certainly like to see this cost less but we’ve been assured by experts that this is a reasonable price given the requirements of that facility, the size of the facility, and the state-mandating prevailing wage costs and building standards. I would like to see the city use the $4.3 million bond premium funds (money the city has available after a recent large bonding transaction) before we borrow new money. That could reduce the new borrowing to $3.2million.
GAZEBO. Big congratulations and thanks go out to the students at Voc. The gazebo on Park Square Green is starting to take shape. This has been a long process – typical for many government projects. Hopefully everyone involved has gained some great experience that will help them in the future. Again, congratulations!
SENIORS. Congratulations also go out to all of the high school seniors who will be graduating this year. Commencement ceremonies are only a few weeks away. You’ve all accomplished a lot and I know that your family, friends, and teachers are all very proud of you. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
At the start of this article I mentioned involvement. If you’d like to make a difference, please attend some of our upcoming City Council meetings, speak your mind during “public speak”, contact your councilors, and write letters to the editor or social networking messages. The meeting schedule and agendas can be found on the City website at www.CityofWestfield.org.
Dave Flaherty
Westfield City Councilor
[email protected]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of this publication.
