Mayor Brian Sullivan offers his “Communications from the Mayor” prior to a meeting of the Westfield City Council (WNG file photo)
WESTFIELD – Beginning with a discussion in the Finance Committee at 5:30, and then continued during the City Council meeting itself, Mayor Brian P. Sullivan’s 14-line item reduction of $1.571 million was parsed and debated, and ultimately passed in totality. The reduction will take effect immediately, and is expected to lower the tax rate set in December.
Both in the Finance Committee and in the City Council, At-large Councilor Dave Flaherty, joined by Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell had the most questions and concerns about the reductions. Some of the specific questions on the reductions asked in the Finance Committee could not be answered by Ward 5 Councilor Robert A. Paul, Sr., who chairs the committee. He said that two weeks ago, all of the department heads were present to answer those questions when the meeting was cut short for a public hearing on the hospital zone, and the committee decided not to reconvene.
“He (the Mayor) has said he doesn’t need these funds for this year. What we expect is even more reductions for next year,” Paul said at the Finance Committee meeting, adding, “We have a new baseline for spending. I don’t know why we’re beating ourselves up on this. It’s the result of a lot of hard work on our part.” Paul was referring to the work his committee did in June reviewing the budget line by line. He said they asked the Mayor to go back and look at the some of the items after the budget passed, which he did.
At-large City Councilor David Flaherty
Three items which Flaherty said he would vote against on the Council floor were the $200,000 reduction in highway construction, and the $1 million ($400,000 and $600,000) from two health care holidays. “People need the roads fixed. We should add the meals tax on top of this,” Flaherty said. Previously, he had said he would vote against using health care savings for anything other than the city’s OPEB (Other Post Employee Benefits) liability of health insurance for retirees.
Paul then made a motion to approve moving the $1.5 million to the Council floor for discussion. O’Connell suggested moving it out of the committee with no recommendation. Paul responded that the City Council would then approve it by line item. He asked for a vote to bring the $1.571 million with a recommendation to the Council for a line item discussion, which passed 2-1, with Flaherty voting no.
During the Mayor’s briefing ahead of the City Council meeting, the councilors asked several specific questions about the reductions. Paul asked why not use the $200,000 in highway construction for roads. “That’s managing money. More meals tax is coming in. The chagrin of the council is that meals tax isn’t used for roads, but it is. Free Cash will be certified before Thanksgiving,” the Mayor said.
“I just want to confirm that you still support all of these reductions,” asked At-Large Councilor Cindy C. Harris, which the Mayor said he did.
“That $200,000 in road projects, you don’t see them being done in the spring?” asked At-Large Councilor Dan Allie.
“No, that means I’m going to have other monies available to me,” Sullivan replied. He said that the budget is an estimate, and not all the monies that become available are foreseen. He also said the Meals Tax started in January, and they didn’t have a comparison to budget on, although he added that it’s coming in higher than anticipated.
Ward 3 Councilor Andrew K. Surprise asked the Mayor whether the $200,000 could be used to buy another infra-red patcher. Sullivan responded that the City Council can vote to leave it in the budget, but he was recommending using it to lower taxes. He also said another patcher would require another trained employee(s), another truck and materials, and the $200,000 wouldn’t cover the cost.
During the Council meeting, Paul introduced the motion, saying the Finance Committee had voted 2-1 for the managed appropriation reductions of $1.571 million in the current year (FY18) budget. He said the process as he understood it would be to go through each item and vote for that reduction.
Flaherty said he would vote for some of the items, and not all. “I don’t like this process. I appreciate the Mayor doing this for relief from a 6% increase, but it’s not a good way to do things. We should be voting at budget time,” he said. Flaherty also said if they were not to do it, the money would flow into Free Cash, “something we can count on,” he said.
“There is a temptation to vote for every single one of these. I understand this, because we all listen to our constituents. However, to echo Councilor Flaherty, this may cause problems. Each one of us should take each vote carefully,” O’Connell said.
During the discussion on the $200,000 cut in construction, Flaherty and O’Connell both said they would vote no.
“This is money we won’t get to spend this year. No roads that aren’t going to be done with this cut,” Paul said.
“I was going to vote no. I’m going to change my vote, and vote to make this cut for taxpayers, bringing the rate down. All this conversation about better ways and different ways (to do this), I want to see this happen after January 1,” said Ward 1 Councilor Mary Ann Babinski.
Surprise said his would also be a no vote. “If the Mayor’s going to come back for this money later, it doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I’m going to support this. I take the Mayor at his word that this is not going to be spent now, and won’t be spent this year,” said Allie, adding that he supports tax relief.
“All of these fall into the category of ‘if we knew then what we know now.‘ I’m going to support every one of these,” said Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski.
“I agree with Councilor Allie, We have the ability to reduce taxes. I welcome the cut. I’m glad. It’s an opportunity for us. We know more now than we knew then,” said Council president Brent B. Bean, II. The highway construction line item then passed, with Flaherty, O’Connell and Surprise voting no.
Another discussion occurred around the $1 million in two line items from health care holiday savings. “I’m going to vote against this holiday,” Flaherty said about the $400,000 in savings from the ½ month holiday this past October, adding that the Health Care trustees recommended the savings be put into OPEB. He said he had an email from City Treasurer Meghan Kane, stating this.
“These are the people making the decisions,” said O’Connell, referring to the minutes of the trustees meeting, adding that she would also vote against it.
Paul said he was for the “$1 million cut today for the folks that need the cut today.”
“At the last Council meeting, we had the opportunity to meet, speak directly with Ms. Kane, but it didn’t happen. The sky is not falling. There is no need to talk about this (OPEB) at every meeting,” said At-Large Councilor Stephen Dondley.
“The Mayor is planning to come back in six months, and put $600,000 into OPEB,” added At-Large Council Matthew T. VanHeynigen.
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph J. Figy agreed that it is dangerous to use health care money for a tax break. “I don’t like to raid this, but tax relief has been loud and clear,” Figy said. The motion for the first health care savings reduction of $400,000 passed, with Surprise, Babinski, Flaherty and O’Connell voting no.
During the discussion on the $600,000 reduction from the full-month health care holiday to be held in March, Bean stepped down from the president’s seat to speak. “If this shows anything it’s that this process is difficult. It’s absolutely difficult. A few weeks ago, we were banging the drum (for tax relief). If you’re going to be a councilor that jams things down people’s throats, it doesn’t work. You have to build consensus. Some people would rather be right than help the city,” he said.
Bean also explained that the Board (Health Trustees) voted to put the $400,000 in OPEB, but they don’t have the authority to say where it goes. “It’s difficult, it’s set up to be difficult, it’s Massachusetts. You tell me what’s more important, a compromise or to just prove that someone is right in their own mind. We were able to manage the budget in the last six months. If someone could explain to me how it could switch so dramatically. The election is over, taxes don’t matter?” Bean said.
“It has nothing to do with taxes. These cuts should have been made in June. It’s not benefiting the taxpayers, it’s deferring it,” Flaherty said. “Whoever is president, take me off the list for Finance Committee,” he added, saying nobody listens to their recommendations. “This particular motion is not in the long term interest of anybody.”
After further discussion, the $600,000 health savings passed, with Flaherty and O’Connell opposed. The final line item, savings of $100,000 in the school budget from a student that chose not to go out of district also passed, with Bean and Dondley voting no. With that vote, the $1.571 million managed appropriation reduction was finally passed.
