In addition to my capacity as the Ward One City Councilor, I have been entrusted by my fellow colleagues to represent them on the Council’s Finance Committee as its Chairman. Given that events in Ward One have been relatively quiet since my near “arrest” for trying to fix the broken retaining wall at the Pochassic Street rotary, and the tenor of the recent debate surrounding this year’s tax rate and new proposed spending, I hope you’ll indulge me as I address you as the Council’s Finance Chair.
Last year at this time, the Westfield City Council became very concerned when the information submitted by the administration contained a 3% tax levy increase over the levy from Fiscal Year 2013. This was more than the 2.5% levy increase permitted under Proposition 2 and a half. How was this possible? Because the mayor’s request included the legal limit 2.5% increase plus another 0.5% we had declined to levy in previous years. The City Council objected, and several councilors – myself included – took steps to get the increase pared back. In past years, I had been able to work with the administration to reduce the maximum 2.5% levy increase. Last year, the mayor declined to negotiate with the Council, instead seeking a legal opinion from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) that would enforce his opinion that the mayor, and only the mayor, has the authority to determine the tax levy, and ultimately, how much more the taxpayer will be billed each year.
This year again the mayor established the levy with no consultation from the council. After much persuasion, the mayor agreed earlier this month to a meeting with our senior leadership. At this meeting, he informed the Council President and two senior committee chairs that this year’s levy increase would be 1.25% (it’s actually 1.75% above last year’s actual committed levy to be accurate) and that he wanted to spend at least $5.4 million of the $6.2 million certified free cash balance over the next 6 months on his priorities. End of discussion.
On a side note: what is this “free” cash? It’s the amount of money left over from last year’s actual spending. It represents unexpected revenue, reimbursements from prior year expenditures, and leftover money from all accounts. It usually averages 2-3 million every year, but this year we had a record surplus of $6.2 million – nearly as much as we have built up in the Stabilization Fund (our “savings” account) over the past 10 years.
So we have almost $13 million in cash at our disposal. The $6.2 million in stabilization is higher than the 5% recommended by the DOR’s Bureau of Accounts as the target amount for a city our size. And the $6.2 million in leftover cash from last year is quite the windfall compared to years past. Both of which raise the question: if we have more money than we need or expected, why are we raising taxes? It’s the reason I’ve shut down the Finance Committee temporarily; after all, if we really are in such dire financial straits that even with millions of dollars in the bank, we absolutely have to raise taxes again this year, then should we be spending ANY extra money this year?
Back in June, the Council cut the budget. Some of it was real budgetary reductions, but much of it was due to a $3 million cut to the health insurance appropriation that we knew would need to be at least partially restored as part of the winter tax rate setting process. To date, that $3 million still remains removed from the original balanced budget submission, which raises the question: if we pass on the approximately $1.6 million we would have collected with the original 2.5% proposed tax levy increase in the June budget, aren’t we still in a position to at least forego a tax increase this year based upon the $3.6 million in overall cuts made by the Council from that balanced in June based upon that $2 million differential? I certainly think the potential is there; based upon his recent letters to the Westfield Evening News, I’m deducing the mayor disagrees, and believes he is under no obligation to include the Council’s input on taxation and spending.
Which, beyond the back and forth on numbers and percentages, brings us to the greater issue on the table: whether one man, and one man alone, should have the unencumbered power to raise taxes. Hmm, if I recall, we seemed to fight a war around here over that very concept about 239 years ago. Maybe the state interprets Proposition 2 and a Half as giving final authority to determine the levy to the mayor of a city, but that doesn’t mean the City Council, as elected representatives of the citizens of the community, shouldn’t have input into the decision. It goes against the fundamental principles upon which our government was founded over 200 years ago: separation of power, checks & balances, and decentralization of government authority. When excluded from the tax discussion, the City Council has options, and a right to use those options – such as declining to vote on the tax shift – to ensure that the people of this city have a voice in how their tax dollars are spent. After all, it truly is your money, not ours. And you ought to get more than token consideration when it comes to how your money will be spent, and much more contemplation as to whether excess collected taxes should be refunded rather than expended on one elected official’s expenditure wish list. That’s the battle in which I and my colleagues are engaged; it’s the reason we have declined to vote on the so-called tax shift: in order to open the conversation on these very topics, and ensure that the people of Westfield have the greatest opportunity to be involved in how their hard-earned property tax dollars are spent.
My message isn’t a discussion about numbers or percentages, or people and personalities, or about residents versus business: it’s a fundamental debate over principles of powers and the responsibilities of the officials elected to represent their fellow residents in local government. It’s about remembering what we fought for 239 years ago, and staying true to the basic foundations of our government that were established by we, the people.
