##VIDEO ID:https://vimeo.com/1040979385## It's seven o'clock. I'm gonna call this, uh, special teleconference meeting of the Westfield City Council for December 19th to order roll call. Madam City Clerk. Clerk. Bill Chandy. I'm here. Burns Council. Burns. Okay. Here. Fige, you're on mute. Bottom left. Councillor Fige. Somebody calls Sue. You gotta unmute yourself. Peter, My wife Here. All right. Harris. Here. Matthews. Kane here. Meow. Ralph, my wife said she's proud of you. Now you found the mute button, so just so you know. Hey, stop teaching at all. Dog. New tricks. Kristen was on. Yeah. Okay. Morgan. Here. Here. Sullivan. Here. Adams Here. Allie? Here. Beam here. Pledge allegiance. Everybody wanna do that? I'll I pledge allegiance to the flag. The United States of America Nation under Invis with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Now comes a portion of the meeting for public participation. Anyone wishing to address this? The council may do so by stating your name and address for the city clerk. And, uh, we'll do this in three minute increments, which may be extended by the council. Uh, anyone like to address the council? Um, can you hear me? Um, Bill, Uh, yeah, John. Bill Carrell here. Okay. Bill, just, uh, name and address for the city council. Um, bill Ellis, 16 Wildflower Circle, Westfield, mass. I am chairman of the planning board. Um, kind of speaking on both capacities here. Uh, I'd like to address the, um, bicycles that, um, the Valley bike chair and just want to put our 2 cents in. Um, you know, make sure everybody knows that the planning board, uh, were the ones that sponsored this. We are for this. Okay. Um, we know that it didn't get through last time. We know that there were some legal hangups. Um, we're hoping that that's not the case now, but from a conceptual perspective, um, the bikes are, um, an asset to the city. Uh, and they bring a young field to the city from a personal perspective. Um, I, I have a lot of experience watching the younger generation and how they utilize, um, e-bikes and how they are no longer gravitating towards cars, and they are actually, um, utilizing public transportation more and more and more. Um, so from that perspective, I think that the valley bike, it would be a real benefit to the city. It would attract a much younger, um, rental crowd as well. And the third part is, is, um, Westfield State is all on board with putting a unit up on, up in their site. And that would, um, you know, that would put, put a pipeline between students getting on their bikes, coming downtown, um, and utilizing downtown. The the other part I wanna mention is I work in West Springfield and I get to look at West Springfield's, um, use of the bikes. I can look out my office window. I see the, um, the bike, uh, the bike rack at the library, and it is used all the time during the day. Um, it's, uh, uh, it's, I guess the term is a last mile, uh, usage. The, the walking public in the downtown to West Springfield. They jump on their bikes, they take it over to Memorial Avenue, they do their shopping, they come back, they drop it off, or they run down the Riverdale Road. Um, I have even seen them on traveling on Route 20 towards Walmart as well. Again, I'm all for it. I think it's, um, I think it's a big, uh, it's a big plus to the city. Um, and go from there. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, Jessica Britton, hand up. Yes. Thank you. My name is Jessica Britton and I live at 36 Casimir Street. I'm speaking tonight in support of items number 27 in 28 on the city council agenda, which is a motion from counselors, Allie Mellow Marelli for a resolution, opposing placement of a lithium battery facility over the aquifer. And that resolution will be submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities by close of business on December 20th. Number 28 is a motion from councilor to amend zoning ordinances relative to a battery energy storage facilities. And then it says, refer to planning board and schedule public hearings at applicable date. Buyer beware is what really sums it up tonight. It means that an individual buys at their own risk. It is commonly used in important transactions and legal contracts to do your due diligence in research. This was a transaction for $5,000. This especially holds true when granting easements or anything to an entity that you know nothing about their business projects or future plans. On the August 15th City Council meeting, you discussed immediately granting the easement to Westfield E-S-S-L-L-C for Madero sway instead of tabling it, which councilors, Fanon Mellow Matthews Kane and Allie requested Morgane was not in attendance. In discussion of said item, Allie asked, was this approval time sensitive? Oniskey says, only thing important is the easement in front of this body and thinks we will have more time to talk about the project. Again, not only, not our only avenue, and I don't know a hundred percent, but not everything I read in the newspaper is true either. Adam says, there has to be several other hurdles for a company like this to proceed. It's not like we can't stop the company from proceeding. I think there are several other things we have to do. Meow says, if DPU decides we might not have another bite at this Apple and possibly no public hearings at a local level, I'm not willing to give up control in an environmental justice community to a bunch of people in Boston who get their water from the Quain who don't drink our PAS water for 50 years. This is something that we need to take some time to think about. If this is the only local control we have, if we give it up for $5,000, then none of us deserves to be here. Counselors span and Mellow Matthews can. And Allie, were the only counselors that voted against the mayor entering into an agreement for this easement. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Carmel Steger? Yes. Hi. Thank you very much. And, um, I live at 60 Wood Road. I'm speaking as a resident. I've lived in Westfield here most of my life, and I would really like to see Westfield become more vibrant. Um, a couple of issues I'd like to address. One is the Valley Bikes proposal with the city of North Hampton, which came up as, as, uh, Mr. Ellis was saying, came up last night in front of, um, legislative and ordinance. And I understand that the proposal was rejected. Um, I feel as though it's really shortsighted. This would be a cost outlay to the city of Westfield of $4,500, which would run through December 1st, 2026, and would, um, build kiosks at Westfield State and then downtown Westfield for bike usage along the Western n thoroughfare. And then in downtown Westfield. Um, having students be able to access downtown Westfield is, is only a win. They, they don't often use the buses and many of them don't have cars. Um, and so the, the bikes and that we have dedicated bike lanes and a multi-use path up there on Western Ave makes a lot of sense, but we're not encouraging that by rejecting this proposal. In contrast, the first Complete Streets project is shovel ready. It's, uh, the Broad Street Project, which is 90%, um, completed in terms of its design. And there'll be three crosswalks and there'll be dedicated bike lanes on both sides of Broad Street. The fire department and the, um, Westfield Police Department have already agreed to the, um, design of Broad Street. What's happened and what stalled this project is that there's one business owner primarily who is against having, uh, parking on Broad Street eliminated. And, um, this represents a conflict of interest because that business owner is also a city counselor. And I have looked at Broad Street many times and taken photos of it. There is a lot of off street parking, but that's being made an issue that there's not going to be enough off street parking if, um, if there are bike lanes on both sides. So now what was a 90% completed proposal and is budgeted, is coming into some difficulty and will need more, um, funding for redesign and probably more funding if that redesign goes through. And so I just, I, I'm really an advocate for pedestrian and, and a bike friendly thoroughfares in Westfield. It, it, it just makes so much sense for us to be thinking about our roadways and expanded street projects as including non vehicular use, but I think we should be really careful to try to think about how we want Westfield to be and, and how what, how we need to make it accessible to everybody. Thank You. Thank you. Uh, Dan Watson. Hi. Thank you. Um, yeah, my name is Dan Watson, uh, with Jupiter Power address is 11 0 8 Lavacca Street, Austin, Texas. Um, Jupiter Power is the owner of the project that's proposed to be discussed on agenda item 27 this evening is the battery storage facility on Madeira's Way. As you all know, the DPU is running a process to consider the merits of the proposed battery facility. Um, the first step that process is taking place, now it's a public comment period. Um, this is the point of the process where members of the public, uh, municipal officials, including the city councilors, can bring questions and concerns to the attention of the DPU. Jupiter will respond to these concerns both in the DPU proceeding with its affidavit, supported testimony by expert witnesses, uh, but also if given the opportunity by the city council directly, um, whether presentation to the full council or otherwise. Um, we have a short allotted time. Um, and this is in the, you know, official public hearing, uh, on this, on the project. But I do wanna address just a few things that have been out in the public dialogue. Um, first, you know, there's been talk about the project providing no benefit to the city. I just wanna clarify project plans to, uh, pay an estimated $1 million and property taxes amongst other benefits. But we will be one of the larger payers of property taxes in the city. It's a pretty significant portion. Um, I just wanna say it's not no benefit, but of course, there's any other things that the project will bring to the community. Uh, there's also been information shared about a battery fire in East Hampton Long Island. You know, this is really getting into the technical aspects of battery storage facilities, but that project is vastly different than the one proposed here that was pro. That project was designed in 2016 before the current fire codes existed. Um, it was a building based system versus our project, which is modular. Just a whole bunch of reasons. Again, there's a lot of detail we're happy to offer. We're happy to bring to the city council to address these things that have been brought up. We appreciate the opportunity, um, at any time to do that. Um, and we are encouraged by the city council getting involved in this process. Um, we've been in the community for some time. Uh, we don't plan on going away. Uh, we have a few other folks here to speak this evening, um, about the project, about the process. Again, we're trying not to get into much too much detail this evening, um, in this short public comment period. But thank you all. Thank you, Ellen Freeman. Thank you. Uh, good evening. Ellen Fryman. Um, with Shot Schwartz and Fenton, 1441 Main Street in Springfield. I represent Jupiter Power, and I'd just like to point out that, um, over the past several years, Jupiter has been in town physically meeting on numerous occasions with elected officials, department heads, members of the public and area environmental groups. And, uh, Jupiter, as many of you know, held two open houses, the last one in June. And these meetings were publicized and, um, notices were sent to all abuts and interested parties, um, at the open house representatives of Jupiter and its consultants, which included Jupiter's engineers, environmental consultants, and fire safety experts were available with detailed information and written materials about the project, which written materials were delivered to the towns library and other public spaces so that they were easily available. The Jupiter team continues to be available for meetings and information sessions in whatever format is preferred and seeks opportunities to engage with the city and residents. Jupiter will come to the city at any time, any time it's requested to do so until the DPU renders its decision. Jupiter would also welcome the chance to attend a city council meeting and present information about the project with its experts, including its fire safety expert. And we hope you'll take us up on this offer so you can ask your questions and become more informed. I have personally been, uh, working with the company since they first, uh, found the site and am aware firsthand of all the community outreach that has taken place, which has been extensive. I am in Springfield and I can be contacted if you're not sure how to reach Jupiter, and I hope you won't hesitate to do that. Thank you. Council Elli, did you have a question? I had a question about the ability of the company to speak because the public hearing is closed. We haven't had a public hearing with them. Excuse me. I don't think we've had a public hearing with them on this. Okay, thank you. Uh, let's see. Derek Post. Hey, you can hear me okay? Uh, we can't hear you. You can. Okay. Um, my name is, uh, Derek Post. I'm a fire protection engineer and firefighter. My address is 31 57 Benton Square Drive, only Maryland. I just wanted to thank counsel for the opportunity to speak tonight. I, uh, am working with Jupiter Power on this project in Westfield as a company Fire and Risk Alliance. We are fire protection and safety engineers, as well as fire scientists and firefighters. We have a lab that we do fire testing in. We have code consultants that we do, uh, code consulting with, and we have firefighters that help us facilitate fire department training and emergency response planning. Our role in this effort with Jupiter was to perform a medley of fire protection services, of which includes the fire code required hazard mitigation analysis, as well as some community impact assessments in terms of a fire protection lens. We also generated an emergency response plan to be coordinated with the municipal fire department in the area. And we also had personnel at the open house in June, in which we gave a brief presentation on fire protection and safety measures for energy storage facilities, and answered a variety of questions from members that attended. And I want to just express that as Jupiter and the team have communicated, we as fire protection experts and firefighters are more than willing to discuss with the council any of the concerns, questions, or items that have been discussed in the community as you see fit. And appreciate the opportunity to speak, and thank you and have a good night. Thank you. Uh, Carolyn. Carolyn, are you there? Sorry about that. Um, I had a question for the Juniper Can Yeah, I'm sorry, people, but they're power people. Um, well, This, this is not a public hearing, so I can't let you ask them questions directly. Okay. Are you doing a public hearing At some point? We're probably gonna have it. So, you know, you just, uh, keep your eyes open for that and then you can ask questions at that time. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh, Jonathan MCC Catton. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Jonathan McCarten. I live at 42 Arnold Street, Westfield. Um, I am here for you tonight to ask you to support item number five, uh, on your agenda tonight, which is supporting the, um, appropriation of funds for the Broadtree Project. Um, this project is long overdue. It, uh, allows Broadstreet to be redesigned to be safer and more accessible for people, uh, whether they drive, they walk, they bike, uh, however they use the street. Um, I echo Carmel Steiger's concerns in that it shouldn't have gotten to this point. And, uh, we shouldn't be here to, um, ask for additional funds. Uh, but this is an important project, it should move forward. Um, and I ask that you appropriate the funds so that it can be done. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? I would, if that's possible, please. Yes. Shane Ley. Yep. I apologize my, I wasn't able to get my hand to raise, uh, on the app, but my name's Shane Ley. I'm with the law firm of Shepherd and Mullen. Uh, my office is at 40 Court Street in Boston, and I represent Jupiter Power in the proceeding before the DPU. And what I was hoping to do very quickly is just explain the process that's happened, the date at the DPU, and what happens going forward. We just wanna make sure that everyone fully understands what will be happening going forward so they can fully and effectively participate. So to this point, in late September, the D excuse me, Jupiter submitted its petition with the DPU, asking the DPU for zoning exemptions and approval of the projects. Next. The DPU held a hearing on December 5th at Westfield State University. And the purpose of that hearing was to hear comments from the public. So the DPU is able to fully investigate the public's concerns during the proceeding. Although those comments aren't sworn statements and aren't part of the evidentiary record, they're with the DPU will use and other parties will use to investigate and make sure tho those issues are fully fleshed out before a decision happens. Uh, the next thing that will happen is the DPU oh, and there's also the opportunity for written comments, which has been occurring. And the deadline for those are the end of business tomorrow. The next step after that is the DP and the other parties who are involved. And importantly, Westfield has intervened and will be a full party. So it'll have full rights throughout the proceeding. Those parties can ask written questions of Jupiter and all of its consultants on any topic. And Jupiter must respond in writing with sworn statements and after months of that occurring. And we very much encourage everyone from the city to communicate with the City Solicitor's office and make sure that those questions are asked and flushed out during the proceeding. So after months of that, the next step will be what's essentially a trial. The DPU calls it an evidentiary hearing, and it's typical to the trials that we all know where all of the witnesses, everyone Jupiter is using to put on evidence will have to sit down and be examined through questions before the DPU at the end of that process. And again, Westfield, because it is a party, will be able to do exactly that. And then once that trial is closed, the next step will be briefing, which is where each party is able to say, this is the evidence that has pre been presented to D to you DPU. And for these reasons, based on that evidence, you should either approve or reject the project. And then finally, and that briefing won't be till at least six plus months from now. And then the final part of the process will, the DPU will issue an order that decides whether the project is approved or rejected. And again, to just give you a, a sense of the scope and the timeline that we're dealing with, Jupiter requested that that order be issued at the end of 2025. So over a year from now. So very much with regards to the DPU process, we are at the beginning of that process. So I hope this was an opportunity for people to further understand what'll be happening going forward. And thank you for the opportunity to speak on that. Thank you for the information. Anyone else like to address, uh, cons? Counselor Alley? Yeah. Uh, Dan Alley, uh, 38 Union Street. And, uh, yes, I'm a city counselor here. Um, you know, we've heard a lot on the Jupiter project about transparency and this desire to be available. Um, um, they've had some open houses. Um, I don't think many people knew about it or attended. Um, but the public hearing, um, that was held at the Westfield State University, um, was scheduled on a night that the Westfield City Council regularly meets. And we had to reschedule our meeting to December 9th so that some of the counselors could actually attend that public hearing. That's all. Thank you. Anyone else? I apologize. I forgot to just say one point just to understand the process again, the written questions that I was talking about that had to be sworn and responded to. This is Shane early again. Yes, I know. I just wanted, you've already given me your opportunity. I, I apologize. Okay. Excuse me on that. Who else? Maryanne. Uh, Maryanne. Okay. Okay. Thank you. This is Maryanne Dubinski, one 14 Rogers Avenue. I'll make it quick. I, uh, I would hope that the city council I am in favor of and would support item number seven, the Valley Byte Project. I won't get into the details. They were already explained very well, and I support what was said. And I also wanna support, uh, number 27. I know that this company, Jupiter, I said this before at other meetings, they're here to sell us on this project that they wanna cite in Westfield. That's their job, and they're going to try to do the best job that they can to do that. I have attended most of, if not all of their meetings since 2022. Some of them were just small meeting held at City Council. And after all of this time and being at the, uh, DPU hearing, what I wanna say, they're doing their job, what the city has to do for our job, for your job as counselors and the planning board already made their decision about what to do, uh, is to decide whether you wanna buy what they're selling. And I think for the safety and concerns of the city of Westfield and what we've been through already, that I hope that you will be in favor of this resolution and or a statement if you want to do that, instead to send to the DPU. In the end, the DPU will look at all the information and a decision will be made. You have an opportunity now to say how you feel and how you will represent the people of this city. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the council? Okay. I don't see anybody else. So we are gonna move on to communications from the mayor. Item one, Councillor Matthews Kane. Um, thank you Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion for the city clerk to read items one through three and prefer to find mine Second. Rick Sullivan. Thank you. Motion made it seconded. Madam City Clerk Clerk One appropriation in the amount of $600,000 from free cash to the engineering construction account for costs associated with the improved design of Broad Street and additional cost for the construction of South Maple Street and Mill Street landscape improvements. Two, appropriation the amount of $599,929 from free cash to the fire department equipment vehicle account to purchase a new fire apparatus to replace engine two, which is at the end of its serviceable life of 26 years. Three appropriation in the amount of $295,865 from free cash to the Health Department transfer station replacement equipment account for the purchase of a 2023 Volvo L one 10 H loader to replace the loader at the transfer station, which is at the end of its ser serviceable life of 30 years. Thank you. Any discussion before we send this off to finance? Councilor Marelli? Thank you, Mr. President. Um, yeah, I ju I just met with the mayor recently, but none of this was, uh, mentioned to me. I'm, I'm wondering if, uh, any other councilors can, can enlighten the, the rest of the, uh, group, um, on why these items weren't in the budget for this year. Uh, is some of this an emergency thing? It's, uh, I mean, it doesn't say that these things broke, uh, suddenly. It's, it's, uh, they're at their end of their serviceable life. I'm sure that a fire department knew that. And, uh, you know, um, that these, this, this equipment and engineering DPW should, should know that the, the loaders gonna need to be replaced. So I'm just wondering if anybody else has any information on that before we, uh, we take a vote. Thank you. Council, This is going to committee. That's the time we bring these things up when it's in committee. Uh, I feel free. Feel free to I, I'll absolutely ask that in finance committee. Okay. Any further Being? None. Roll call. Madam City Clerk. Fran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Vicky? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Hello? Morgane? No. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Be Yes. Thank you. You're on the hands of finance petitions. Other papers. Madam City Clerk For public Hearing. For an application for limo. License for one limousine for Dr. Luxury Ride. LLC 29 Dana Street. Submitted by Don Chand Sovan, the owner. Thank you. Now declare the public hearing open. Is the applicant here? I can see him. I can't see him. Mr. Salvan? Mr. Salvan, are you there? Perhaps he's muted himself. Mr. Salvan, can you hear us well? You get technical difficulties, I think. One more time. Mr. Salvan, can you hear us? All right. Well, I think maybe we're gonna have to, uh, postpone this to our next meeting. If he's unavailable. Can we get a motion for that? Yeah. Mo motion to, uh, continue the public hearing on item number four at the first meeting in January 2nd. Motion made it seconded. Well, I mean the last time, do we have a phone number for this individual? We do. I can try to call him if you wanna, Just a way to postpone it to the end of the agenda and maybe give him some time. Yeah, let's do that. Get a motion to move it. Motion to remove, uh, uh, remove the item and place it towards the bottom of the agenda. Second. Second. Motion made a second. And any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call please. Beltran? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Vicky? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Hello? Yes. Morgan. Ellie? Yes. On Key? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Dean? Yes. Thank you. Reports of committees finance. Item five. Councilor Matthews King. Thank you Mr. On Tuesday, December 17th, the finance committee met regarding an appropriation in the amount of $50,000 from free cash to the engineering purchase account for the redesign and resurvey of Broad Street. And upon a three to zero vote, we voted to approve the appropriation and I move approval. Rick Sullivan. Second motion made it seconded. Further discussion from anybody on this item? Cindy Harris. Cindy, go ahead. Thank you. I am very concerned about the lack of parking that may be for the funeral home and the rehab facility that was formally there. And I understand that there may be another company coming in there. Um, as my husband was dying, he was in that rehab and also at the funeral home, they were parked all the way down to the fire station. And I am very concerned about the parking for those, uh, businesses. Um, I will approve this, but I just wanted to, uh, share that with people because, um, it affects almost everybody in Westfield as far as the funeral home. Thank you. Councilor Matthews came. Thank you Mr. President. Traditionally, the person presenting gets the first word, but I know we're on Zoom so it got thrown off. So I'd like to present out on the discussion that we had in finance. This discussion centers around the proposed Complete Streets project for our community, which is a redesign of Broad Street in East Silver Street, which was approved by council in March of 2024. This project was selected as a top prioritization based on public input and meetings. Broad Street section of the project includes several components. It has three race crosswalks with Rrr Fps along Broad Street. It's Stop and Shop Bush Street and Hedge Avenue. These raised crosswalks are 20 feet wide and three inches high and have been approved by both. The fire police chief project also involves res striping of the road pavement to travel lanes, a striped buffer and an on street and a street, sorry, and a separated bike lanes. This request for redesign came from a Broad Street property owner who was concerned with the loss of on street parking due to the bike lanes. This project has stayed in finance for two meetings while we hammered out the details of this proposal. As the original proposed redesign, which we heard about at the first meeting, would include a multi-use path, which is that broad sidewalk that we have another substance of the town. This idea was rejected 'cause it was cost an x extra $900,000. This high price was mostly because of the expenses around the many utility boxes that are on the street. You proposed for the new alternatives to move the curb roughly three to four feet closer to the sidewalk on the east side. This cutout will allow space for both a parking lane and a bike lane will reduce the parking on that side of the street from its current 42 spaces to 31 spaces. It is not anticipated that any trees will need to be cut and two utility quilts will need to be moved. It's originally planned. There will be no parking on the west side since the current proposal. And the money we are voting on right now will pay for its official redesign and resurvey. Both the finance meetings were attended by representatives from Friends of the Columbia Greenville Rail Trail. They expressed concerns with the redesign and for the council to consider the safety of bicycles and the pedestrians in our city in particular, they expressed issues with the second proposal as they were. There will be a conflict between the park cars and the bikes. And they asked the city engineer to keep that in mind for the final redesign. Thousand dollars in front of us will cover the redesign and resurvey of the project. It will not cover the increased construction costs, which would come in different original cost of the project was 1,050,000 coming, sorry, $500,000 coming from the grant of $500,000, which is already in the fiscal year 25 budget we approved this months ago. The original redesign, we added $900,000 to the project. The final Compromise Redesign is estimated to cost an additional $300,000. This would be on top of the 50 K we're discussing now for resource. I was abridging yes to this project. I don't like that we designed a project at the 90% conclusion mark after public comment. And I don't like how this all came about, but I voted yes because it reflects to value and value compromise. And this is a solid compromise between two agendas. I also value safety and I do not want to increase safety for bicyclists at the expense of pedestrians in that corridor. It's not lost on me that our last four pedestrian deaths in Westville have all been senior citizens and fossil homes. I don't wanna set up a situation where we haven't said we wanna keep the community safe and accessible to everyone. And it's my belief that the revised project will be just that. And in closing, I wanna thank engineer Mc Norty for all her work on this. Anything further? Councilor Figgy. Thank you Mr. President. As award counselor, I would like to say that when this initial design came about a few years ago, bike lanes weren't included at all. We have a bike path one block away from the street. In my experience as a counselor on this ward, there's not a whole lot of bike traffic anywhere on Broad Street. It's all up on the bike trail. So I think the compromise of saving the parking on one side is very valuable. And the attacks on the counselor that is the business owner are uncalled for and unwarranted. So I'm encouraging everyone to vote for this because it will solve both problems. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, councilor Mellow, then Councilor Sullivan. Thank you Mr. President. Um, I will support this and, uh, attended silently the committee meeting where it was discussed. I appreciate that people work together to find a compromise. I would remind us all that, you know, this today's meeting is an example of why you cannot have enough stakeholder engagement. Um, and make sure that everybody talks about what's gonna happen and how it affects everyone. Um, but I just wanna add that if we have hundreds of thousands of dollars to redo a street that isn't, you know, in actual functional disrepair. I mean, I know it needs work, but, and, and, and safety. It needs safety. Um, but we have a levy that still is not operational. And before we start making pretty parks and stuff, I think we should maybe redirect the mayor to think about, um, actual safety of everyone down in that area first and fix that levy. Thank you. Councilor Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I will be, um, a strong yes for this compromise. I too, um, as the chair did want to thank, uh, the engineering department. Um, I think, uh, she did, uh, a, a good job after the meeting that we had had previous and kind of went back a little bit to the drawing board and came up with a, a compromise as it's being referred to. Um, so I think that, uh, that was a good work on her part. I will add that the original redesign was estimated to cost about a million dollars. This redesign is 300,000. So just even in the redesign from a financial point of view, um, is, is a, is a good, uh, working in the right direction. And I do also want to thank the advocates, um, who have been at all of the meetings. Um, and some of them spoke tonight, um, in favor of this as well. And the engineer said that she would also be working with them in terms of, uh, what that final layout, um, looks like, as well as the, uh, the residents, uh, and the business owners, um, along Broad Street. 'cause one of the, on the other side of the street, the biggest issue has been those crosswalks. Um, and those are still in and have always been into this project. Um, so I do think that this, uh, at the end of the day is actually an improved project. So I will be a strong yes. Council B. Yeah, all I would ask to add too is that I know we were focusing on the bike lane, but there's also, part of this is there's speed tables going on East Silver Street as well. So just want everybody to be aware of that. There's, that's been out there in the public in the sense of other towns doing it. So I just wanna make sure everybody's aware that that'll be happening as well with this particular project. Thank you. Any further? Ler Jandy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Ion? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Yes. Ky Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Dean? Yes. Thank you. Legislative Ordinance committee Item six. Councilor Ky. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, ele and O Matt on December 19th, and upon a two zero vote, recommended approval of a resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the creation of a gateway pocket park. Second. Well, she made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, first off, this isn't going to be a park. It's not gonna go to the park and rec. The DPW will take, uh, care custody, um, of the, of the area. Uh, this is an area that's located at the southern end of the Coles Bridge Project. Uh, it essentially has a welcome, uh, or a Westfield, uh, sign on a wall. And it's, it's designed to welcome people into Westfield. Coming from, uh, coming from the south, uh, mass, DOT agreed to let the city, uh, tack on to the project. So construction crew, uh, can incorporate, uh, this construction in the correct work sequence. Uh, the cost of the city is $575,000. The agreement is with the mass DOT. Uh, like I said, the main features are a decorative, uh, wall with the city seal. Um, and it, it will not be a park. So that's what I got. Any comments? Councillor Fige. Thank you. The sauce is in Ward two, and this is for those of you who've been around a long time. This is the old Annabelle Garage property, which is at the base of, uh, mill and South Maple. Uh, this is a project that I spoke with Mark Ade with about six years ago and forgot all about it until it came out. So I'd like to thank the engineering department for bringing this forward, finding a way to get it done. Uh, it will definitely be an improvement to that area as you're coming in around that curve, off the new bridge. So I encourage the support. Thank you. Any further comment? Council Anki, would you read the resolution? Yes. If I may, by title only a resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement between the city of Westfield and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Thank you. Roll call. Medal Shandy. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanny? Yes. Fay? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Elli. Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Dean? Yes. Thank you. Item seven. Council Ky. Thank you Mr. President Ellen o Matt on December 19th, and upon a two zero vote, voted for a, a negative recommendation of a memorandum of understanding between the city of Northampton and the city of Westfield regarding the integrated share bike share system, valley Bike. Second, She made it seconded. Further discussion Council? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, last year, as you may have, uh, recall, we, we did vote and made a positive recommendation. Um, the company that was operating the system, however, went out of business. It went bankrupt and this never came to fruition. Uh, it's now under new ownership by a company of, uh, called Drop Mobility. And again, this would put bikes, uh, rental bikes, if you will, that are, are purchased or rented through an app. Um, in areas including, well, only the areas of the PVT, uh, PVTA bus station and Westfield State University. The memo, memorandum of understanding would be with North Hampton. So Northampton would take the lead and they would have the actual contract with drop mobility. Uh, some of the cities and towns locally that are involved in this are Amherst, Chicopee, east Hampton, Holyoke, Northampton, Springfield, south Hadley, and West Springfield. Um, our city engineer has a part of it as each of these, uh, municipalities as a part of it, as, uh, a member of the advisory group, um, the cost to taxpayers for the first year, we would pay $4,554 to Northampton to, uh, to manage the project and drop mobility. Uh, the bike owners would be paid $18,200, which could rise up to $27,275. Uh, in the next year, uh, if we add more stations, uh, the cost would increase. The contract is good until December 1st, 2026. Uh, the pads aren't installed yet. That is the, the, if you wanna call 'em a docking station for the bikes. Um, they're not installed, but the city has a grant for these. And the bikes are, uh, pedal with electronic or electric assist, uh, assist. Sorry, I voted no on this in l and o and I'm gonna vote no on this again, uh, for several reasons. First, Westfield has no contract with the bike vendor. Our memo of understanding is with North Hampton. So we have, we have no say except on the advisory board, but no legal say or recourse with the bike vendor at all. Uh, I believe it's volatile. The last group went bankrupt, uh, that was going to do this. And there was discussion about the transportation between Westfield State University and the PVTA station. Uh, my, my take and feeling on this is we already have public transportation there. We've got a, a bus that runs, um, from Westfield State University to the PVTA bus station. Uh, and, and I'm understanding from public participation that that rarely is used by students. Uh, and if you know, if that's the case, let's get's get rid of the bus. Um, I I don't think that's a good idea. But if it's not being used, we should certainly look at that or ask A-D-B-T-A to look at it. I don't think that the ridership of the bikes is going to justify the cost to the taxpayers. Um, if there is a benefit to Westfield State University, I also feel that they should be footing the bill for this and paying for, you know, for the bikes and, and the stations. I don't feel it, it's right that the city should justify, uh, justify this system. If it, we do see that it's, you know, possibly positive in the near future, we can join it, but I don't think now is the right time. Thank you. Anyone else have comments? Cindy Harris? Cindy, go ahead. Thank you Mr. President Law Department states that they are not in favor of this at all because we have an agreement with North Hampton and not with the company. And the law department strongly suggests and states that they are not for this understanding. So I will vote no. Anyone else? Councilor Matthews Kane and then Consul Miller. Thank you. Uh, we are voting on this again as there's a new provider for the program Drop Mobility, a company that has been in operations since 2017 and that operates across 15 North American municipalities. I'm a strong proponent of this valley bike system in Westfield, and I hope my fellow, fellow counselors will also consider supporting this. There are many benefits to having this bike share system in our community, just downtown and Westfield State, as well as giving rider a healthy and fun way. But for me, the central reason for my support is that it gives residents who cannot afford their own, own cars in accessible and inexpensive mode of transportation. We have already heard from chair bill car tonight about what he has witnessed himself in West Springfield. People use the bikes for chores and shopping. Other civic leaders in other local communities have made the same observation. When the Valley bike started up again in Chicopee, the mayor commented and all the good it does for his community. And in the October 1st, 2024 issue of the Chicopee reminder, he was quoted as saying quote, I wanna thank drop mobility for reinvesting in Valley bike. 'cause let's be blunt, it could be as a blue collar city, and as car insurance keeps going up on the cost to maintain a car is very expensive. People need alternative means of getting around. And I think Valley Bike is something that is going to, we are committed to bringing new and innovative solutions to our community. Likewise, north Hampton Mayor Gina Luis Ciara emphasized that the primary purpose of the bikes was to ab provide alternative transportation for those who cannot afford a car. In A-W-A-M-C article, she was quoted as saying quote, we know that for some folks this was a main source of transportation for them. It's how they went to get groceries. It's how they got to work. It was used recreationally, of course. But we know that for some people this was really their main transportation mode. It's really important to be able to keep that going. These are the issues in Chicopee and Northampton and I see this as a critical need in our community as well. And for me, it's the main reason we should support having Valley Life Centers. People have raised issues with the legal language and the MOU and said that Westfield will be ing too much control. However, the MOA states that we will have a designated representative and that the advisory group, good faith census resolving furthermore, ams, east Hampton, polio, north Hampton, Springfield, south Hadley, and West Springfield have been members of this consortium for years and they keep signing up. I assume if it's working for them, why would it not? Cost is another issue people have raised. I see Valley Bikes as providing a critical service for a very low price. The average Westfield home, it would be $3 and 55 cents a year. At the highest rate there two rates that were quoted. That's for the highest rate. I want you to think about all the other things we spend our money on and ask if it's fair to deny this project that will help so many people for such a low price. I'll be voting for this as it'll provide a low cost transportation option for the people. And I hope you're consider voting for this. Councilor Melo. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'm concerned that the argument against this is money when item one on our agenda was $600,000 for what I hear is a wall with a seal. I, I just, I don't think that we're being very consistent with the way we're looking at things. If we're okay with a $600,000 wall, but we're upset about $50,000 in bikes in a year and we are okay with a $50,000 redesign. Um, because we didn't all talk about it enough, right? So, so I I think we need to like keep perspective when we talk about things here, number one. Number two, it's true that the PVTA system is underutilized, but that is because the PVTA system in our city doesn't go anywhere useful there. I mean, it goes to like the Walmart, right? Because that's Walmart. But if you actually lived up on the north end of town, it would be very difficult to get your groceries right from, from the apartment, the high density apartments up on the north side anywhere else. But if you had one of those bikes, you could. And if they are planning to send all those people to Gateway Cities, that's us. And not everybody's gonna be able to have a car. And this is not exactly a walkable city. So at some point, we're gonna need to be able to get people from here to there. And I will tell you, I tend to drive around in the very early morning and there are people out on these bikes all the way here. There are people out on our streets on these bikes because that's how they get to and from work. And to like, make them go all the way to another town and then pay the extra time to keep it so that they can go to and from work all week. Why are we making it hard to live here? I don't think that that's, it's not fair. It's not right. It's not right for our own citizens and this is not a lot of money to make things just a little bit easier for people. So I, I'm a supporter and I think if you're not, you really need to think about how much money you're gonna spend on a wall. Thank you. Councillor Adams? Yeah, I mean, I, I certainly agree with, uh, Councillor Melo and Councillor Matthews king, and I've probably learned more about bike paths in the last couple months than I care to. However, I wanna make something clear. I spent $20,000 outta my pocket buying bikes for kids. I am 100% behind bikes. I donate 'em every single year. I own four myself. This, the thing I worry about a little bit on this one is that number one, we can't ride a bike through the center of town and we don't have a bike trail through the center of town. So I don't think a child or anybody, I don't think anybody can drive a bike through the center of town because we don't have a bike lane and we can't put 'em on the sidewalk. So if we're trying to bring people into the center of town, I dunno if we've done something wrong, but our ordinance doesn't allow anybody to go through unless you want to drive with the traffic, which I don't think that's safe. So until we address that, I'm not sure if we bring bikes into the center of town. I like the concept. I think I love bikes. Um, but I think we have to keep it safe. And I don't think it's quite safe yet to be bringing people into the center of town. Thank You. Anyone else? Councilor Figgy. Thank you, Mr. President. What's the cost of the bike to the consumer? Councilor Burns? Yeah. Um, thank you Mr. President. I have it right here. I was gonna bring the, again, I voted against this coming outta committee 'cause I was involved last year also in this. And, uh, I did talk to other communities and, uh, I, I, I can't mention which ones are, they weren't too pleased with what was going on. They weren't happy with the bike and, but they still, the mayor, city council wanted them. So that part of it. But for this year, um, for fiscal 25, it says 18,200. That's our share. Um, for fiscal 26, 27, our share will be 27,000 maybe, maybe more, maybe less. But we're at the mercy, like, uh, counter, um, Monki said, we're at the mercy of North North, uh, Northampton. I don't feel that we should be, you know, at the mercy of them telling us how we spend our money or how we, you know, achieve our goals. That's it. That's the, uh, counter fiy. My, my, my real question is, I wanna ride a bike. How much is it gonna cost me to ride that bike? Again, that's, it's gonna cost you, it's supposedly you have to have a credit card. They were, nobody was really sure about that. Okay. I mean, I read through the, through through this, the information here, and I didn't see any costs, but it is gonna cost, I didn't see it el elsewhere. That's why I'm asking. So who collects the fees and who keeps the money? Do we get any of that money back to offset $18,000 or does that go to North Hampton because they're the, the grand Poba on this whole thing? No, I think it goes to everybody. I think it's like it is considered a cost share, but you still have to pay your, your, your, your fair share. Oh, absolutely. And they're really not sure what it's gonna be. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Sullivan. Councilor Morgan Elli, and then Councilor Oinky. Uh, I would yield the Florida to Councillor Oinky if he had a direct answer to Councillor Figgy. Uh, yes. Thank you. Uh, councilor Sullivan and President Rey, the money goes to the owner of the, uh, the bike share program. So it goes to, uh, to Valley Bike or Drop Mobility. So the fees go to them. I'm not sure what the actual fees are in order to rent one, uh, one of these bikes, you, you get an app on your phone, uh, connected to a credit card and then scan the bike and, and off you go. But the money doesn't go back to the, uh, to the cities and towns. Thank you. Councilor Elli. Uh, thank you Mr. President. Yeah. To answer, uh, councilor Fergie's question. Yeah. And, and, uh, to add onto what Council Oinky said about the app, uh, generally you, you attach a, a method of payment to the app and you sometimes you can buy a, a package. Let's say you buy an hour, it's, um, uh, I know I bought a, a, a scooter package a couple of times. I think it was $16 for an hour to ride a scooter, an electric scooter in a city I was in. And you can ride it from point A to point B, park it, take a picture, and then your time stops. And then when you get back on the scooter, I'm, I'm assuming it's the same kind of deal, you get back on the bike and you take it from point B to point C, then your time starts again. Um, and it takes out of the time that you've, uh, paid for. So, uh, it's, it's not a dollar a minute, it's, it's, it was $16 for an hour's worth of writing. Uh, so that, that'll give you an idea, I guess. Thank You. Councilor Sullivan, then Matthews, Kane, then Osky. Yes. Just real quick, I'm gonna be a yes here. Um, I think I've been pretty consistent on this and as somebody who, um, you know, literally started day one on the purchase of the rail for the rail trail and, um, had a lot of very interesting public meetings and neighborhood meetings where people thought it would, uh, never amount to anything and was gonna be a, a public safety issue and quite frankly, just a big waste of money. And now a lot of those same people, it's the first thing they list when they go to sell their house because it's such a, an appreciated amenity in the city. And I think at the end of the day, those mobility issues are a quality of life. And I think Westfield should be participating. Um, you know, I appreciate where the law department is coming from. Um, however, if you ask the law department, at the end of the day, we would never do anything because there's some liability attached to absolutely every single decision. Um, and to somehow come back and say that we're at the mercy of another community, we're members of a lot of other municipal agreements, whether it's, uh, the city of, of Holyoke with some of the community development block grants or, or, um, quite frankly our own with, uh, Southwick and some others, whether when it comes to wastewater, um, or, or other ones, um, and, you know, the communities are not here to take advantage of each other. And I think those, um, community compacts have served everybody well. Um, and just real quick on the law department, if the only way to keep total control is that means we'd have to run our, our own program, um, from soup to nuts and it would be significantly more expensive than what's on the floor this evening. So based on the quality of life issues that are surrounding the bikes, um, I'm a yes Councilor Matthews Kane, then on. Thank you, Mr. President. I, um, I hope this won't count as my second term. I, I googled the answer to the question about the cost. So according to the website, it's pay as you go, it's 25 cents per minute plus a $1 unlock fee. You can get a monthly membership for 25 per month. Um, or you can get a year for $49. And, uh, it works. You, you sign up on the Valley Bike app, you scan the QR code on the bike's handlebars, you remove the bike, and then you return it when you're done. And I just wanted to clarify the question about, so thank you. Thank you co councilor Ali, you had your hand up on, and then I'll go to Councilor and just Yep. Um, can you hear me? Me? Yes. Alright. Alright. Um, so can someone clarify the, the, the, um, the amounts that Westfield would have to pay Councilor Burns, because it, the initial year was $4,500 and then he mentioned 25 and 26. Um, like it seemed like our portion would increase Council share. It's, it's all on council share, But you can confirm that It's right here. Got in my hand right here. So that's all right. Because I thought the $18,000 figure was the amount of money that they would receive, um, or whatever. But, um, yeah, We here, if, if you, I mean I, I, I like the concept of this, um, obviously I believe in bicycles and that sort of thing, but, um, one of the issues is, is, is you know, each community already underwrites, you know, the PBTA, which in our area is very unused. And this right now is only gonna go between the college and then the bus station, which is very limiting. Um, but those are the two places where people could pick 'em up and then travel. Correct. Those would be two chargings. There'd be two, two places you could get on a bike, right? Yes. Okay. Um, but yeah, that, that figure keep escalating. I mean that's, you know, um, that's quite a subsidy. Council Ky Thank you. If, if I may clarify a few things. Uh, councilor Morgan, you know, discussed the, uh, the scooters. These are a little bit different in so much as you have to dock the bike, you have to bring it to a facility, uh, you know, either at Westfield State College, PVTA, or one of the other communities that have the, um, the bike, uh, docks or, or bike racks. Uh, for this, the amount that we have to pay to Councilor all's questions is $4,554 to North Hampton. That's to cover the project. Um, and maintenance of the, of the contract, the drop mobility, who's the owner of the, of the bikes and the program, uh, gets $18,200 a year, and it could go up to around $27,275. Uh, give or take, they're trying to get some sponsorships. It may or may not, um, adjust that figure. So, um, it does have to be docked it, you know, with 25 cents a minute for the bikes. And thank you for bringing that up, counselor. Um, theoretically who's, you know, are you gonna take a bike to work, set it outside of your workplace for 25 cents a minute, work, and then bring it back to the, to the docking station? I just, it doesn't, it doesn't seem feasible. Uh, you know, New York City's got these and it's great. They've got 'em every three or four blocks. It, it fits well for a model like New York City where there's so many of them. Um, and, and New York is so dense in population that you can drive it, drop it off somewhere, go to work, pick up another one, you know, ride at home. But, uh, Westfield's not that we're not that community. Thank you. Council Sullivan. You all set? Okay. Councilor Beam? Yeah, J uh, just a couple questions. Um, you know, and I'm inclined to, you know, I was all over the board on this, but I'm inclined to give it a try, but we know that someone will take a bike and throw it in the river. So what, what happens with that Councilor Osky, do you have an answer for that? If I can? Yeah. If I can ask chair. Yeah, it, it's up to, yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, that would be up to, um, it would be up to drop mobility to find where somebody dropped it. That's, and so there's no additional cost to replace a bike after yearly? No, no. The fee we pay for them is for maintenance and replacement bikes. Okay. I mean, I, I, I did have some conversations with people in Worcester, both Worcester officials for the city and for West Worcester State. Obviously different than us. Uh, I have had some conversations with West Side and Chickpea, and not many are enamored with the process, but every community's different. Um, so, you know, I I just, I guess to, to Councilor Allie's point, I, as long as, I guess I'm a little concerned about the maintenance and upkeep and so forth, and I did not read the contract. So I'm, I I just want to reiterate that. Is that covered yearly? And then are they gonna come back to us because they're missing three bikes? They're gonna keep replacing as long as we pay the flat fee. That's a guarantee in the contract. Yes. Okay. Thank you Adams. Yeah, no, and I'd like to support it too. I just, that was my, back to my original question, and maybe I, maybe I'm wrong. Um, but I think we don't allow bikes through the downtown. I think that's how I understand our ordinance. So if you, anybody who wants to drive through downtown cannot ride a bike on the sidewalk. And we don't have a bike lane in the center of town, so you will be riding with the cars. So I just want to clarify that. I could be wrong, and maybe we have a plan to bring a bike path through the center of town. And again, I'd love to support this, but I just, again, safety is what I worry about. So if, if anybody has a little more information, or maybe I'm wrong what I'm saying, if anybody else knows more about that, Councillor Fige. Thank you. The council did change the, uh, ordinance concerning no bicycles on sidewalks, and they are now allowed on sidewalks unless posted. So we did that a couple year, about a year and a half ago. So you can ride a bicycle on a sidewalk unless it's posted. No bicycles, to my knowledge, there are none downtown. I don't know of any, anywhere. So you could ride your bicycle on the sidewalk. Thank you. Okay, Cindy. Thank you, Mr. President. For the last moment, I'm going to say the law department states that we should not enter into this agreement. And I will open, I will go with the law department, uh, as far as what they think is important to our city and our citizens. And that is not to go with this understanding. Right. Real quick, council, Morgan and Mel, then I'm gonna move the question. We've been on this for too long, Right? Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I, I, um, I mean, I, I love bicycles. I've, I've, I ride bikes. I'm, I'm with Mr. Uh, with Councilor Adams on that. Um, but I, um, I, I really don't like having the agreement with North Hampton. I, I'm curious as to why, perhaps the, we didn't have an agreement with Westfield State University. If this, if they're only gonna be used in that to go from the college back to the, to the city to downtown, and as a mode of transportation, uh, I don't understand why there wouldn't be maybe some, uh, thinking outside the box and do something with, with the, with the state university. Um, I, I just don't like being tied to, um, the, the, the money on this. Um, with an, with an outside agreement. I, I think there's a better way to do it. Um, so I, I was on the fence, uh, maybe leaning towards yes, but I'm a no now on this project. Council Melo, and then we're gonna have a, a vote. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I just wanted to say that the PBTA downtown is literally one city block from the bike path entrance. So even if you did have to go downtown to get a bike, you would only have to walk it or ride in traffic or on the sidewalk, which is evidently allowed by us, uh, for one block to get to the bike path, to get to a safer way to move around. So it, it's not that much. Number one And number two, bikes are allowed on city streets, right? Like, it, like, we're supposed to actually respect bikes on city streets and be careful about them. And maybe if we had more bikes on our streets, people might drive more carefully and not pit people without any vehicle at all. So I, I just think that we need to really think about where we wanna be and shoot toward that. And this is not in the scheme of what we have on our agenda tonight, even close to a lot of money. It's not even 10% of what the mayor wants to spend on literally a wall. That's all. Thank you. All right. Roll call. Madam City Clerk Belt. Randy. No. No Burns, no. No. Nyon? Yes. Vicki? Yes. Harris? No. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Melo? Yes. Morgan. Ellie. No. Ky No. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? No. Bean? Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Uh, item eight. Council Oniskey. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. On December 19th, ele O met and upon a two zero vote, voted to recommend, uh, let's see, where are we? Sorry. An ordinance amending Chapter 18, article two, division three, division of Public Services. Uh, we voted positively, uh, two zero to recommend this change. A second. Motion made it Second. Further discussion, counsel. Thank you, Mr. President. This essentially provides the, um, board of Public Works, the authorization for, uh, trash and recycling fees. Currently, uh, the ordinance, uh, in the, in the city ordinances calls for $95 per quarter for trash pickup. Uh, where in fact, we actually charge $85 per year. So this ordinance would allow the DPW or Board of Public Works to make changes, um, to the trash fees. Uh, currently we are paying, um, $673,000 out of the general funds to, um, help support the trash fees. So the, the trash fees that we have currently at $85 a year do not, uh, do not cover the actual costs. The recycling costs have gone up, uh, from 700, or from actually zero. We used to get it for free, uh, to around $730,000, um, uh, to a million dollars, uh, per year. Um, so the way we left it is in count or out, I'm sorry, out of l and o, is to allow the DPW, uh, commission to make those changes as they see fit. So currently they did not vote to accept this. Um, city council can actually tell them that the, or tell the Board of Public Works. This is gonna be your job. You could do it, but I recommended that we get buy-in from the Board of Public Works before we just, uh, shoved it down their throat, essentially. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone have any comments? Councillor Sullivan? Yeah, so I, I, is there a motion to table this until such time as the DPW weighs in Council? Thank you, Mr. President. At this point, we'd like to move ahead with first reading. Um, then we're gonna wait and have second reading after the, uh, provided it passes, have second reading, uh, after their, after their meeting. So it would be our second meeting in January that we'd have that answer. It seems to be, yes, according to the minute meeting or the minutes of the meetings that TPW had, they, they thought they actually had the authority at one point in time, but they, they didn't. Uh, but I wanted just a firm vote that they would take the authority rather than just, uh, you know, figure it out and try to surmise what their minutes were. Councilor Harrison, then Councilor Figi. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, they voted to go from $22 to $45 per quarter, which is almost, um, 88 to about $200 for the average, uh, person, uh, average house. So, um, that's where we are at. And, um, I went to the Illinois meeting and they did an excellent job, um, on all the agenda items. Um, but I'm just saying that perhaps we should look at how the Department of Public Works is doing their business, as opposed to just saying, this is how much it costs us to, um, send trash and send, um, recycling to a business as opposed to examining exactly how the department is running. Because from 88 to $200 for the average person is a huge increase. Thank you. Councilor Figgy. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to amend section 18 dash 1 22, subsection B and change the 10% discount for senior citizens to 50%. Second. Made it seconded. Is that part of this? That's, yes. It's, it's part of the ordinance, Yes. It's Council ky. Is that part of it? Uh oh. There's a, right now there's, in the ordinance, uh, change or proposed ordinance change, it offers a 10% discount for seniors. Okay. So we got a motion in the second on the floor to amend any discussion on that. Councilor Matthews Kane. And then Councilor Bean. You got unmute. Thank you. In general, I support this motion. I just don't know if we wanna make it means tested. Do you wanna give it to every single senior, or do we wanna give it to the senior? Senior? That's my only concern. Cannot hear. Yeah, I couldn't hear you either, really? Can you hear me now? Yep. Yep. Sorry. I'll repeat what I said. Um, and my apologies. Um, I su in general support the motion motion. My only concern is do we wanna make it means tested? Do we wanna give it to all the seniors or do we wanna give it to the seniors who need it? And would there be a mechanism to do that? I think we do that from some of the other discounts, Not, not sure. Councilor Bean and then Councillor Figi. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, obviously there's a lot of questions here. Um, so don't we have a smaller barrel right now people can get, and is that still the same fee at the $88 a year? Or are they just reducing the barrel that they have? Because I, I mean, the, the senior center is always a nice good feel, you know, option. I do think it's illegal because it's age discrimination in the grand, grand scheme of things. But we talk about that with our sewer stuff all the time, and no one wants to bring it up because then we'll have to sit there and charge people more money. We all understand that $88 a year is a pretty low price to get rid of your trash. But I am, I am very concerned by giving this to the commission like we did with water, that these rates will skyrocket. So I, I mean, I'm gonna actually ask some questions about that once we hand this over, because I, I, I do like the idea of actual expert, but I don't wanna say experts, but people that deal with this on a day-to-day best basis to make the determination on what the cost is, like Councillor Harris says to run the department. Um, but I think, I mean, I don't wanna speak for anybody, but $88 to get rid of your trash curbside is a pretty good deal. And I think we all recognize the increase has to happen, but that amount of 200 is, seems like excessive. So although that vote doesn't count on their end either, so they'd have to retake that because they don't have the authority to do it on their own. Um, so I, I, I would, I would do the first reading, and then we can gather more information on the, on the two weeks. Councilor Figgy, Thank you. Uh, I too am very concerned about handing over this. I think it's, it's where it needs to go, but it needs to have some rains put onto it. And that's why I'm saying the 50% discount people on fixed incomes, and Word two is loaded with those voters that are on fixed incomes, I'm concerned about. So the 50% you have to apply for it like you do with the sewer. You don't get 50% off your sewer. But I think we need to have a mechanism in place to give some relief to our senior citizens on fixed incomes that needed. So that's why I went with 50%, which would keep it basically where it is now for that population. That's my logic behind that amendment. Alright, Adams? Yeah, I don't disagree. I don't disagree with what we're doing. The problem is, the way I look at it, it's, we vote for, or they vote for it, we can't get in the middle Here. You're trying to say we're gonna have control over 50%, but we're giving them the ability to raise the rate. Um, it's gotta be one way or the other. We can't have us doing half of the rate and they do the other half, in my opinion. Um, they gotta have the whole thing or we gotta have the whole thing. That would be my comment. Councilor Allen. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so I, I wonder what the goal is here. I mean, right now, if it's costing us, let's say $700,000, um, to cover this, that means every resident, every business that's paying taxes is already, um, underwriting this. So that we have, as Council bean just pointed out, a very low trash fee for everyone. Um, but it's obviously it's coming out of the general fund. Um, so is your goal to, to close how much, um, it's costing for the general fund? It's kind of a wash one way or another, but right now everybody's getting a very good rate because the general fund's picking up, it sounds like three quarters of a million dollars every year toward this Const, inky, and then cons, Melo? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. If we do decide to go and, uh, with a 50%, um, reduction in price or discount for senior citizens, you know, we, we would really need to send this back to, uh, to l and o to go, go through and do that. I don't, I don't think it's appropriate to do it on the floor. And if, if that were to happen with a 50%, uh, decrease, obviously everyone else is, um, rates would, would go up too because, you know, you, you're just, you're taking outta one pocket and putting it in another. Um, so if we do decide to do that, I'd like to go back to l and o sort out the, um, you know, the 50% discount. I honestly don't know how that's done with sewer, with the, with the 10% I think for sewer. I don't know if you have to apply for it. Show proof of age. I, I really not sure on, on that process. Thank you. Council Mellow. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I don't be shocked, but I'm gonna agree with Counselor Anki and counselor being here. Um, I would like for us to find out exactly how we can legally apply a discount and not necessarily based on age, but I think Councilor Matthews came was correct in bringing up means testing. I, I, if, if we all have to carry the burden, then we need to make sure that it's, you know, born by the people who can bear it the easiest and not the people that will be put under by it. Um, also, I, I'm not really certain of the goal here. Are we gonna just decide that every department needs to make up enough money that they spend? Like is it, is it every government service that has to make up the money of what they do? Or just like DPW or I, I wanna be really clear about why we're doing what we're doing and why we're changing things. I know that hauling and recycling has gone way up. Like, and God's s sludge hauling has gone way, way upright. So a lot of our costs are gonna change. Um, but I think we really, somebody's gotta have some kind of vision, um, about where this is going because if you were to draw it out to its logical conclusion, it's not sustainable. Thank you. Councilor Burns. Gotta unmute yourself. You gotta unmute yourself. Council, I think we're losing the perspective on this. I think what's on the table right now, tell me if I'm wrong. Maybe I am, but aren't we gonna shift this responsibility to the DPW? And I know it's an in ordinance, but if we're gonna shift them, I think Council Adams mentioned it, we aren't gonna do half or the other half. Let them do it. I think we need to shift. I, I personally, I think we do need to shift the responsibility too. DPWI was on a, as you know, I was on the water commission for years and we weren't setting the race at that time. Um, and then when it came time, actually, I came on the city council and that's when we shifted to the water commission. And you have three members there. Don't forget, they aren't political. We're political, I guess, but, um, they aren't political. They're citizens. And I think they can make a better judgment on the rate increase or rate decrease or whatever it is, than we can as a political, um, body. So that's my thought on it. I I think we're losing, like I said, we, we shouldn't be losing the vision on this. We need the, this is to give them the authority to set the Councilor Fige, do you wanna withdraw that? No, I don't, but Councillor Fanon should go before me. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor fan. Thank, thank you. Um, I agree that this probably should go back to l and o if there're going to be amendments and if the amendments are gonna be substantial, um, you wanna make sure that we give it first reading with how we want it to end up. Because if you change it a lot, there is a publication requirement on this. So I, I really think it should go back to l and l get the discount, um, worked out and whatever parameters that we want to give to, if it does go to the water, if they are, if GPW if they are going to be setting the rates and like counselor Adam said, we can't be doing, we both can't be doing it. So, but we can through ordinance process, set the parameters. So I I I totally agree that it should go back to l and o and do a little bit more work before we give it first reading. Thank you, council. Uh, based on that, that I will withdraw my motion and instead place return to committee. Second Motion made it seconded. Any discussion on sending it back to committee Council? Nichi. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, you know, I, I'm agreeing it should go back to committee. If we wanna change something from, uh, you know, 10% to 50% the, the means, you know, the, the income, the means requirement. You know, I, I do agree with that because, you know, there's just as there's, you know, residents under 65 who, you know, go from different income levels, you know, the same thing is really true of, uh, residents, you know, over 65 if that's gonna be the, uh, the age cutoff. But I, I just, I, I don't, I don't feel we should do that. I, I think we're gonna end up spending more money trying to figure out who has the, the income that we wanna cut it off. As for, for discounts, that would require people sending in proof of, you know, how much money they make or income taxes. And someone would have to go through that to determine all this. And then, you know, that would have to happen on a yearly basis if you wanna do it right. So I just, I like that idea. I just, uh, unfortunately I don't think it's, it's practical to do that. We have to make it so that it's a, you know, a an age limit or some easy to, um, easy to change, easy to find, easy to prove, um, standard. Um, and, you know, age is obviously an easier, easier one to do than, than income. Thank you. So right now we've got the first reading by title only. Do you still wanna do that council? Uh, no. I, I don't, but I would like to get a, a temperature of whether or not we wanna change this to 50% or not, or recommend that it be changed to 50% for senior citizens. Um, I mean, I, I, I would be in favor of that. Uh, I don't know how the rest of the council feels, so I don't want to send it back to l and o, come back with 50% and then have it get shot down and go back yet again and come back with 10%. So I, I would like to get a feeling from the council if, if everyone could just speak up and tell me what they think, then we could come back with an ordinance change that, you know, is acceptable to everybody. Um, thank you, Mr. President. I'm, I, I guess I would reiterate that I'm interested in at least exploring what it would take to make it means tested. And I know that there's other discounts available in the city that we could maybe piggyback on top of. I'm just trying to find the exact ones. But, um, there are some current discounts that are means tested and, uh, we can see how they do it or if we could just go by what they said. But I appreciate what the counselor said about the expense of just figuring out the means. Testing. I'd just like to hear more about it, but I would a 50%, if it's means tested, I would absolutely be behind Councillor Sullivan. Um, I support delegating this to the DPW. Um, I know that's what the mayor was requesting, so I support that plan. I support the, um, discount for seniors. Um, means testing would be the easiest. I, you know, obviously look at the assessors or water sewer, which I don't believe are means tested. Um, but, um, means testing if you could do it. But either way I would support the, uh, the senior citizen discount. Okay. Anybody else wanna comment on the discount? Councilor Ali, Thank Mr. President. Um, 'cause one of the things you wanna look at is, would be the impact, uh, of, of that. Um, obviously, let's say I anyone over the age of 65 with a certain income, um, because that's quite a jump from 10% to let's say 50%, um, would be what would be the, the, you know, the overall cost of that be. Obviously people would definitely wanna take, take advantage of it. And, um, you definitely wanna consider the what would the, the possible, um, impact be, um, to the city. And then you could end up subsidizing even more of this. And these are costs that just keep climbing, you know, um, so something to be considered. Anyone else wanna comment on the 50% before we council burn? Thank you, Mr. President. Cindy Harris. Oh, Cindy, I'm not sure what Mr. Ali was alluding to, but I can tell you that anybody over the age of 65 is just trying to survive as far as all the fees and taxes and, uh, if they can get a reduction in this area, I think it is beneficial to, uh, a majority of our citizens. And I don't think we have to jump to hoops in order to do it. And, um, I just think that, you know, you have to look at, it's not only this, it is the water that went up 10%. It is the trash fee that's gonna go up a hundred percent plus that is, um, being proposed. And we have our taxes that, although didn't go up that much this year, went up extraordinarily, uh, uh, in the last five years, 500 to $700 per person. So I think you have to look at all that. I do think that Mr. Anki was very eloquent in the way he spoke, and I would hope that this would go back to Illinois. Thank you. Councilor Burns. And then Council Ky. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. And not, not to speak on the, the 50, I mean the, the, uh, senior, but, um, Fran Cain was there last night and he said it was gonna be on there next, and then agenda item, next time I will be attending that. I'm a liaison. I, I suggest all counselors attend that to make sure that we're on the same page with the TT w. So I believe it's the 2nd of January. Thank you. All right, council Ky, you want to send this back to committee? Yes, I'll, well, so I've got, for the 50%, I've got 1, 2, 3 people saying yes. Two people saying maybe yes with some conditions that leaves about, uh, you know, eight others who might wanna comment. Council B, I'd love to hear it. I, I, I would just say if we can get a legal opinion on the actual rate, the senior rate to see if that's something we can do, then I would be willing to support it. I'd rather go income based. I know we do our property tax deduction right now at $750, I think, and that's all income driven. I'd rather see something like that go, but, and, and rather than a a senior rate, I, I, I'd rather get the legal opinion first before we act on that. So if we can send this to law, that would be great. We have a motion and a second to send back the committee. And anyone else, we've got, you know, still handful, other people haven't spoke their opinion, I'll be happy to make a decision and bring it out again and bring It back. Councilor, councilor Adams then figured I will, I absolutely will support the senior. However, in my opinion, we vote for it, or the DP or the DPW does. We cannot split this up. That is a bad move. We either suck it up and, and we make the increase or we put it on the whole thing on them. We can't go to them and say we voted. It's 50%. You guys figure it out. How you're gonna make that up. That ain't, that's not fair to them. It's one way or the other. You can't, you can't be splitting this in the middle, in my opinion. Councilor Piggy, The only reason I brought it up is because it is in the proposed ordinance at 10%. I just thought 10% was too low, so I went for 50. Um, I'm in favor of that, obviously, 'cause I brought it up, but it's already in the ordinance that was given to us to vote on tonight. So I don't think we are doing half and half. We are giving it to them with stipulations, that's all. They still gotta make it work. Same difference. Councilor Morgan. I was just gonna say, I, I concur with, with Councilor Adams and, and his comments. Thank you. Okay. And, and Councilor Burns. Yeah, Real quick. Is it a conflict of interest if you're a senior to vote on this? I think it is. I I, I'm joking aside, I I really do. No, because it applies to everybody in the city the same, But you have a financial interest in it, But the same as everybody else. More than 10% of the population. I'm not saying I'm a senior, but You are councilor, You might wanna clarify that first. Councilor fan. Thank you. Um, yes, I would agree with the 50% and because it's in the ordinance, whatever we put in the ordinance, then the DPW would have to oblige by. So I would agree with that. And it will, if that's what, whatever the council decides on, it will go in the ordinance and that's where we have jurisdiction. Thank you Council Ky I'm in favor of the 50% too. Move the question, Mr. President. Thank you. Ready? Roll call. Can you clarify the, We're sending it back to committee. Thank you, Mel. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanny? Yes. B? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Keene. Yes. Meow. Yes. Marelli? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Livin? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Dean? Yes. Yes. Item nine. Council Ky? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, LAN O Met on December 19th, and upon a two zero vote, recommended removal from Committee without action, um, that the city council consider drafting a resolution strongly opposing the construction of a lithium battery storage facility. Thank You. Made it seconded. Further discussion? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, there really was a, a better way to bring this into committee than the way we did it. So after discussions with, uh, with Councillor Allie, um, we determined the best, the best means of doing this was what he did, uh, for this coming meeting on item or this meeting for item 27. So he is bringing forth the resolution and we can all discuss it, uh, you know, any of the changes we wanna make, rather than trying to do it in committee. So, uh, that's why we removed it without action. Any further discussion? Dean? Not, and roll call please. Andy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beam? Yes. Item 10. Councilor Osky? Yes. Thank you. Mr. President Lan Ooma on December 19th and upon a two zero vote vote, voted to recommend that a city ordinance dealing with rental properties within the city of Westfield be reviewed and created, voted two zero to remove from committee and request the public hearing for this Second Motion. Made it seconded for the discussion. Councilor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm gonna, uh, defer this to Councillor Figi. This was his, uh, original resolution. Uh, he wasn't at the meeting, but, or not resolution, but, uh, motion. He wasn't at the meeting and, uh, asked me to bring this, bring this out. So here we are. Councilor Figi. Councilor Figi. Thank you Mr. P. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies to not attending the meeting. However, we're at a previous engagement. This is a ordinance that I started working on back in 2018, along with PJ Miller from the Community Development, the Fire chief, uh, the police and Building Health inspector, uh, all on the idea of creating a registry. So we would know, a, how many rental properties there are in Westfield B, who owns the rental properties in Westfield and C, how to make contact 24 7 with these, uh, properties. Uh, it is quite a comprehensive package that's on the share drive for your review. We need to have public hearings in order to move this forward. So my request is that we have a public hearing for a city council and the planning board, uh, if that's required, uh, at our earliest convenience. Thank you very much. So that's a motion counselor. Motion is for to schedule a public hearing, uh, at our earliest convenience. And I believe Planning Board needs to be involved with this as well. So they also need a public hearing. Second motion made it second. Any further discussion on scheduling a public hearing? Councilor B? Yeah, just a quick one. I just wanted to give some kudos to Councilor Figgy on this. This one's not an easy one, um, to get your arms around. So I really appreciate the work on this. I, you know, when I worked at Westfield State, this was always some issues a, around this, and then even just getting some of the complaints about properties and stuff in the downtown that we've dealt with on a day to day. And both work counselors have been great. Two and three. So it's, uh, it's a daunting task. So I, I applaud you for getting it this far. Okay. So we got a motion in a second. Roll call. Madam City Clerk. Clerk Bill Trendy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew. Scheme? Yes. Mellow? Yes. Morgan Elli. Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item 11. Councilor Burns. Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. Last evening, Eleanor met and on two zero vote we voted, we recommended to leave in committee a petition for the street acceptance of Kaitlyn Wang. Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion. Council? Yeah. Mr. President after, uh, Nico was at, was at our meeting actually. And there's some questions on the deeds. It's a very mild, uh, it's not a big changes, but we, we felt that it was just leave it there until we can Deeds. Okay. And I think we got the same issue with the next four items anyways. Four or five. Well, two. Next two. Next two are the same. Alright, so roll call please. Walter. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Melo? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Dean? Yes. Thank you. Item 12. Constable Burns. Yes. Mr. President, same thing. At last evening we voted on a two zero. Actually, no, we voted two zero to bring it out of committee. And then after conferring with legal today, uh, we're gonna, um, uh, I'll make a motion to send back to the committee. Second. Motion made it seconded for the same reason. Any further discussion? Yeah, same thing. Beats just went cross the T's and dot the ice Call. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Peggy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew. Cain. Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgane? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Dean? Yes. Thank you. Item 13, council Burns. Present again. Item 13. Um, again, two zero vote last evening to, uh, recommend approval, but after, again, today with the lead department, um, we are make I make a motion to send it back to Ano. Second. Second. Motion made it second. Any, any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call please. Bey. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Ka. Yes. Melo? Yes. Morgan. Morgan. Ellie. Yes. Again. Monki. Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean. Yes. Thank you. Item 14. Councilor Bean Burns rather. I'm sorry. It's close. You just made present. But, um, last evening again, ele O Met and on a two zero vote, we voted to, uh, we voted, uh, a petition for the acceptance of Edward Street to remove from council committee without action. Second. You made it seconded. Further discussion. Council. Yeah. Mr. President. On, on on this street. And, and the next one. Um, the, uh, engineer in the department and the DPW both, um, uh, came back with negative recommendations due to the fact that it's gonna be, you know, cross prohibited to, uh, bring these streets up to, uh, par. Any further discussion on move? Roll call please. Belt Andy. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Mellow? Yes. Morgan Elli. Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Thank you. Item 15. Councilor Burns. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President again last night, ele O Matt in a 2 0 2 0 vote. Voted to remove this, he voted to remove a position for street acceptance of Gifford Avenue. Second. Second. You made it seconded for the discussion, counsel. Yeah. For all the other reasons from, uh, item number 14. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call please, Madam Be Andy. Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Ey? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beam? Yes. Thank you. Item 16. Council Oinky? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, ele O Met on December 19th, and upon a two zero vote, recommended approval of a resolution to approve and preserve or approve and accept a preservation restriction for the Central Baptist Church Building located at one 15 Elm Street. Second. Second. Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, this is part of what we need to do, uh, to allow the Central Baptist Church to, um, get access to the $192,000 that was voted on and approved by, by this council of CPA funding. Uh, they were able to actually access 20% of that money, uh, already, but, uh, this will protect the preservation and will allow, um, central Baptist Church to access the 80% of the $192,000. We did something similar a few weeks ago for the American Legion. Um, Kathy Palmer was there, uh, from the Historic Commission and, you know, spoke positively on this matter. And I suggest that we all, uh, vote to approve this. Thank you. Any further discussion on this? Would you read the resolution before we vote, sir? Yes. If I may. By title only a resolution approving and accepting a preservation restriction for the Central Baptist Church Building. Thank you. Roll call Police. Madam City Clerk Clerk. Bill Chandy. Yes. Burns? Yep. Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane. Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item 17. Council O. Thank you, Mr. President. On December 19th, LNO. Matt. And upon a two zero vote, recommended a resolution to authorize the mayor to sign on behalf of the city, the model host community agreement between the city of Westfield and Safe. TIVA Labs. LLC. Second. Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, safe. TIVA Labs. Labs is a marijuana testing, uh, lab located, uh, near the airport in Ward six. Uh, they've, they've been around there for at least three or four years, and at this point, this was another post community agreement that we need to bring up the state standards. Um, it will, uh, it will move the, uh, expiration date to December 31st. Uh, 2034. So it's a, uh, nine years. Previously they have been five, but the state is asking that we do nine years. So this is another one. There'll be a few more. Uh, few more coming. Any discussion? Councillor, Vern, uh, B Yeah. To the chair of Ano. So are we, are we financially, what are we getting out of the intergovernmental agreement outside of the tax benefit? Is that part of the agreement too, or No? Council Miske. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I mean, this is between, this is really a host community agreement that's, that's being changed. So, uh, we, we never receive any money, uh, except from retail. So retail I believe is, gosh, I I think it was two or 3% that we, we had for retail sales. But we, the city gets nothing from grow facilities, or in this case a testing laboratory. So this is just to fill the justi or the, uh, uh, state's requirements at this point. 'cause we're, it's just a piece of paper that means nothing. Correct? Right. The Cannabis Control Commission requires that these be, uh, submitted, you know, as per this form. So the old or current, I guess, um, HCAs that we've been using won't be accepted by the Cannabis Control Commission any anymore. That's where we first learned about this. I forget which facility it was, but when they went to go renew their license, uh, with the state, they couldn't do it because the host community agreement was in the wrong format. And if I can just, just one more comment about that. Um, so just so everybody knows, safe Kiva actually is partnering with some of the schools in town too, to help test some of the things they pull off kids and find on grounds. Um, so that's a great benefit to them to find out what's actually in the community and you know, how harmful it actually can be, you know, all from the, the legal stuff all the way to the legal stuff. So it's a, it's a good service. And, uh, the owner, there's been absolutely fabulous on this side, so I just wanted let you know that. Thank you. Anything further? Counsel by title only, please. Uh, a resolution of the city council. Of the city of Westfield. Uh, it's pretty clear. Full call. Madam City Clerk. Clerk Council. Randy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Yes. Fanon? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ally? Yes. Keen? Yes. Thank you. Item 18. Uh, charge for this Councilor Burns, do you wanna handle this one? I can. Mr. President. Thank you. Last evening, Allan o met and then a two zero vote. We voted to recommend a letter of intent to increase the staffing level in the police department from 66 to 70 to warrant officers Motion made it second. Further discussion. Counsel? Yeah. Mr. Mr. President and rest of the counsel. We remember, I think our memories go back to last year when, when the chief came before us to, to, um, temporarily increase the, uh, staffing to 70. This is a permanent increase. Um, for all the same reasons last year. I mean, just go over a few of them here. Um, if you send an, uh, an officer to the academy, now they come off the street, they aren't reserved anymore due to the fact the police reform and have reserve officers anymore. It's 26 weeks in the academy. And then another 14 for field training officers. They have to ride with another officer. Now if they come from another city and they're already police officers, they still have to do the 14 week ride along. So, well, I guess it's not a ride along. It would be field, field. Also west we're losing officers to state police. You got retirements, sick, sick leave, maternity leave, long-term injuries, military leave, all that. And right now, police department. Right. There's staff that's 52 actually working on the street. 52 officers. Um, and this would, this would give them, um, a little bit of a leeway on that. And also it will be in the, a budget next year for 70. And it's up to the mayor, whoever to uh, report that in the budget. Thank you. And anything further? Council Morgane. Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, the, the last conversation I had with, um, with, uh, the department was that the, the, the problem was getting, getting officers, uh, to, uh, get through the, the training and educate to have qualified officers. It was, it didn't, it didn't have anything to do with the number. Um, it was a matter of, uh, the recruitment. Uh, if they had the 66, they'd be fine. I don't remember them saying they needed 70. Um, the fact that there's 53, uh, and they're understaffed right now. They, they have a lot of challenges, whether it's injury, retirement, and whatever they, the problem is with recruitment, not with staffing. So I I'm gonna be a no on this. Okay. Anything further? Council burns. Mr. President. Um, the problem is isn't staffing. The problem is if somebody's sick, they can't replace that person. If somebody's at military, they can't replace that person. So they have to go to deficit of, of an officer. Um, and that's the reason he's doing so they, they, they probably know they'll never fill out 70 officers because there is a recruitment problem. There is, it's hard to get police officers, especially with the civil service. Um, Massachusetts Civil Service. It's that, that system is completely, it, it is not working. That's the reason. This is just to bring them up so they can get five or six more into the academy and get 'em up to snuff. Thank you. Councilor Adams? Yeah. Yeah. Councilor Burns. He's absolutely correct. There's probably 20 people out right now because of everything that Councilor Burn said, but there's still a number. So the number 70, it's a fake number, but you may have 15 people out and you have to have up to 70 to try to keep 52 people on, on the, on the books. So you're never gonna see 70, you might not even see 66, but they're all on the books. So you're stuck. You can't do anything. You're, when they're all, when they're out the academy and they're sick and they're on leave, you can't do a thing. And what's what the problem is, and I'm gonna tell you what the problem is 'cause I know I spoke to a few of them, these young guys, because there's not enough people are getting held to double shifts. I don't think that a police officer should be working 16 hours at a time, especially when there's things that they're driving cars at a hundred miles an hour, whatever it may be. That's not fair to the young guys that have to work the double shifts and they're the ones working it and what's happening, they're gonna quit. They're like, I've been working double shifts for, you know, six months now. I can't do it anymore. You have to, you can't do that to a police officer or a fireman. In my opinion. It's public safety and a 16 hour shift is gonna cause major problems. Okay, anything further? Cindy Harris. Oh, Cindy, go ahead. Uh, thank you Mr. President. Had you been at the l and o meeting last night? The police chief was there and he explained exactly what this entails and he explained exactly why we need this to raise the 20, uh, sworn officers and I will support this. I will double support this as a double. Yes. Thank you. Roll call please. Madam City Clerk Mel Chaney. Yes. Burns? Yes. Nyon? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Cain. Yes. Mellow? Yes. Morgane? No. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Thank you. Item 19. Council Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, ele o on December 19th and upon a two zero vote, vote, voted to leave in committee in ordinance amending Chapter 13, article five, division two, wetlands protection. Second. Second. Made seconded. Any further discussion, counsel? No. Okay. Anyone have anything? Roll call please. Madam City, clerk. Well, Randy? Yes. Burns Yes. Ion? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane. Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan. Ellie. Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item 20. Council Osky. Thank you, Mr. President. If you didn't know it. L and Mette on December 19th and upon a two zero vote recommended, uh, to remove the following item from Committee without action, the item is amending the animal control ordinance at section four dash 31 to prohibit any domestic animal from running at large. Second committed, seconded further discussion. I just have a question. Are they allowed to run in the ward? Yes. Okay. Roll call please. Madam City. Clerk Belter Handy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane. Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Thank you. Item 21, councilor Oniskey. Thank you Mr. President Lan o Matt in December 19th, and upon a two zero vote, voted to recommend removing the following item from Committee without action. The item is amending ordinances and rules to address public meetings that extend beyond 10:00 PM Second. Second. You made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Uh, yes. This is I believe in response to a, uh, 4:00 AM meeting that we had a few years ago. And, uh, thankfully that hasn't happened since. Yeah, thankfully. 'cause I was there. Council. Yeah. We're in a, we're in a different world now. Uh, that was my motion that he's removing from committee, so I'm more than happy to remove it, although I'd be happy to redo it if anybody changes their mind moving forward. So four o'clock in the morning, Unfortunately, I, you know, for full disclosure, I wasn't there. I was away in Maine. So, distance. Yeah. You, me that you of course. Coming up. Yeah. All right. Roll call please. Madam City Clerk. Bill Trendy. Yes. Burns? Yes. Yes. Figgy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane. Yes. Meow. Yes. Marelli? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Be Yes. Thank you. And 22 Council on Thank you Mr. President Lin Ooma on December 19th, that upon a due two zero vote, vote, voted to recommend removing the following item, uh, without action. Proposed ordinance that will create a public arts commission for the city of Westfield. Second. Well, she made it seconded. Further discussion, counsel? Uh, yes. I conferred with Councilor Matthews Kane. And, and she agreed it might be best at this time to remove it without action. It's been there for, uh, for a cup of coffee, let's say. So I think Councilor Matthews Kane has a something to say Anything further. Yeah. Just to repeat. I, he has my blessing to remove it. It was my very first ordinance when I, and it's based on ordinances in similar ones in other cities, but I don't think it's a good fit right now. So, um, I'm fine with that. Roll call. Madam City Clerk Be trendy. Yes. Barnes? Yes. Yes. Fanny? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Be Yes. Thank you. Personnel action committee Item 23. Councillor Harris. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, personnel action Committee met on 1217, uh, 24. And we recommend the reappointment of Joseph two, uh, 61 Bowden Street as a member of the Community Preservation Committee as a term to expire in July 20, 27. Second. Second. She made it Second. Further discussion. Counsel. Thank you Mr. President. He was first appointed 20, uh, September 23. I think that's, uh, Mr. Um, Sullivan who's sitting there. So he is been, uh, as an important and integral member of this committee for over 20 years. He states that he is a proud member of our city and wants to continue to be con uh, involved in our citizens' quality of life. He's also been the representative of this committee who sits on the Conservation Commi Commission, as well as being chair of this committee for a very long time. He is an art artisan contractor with 37 years plus experience in new construction, remodeling and architectural woodwork, and is the owner of JAN Woodwork and Renovations. Disposition is the mayor's appointment to the committee. And earlier in his career he did carpentry for a large property management company with over 400 plus units. Thank you. Anything from the council? Seeing none. Roll call. Madam City Clerk. Yes. Burns? Yes. Ion? Yes. Fiy. Fiy. Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Absolutely. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Beam? Yes. Thank you. License committee Item 24. Councilor Fanon. Thank you Mr. President. The license committee met tonight and gave a favorable, favorable recommendation to approve the junk dealer and junk collectors licenses for Elm r and antiques LLC at 30 Elm Street. Second. You made a second further the discussion, counsel? Yes. Um, we met tonight and we, um, discussed the licenses for 30 Elm Street. At the last meeting, there was a question about the Seventh School Street. Um, what address that is Part of the same purchase agreement that, um, Mr. Hanley has. Um, we did discuss with him that his application for the junk dealer junk junk collector license is for only 30 Elm Street. So no junk dealer or junk collector activity can happen at the seven School Street address. And if there are any restrictions or um, anything at that address, that would be something he would have to clear up with the, um, building department or the zoning. But for our jurisdiction of the junk dealer junk collector, it will only be allowed at 30 Elm Street. Thank You. Any further comments? Seeing none, please. Madam City Clerk Shandy? Yes. Burns? Yes. Fanon? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow? Yes. Morgan. Ellie? Yes. Monki? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Kate, do you know if, Do you know if the public hearing person is back with us? I can see him on the screen. Um, Mr. Sovan, can you hear us? I did try calling, but I didn't get ahold of him. Mr. Sva, are you, uh, can you hear us? Yes. Oh, okay. I did try calling and I couldn't get through to him. Okay. Well we can't do anything with that. So that being the case, uh, can we get a motion to continue this to the next meeting? All moved. Second. If you needed second in any discussion. Seeing none, roll call please. Madam City Clerk. Yes. Burns? Yes. Ian? Yes. Fi? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Melo? Yes. Morgan. Ellie. Yes. Ky? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Adams? Yes. Ali? Yes. Bean? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item 25. Council Ky. Thank you Mr. President. Move for second reading and final passage of an ordinance. Amendment to chapter 17 dash one 15. Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, adding no parking on both sides of Sibley Avenue and Valley Drive between numbers 86 and 1 0 2. Second. Second. You made it Second. Further discussion. Counselor. No. Anyone else? Roll call please. Madam City. Clerk. Beand. Yes. Burns? Yes. Nyan? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Ka. Yes. Me. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Oniskey? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item 26. Council El Thank you Mr. President. Motion for second reading and final passage of a layout order entitled An Order. Accepting and Laying Out Janelle Drive. Second. Second. You made it seconded. Any discussion? Same. None. Call please. Madam City Floor. Rey. Yes. Burns. Yes. Banyan? Yes. Biggie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthew Kane. Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan Alley? Yes. Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Be yes. Thank you. Motions, orders or resolutions? Item 27. Um, councilor Ali. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, item 27 is a motion of council's Ali Mellow and Morgan Alley for immediate consideration of a resolution, opposing placement of a lithium battery facility over the aquifer and that the resolution be submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities by close of business on December 20th, 2024. Second Motion made it seconded. Further discussion, councilor Elli? Um, yes. So, um, it's on your council share. Um, hopefully um, you've all had a chance to, to read it. Um, I assume most people didn't read the 5,000 pages that were accompanying the application, but, um, what I can do is I can read through it. Um, there's a series of warehouses and then if somebody has a, a comment or wants to edit it, um, at that point we would just stop deal with that. And then I would keep going on item by item item. So if I don't hear anything, then I would just keep reading the next item, if that's okay. Okay. Uh, Mr. President? Yes. Um, thank you, uh, Mr. Ali, uh, uh, counselor Ali, before you go on and on, can you just tell us and all our citizens does the mayor and fire department and law department approve this? Each one of them was at the public hearing on December 5th and expressed concern. Uh, chief elo, uh, was concerned obviously, because you really can't put these fires out, and the fires, um, result in a lot of pollution and toxins, um, being released into the atmosphere. So he was concerned about the safety, um, and equipping the, his firefighters, um, the mayor, um, was concerned also. Um, uh, there is no, um, benefit to the city in regards to, um, we have our own, um, electric system. And so, um, a supplier rather, so this would be not a benefit, direct benefit to the, the city, um, as well as, um, large amounts of, um, water that would be, you know, sprayed to keep the containers beside it. Um, cool. Obviously it's going through the atmosphere where all this toxins are, that water's going into the groundwater right above our drinking supply. Um, and so we may have expressed a concern regarding that. And, um, and who was the third person you mentioned? Mayor. Fire department and law. Department Law. Um, I, um, I haven't, uh, yeah, I'll pass on legal. Legal. I, I don't, I haven't heard. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Well, councilor Alley in the interest of time, um, since we're doing this resolution, I don't think we really need to read through the whole thing, Council. Alright. Um, well, I get that. I mean, it's, it's a, it's a fairly quick read. I mean, it's not that, you know. Okay. Um, so it's a resolution of the Westfield City Council regarding battery energy storage systems Best and a petition before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. Whereas Westfield is a municipality of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And whereas Article 97 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts states that the people shall have the right to clean air and water freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise and the natural scenic, historic and aesthetic qualities of their environment and the protection of the people and their right to, to the conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural mineral forest, water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose. And whereas the general court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has defined environmental justice principles, environmental benefits, environmental burdens, meaningful engagement, and the, and the related requirements placed upon the Secretary of the environment and all departments, boards, commissions, and authorities of the Commonwealth. And whereas the city of Westfield has created a water Resources protection district to protect the bonds aquifer from contamination. And whereas the city of Westfield is home to environmental justice populations as defined by both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and United States Environmental Protection Agency. And whereas the city of Westfield has already been burdened by discharges of hazardous materials and waste waste into our aquifer, including a very significant contamination of our municipal and private drinking water supplies by per and poly pleural, alkaline or substance PFAS, resulting in the city taking steps to preserve the aquifer drinking water supply through a costly carbon filtration system. And whereas the A-T-S-D-R in coordination with the EPA conducted indoor and outdoor environmental sampling to evaluate levels of PAS that may be contributing to elevated levels of PFAS in people's blood and determined that PAS was detected and samples in of environmental media such as Dustin Soil at homes in Westfield and PAS was detected in blood serum taken during the 2019 PFAS exposure assessments in Westfield and second, whereas there is a proposal for the Battery Energy storage system fast on Madeira Way in Westfield at a site that is partially located over Westfield Zone two and adjacent to South Hampton Zone two, and located in the secondary recharge area for both municipal drinking water supplies. And whereas the proposed site is 315 feet from the Abrook Village, assisted living and memory support home 900 feet from the designated environmental Justice EJ Census Block group, 1100 feet from the White Oak School and 1000 feet from its well 2,280 feet from the Heritage Park, a resident owned, manufactured home community, which has been designated EJ prior to the 2020 census. And whereas best failures are such frequent occurrences that the Electric Power Research Institute maintains a database of best failure incidents with consequences pose a very real potential threat to our environment, first responders and residents. And whereas the Department of Public Utilities is reviewing the best project proposed to be located at Madera Sway in the city of Westfield to determine one, whether the project is necessary serves the public convenience and is consistent with the public interest under general law Chapter 1 64, section 72 and two, whether the zoning exemption should be granted and if the proposed use of the parcels is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public, persuade it to General Law Chapter 40 a section three. And whereas the only way the D-P-W-D-P-U can approve the best on Madeira's way is to decide that having clean energy infrastructure is more important than our city's water Resource Protection District zoning ordinance, which protects our largest aquifer. And whereas we must balance clean energy progress with vigilant oversight to prevent environmental and public health harm from emergency technologies. Now therefore be ordained by the City Council of Westfield as follows. Resolved that the city council, the city of Westfield, is in agreement with its caring and concerned citizens hereby urges the DPU to find that the potential benefits of this project do not outweigh the very real environmental and public health risk associated with it. And the violation of Westfield's rights Article 97 Rights of the Water Resources Protection District Protections should not take place for the public convenience of residents anywhere. And citing this project in close proximity to already overburden, EJ and disadvantaged communities, schools, and long care, uh, long-term care facilities and in Water Resources Protection District is not equitable distribution of environmental burdens and environmental benefits. And the proposed use for this particular set of parcels is not reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. And it'll be signed by the mag. Thank you for reading it. Council Miller. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, there was, uh, an amendment or made to the motion after I last saw it, which has some inaccuracies. Uh, so I, uh, would like to motion to strike the second phrase in whereas number six, from resulting to system and the entirety of whereas number seven, uh, and motion to do so. Second motion made it seconded. Discussion, Uh, if I may, Mr. President, it's, uh, just because it would take more of our time to fix it than it is to just cut it. And the way it's written, it implies that the GAC filter cleans the aquifer, which is not true. Thank You. Further on the motion Roll call please. Madam City Court? Yes, you're muted. Okay. Thank You. This is, This is just, this is just on the amendment, right? Correct. Okay. Beltran? Yes. Burns No. Fanon. Yes. Vicky? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane. Yes. Mellow? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Dean. Sleeping, I think muted. Yes. My councilor Sullivan right now. Trying to wake you up. I like this. There you go. Alright, so now back to the, now back to the original resolution as amended. Any discussion on that before we vote? Councillor Matthews. Kane Councillor Sullivan. Thank you. I hope people will consider voting for this. I mean, ultimately this is rather toothless, but it just is voicing that we have concerns about this proposed project where as is are just a list of facts and it's saying because of these facts is what our feelings are. Um, I also wanna point out that the, our Westfield Planning Board has also written a letter and submitted it, and the South Hampton Planning Board and select board worked together to also write a letter to, to send in. Many of our other groups in our area are doing this. I hope we can join them at a minimum. I hope we all have just concerns and questions about this project and that the state really thinks through what they're doing. So I hope you'll Councilor Sullivan then Councilor Fanon. Yeah. So, um, I think it is highly appropriate that this body in the city as a whole hold this petitioner, um, um, to account for this project and all the facts thereof, and that we, we should make this, um, quite honestly as difficult as possible. Um, I, while I don't necessarily agree with all of the words that are used in the resolution, I will support the resolution, but I will also say that we are also as a community, and this is really would be, have to be driven by the executive. So the mayor, there has to be an engagement from with this company, um, because there's been not so much at, at the making of this resolution tonight, but earlier during public comment, uh, commentary about, you know, what is in it for the city? Well, you don't know what's in it for the city unless you actually engage with the petitioner, um, to talk about having a host community agreement or what that is because, you know, and I, as part of my previous job as Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs actually chaired the siting committee. Um, and I know that this is always an issue of, you know, ultimately local control. And the state has the ability to come in and, and, you know, go over local control and quite honestly impose, um, impose their will on this project. But we have to, as a community understand that if that happens, when that happens, we have lost all leverage at all in this project to negotiate out or even have a discussion about what the benefits could be to the city, whether or not even if there are a cazillion benefits you still would support this project. That is not really the question. The question really is, is that at this point, the, the city of Westfield has done nothing to engage, which quite frankly, given the question asked earlier by Councilor Harris, um, you know, where's the police? Where's the fire? Where's everybody else on this project? You know, there hasn't been any real engagement, um, by the fire chief with the petitioners on this. There's gotta be some conversation. And then also tonight we had a number of speakers from the company who offered public hearings, public meetings. I think the city ought to be taking them up on that to get all of those answers, because guess what? Those statements are gonna be part of that evidentiary record, which the siting board is gonna build, and ultimately over the course of the next year, gonna be hearing from. So I will support the motion here tonight. I agree with the worded words that, uh, councilor Matthews Kanes used. It's, it's kind of somewhat of a toothless tiger, but it does make a statement. And we should absolutely be holding these, this petitioner accountable for all of this. But we have to engage. 'cause otherwise you're gonna get to the end of this whole, whole process. And if the state does in fact, grant this, we have done nothing to try to get the best deal for the city of Westfield. That is not something that this body can do. But I think we can, we can hold the administration responsible for en engaging in that process and having those discussions. And I think we can also, um, bring the petitioner to the table to have those public meetings, um, and answer the questions, uh, and build a record, um, of our own as well. That can all be submitted and will be submitted to the siting board. So I will be a yes on the motion. Councilor Fannie. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I, I totally agree with, uh, councilor Matthews, Kane and Sullivan on their comments. I think that we do absolutely have to take a stand on this and show our support as city officials to this company, as well as engaging with them and talking more about that. We do have to get more information, but I think it's good that we have to a stand. Um, our constituents, especially my ward one constituents, have really, um, come to me and they want us to look at this and protect our water. And that's really our main concern here. So I I, I do support this and I thank Councilor Ali for putting this, um, resolution together. Thank you. Councillor Ali, and then Councillor Beam. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So first of all, I would like to thank everyone, um, for their efforts, um, and especially, uh, Councillor Melo, um, for her efforts, um, that there's a lot that went into this resolution. Um, and the one thing I would like to say is, I mean, um, no amount of money is, is worth the risk of endangering a city's, uh, drinking supply. Um, I mean, what would we tell people, uh, in the future, um, that if a future event threatened our water supply that we, we hoped nothing bad would happen. Um, and we just simply can't afford to roll the dice. Um, and just really wish that nothing bad would ever happen. Um, so it's a precious resource. It's a, um, so, but I would like to thank everybody, um, uh, for supporting this. Um, as, uh, the council pointed out a lot of different other bodies, um, including our own planning board and a and a lot of people in, in, in the community have, have spoken out about this. Um, I don't wanna by anybody else's phone, but mines rang off the hook. Um, and so, um, thank you. Yeah. Uh, just two quick things. I wasn't really gonna say anything. I, I do support the resolution. I think it's a smart, smart, uh, move. Um, but two things that really irritate me. One, they, they held a public hearing on the day that we have, our council meetings we're the governing body of this city, and they tried to exclude us. That's the way I read that. And, and if they didn't try to exclude us, then they didn't do their homework to see when these meetings are, there's a lot of degrees that stood in front of that public hearing the other night. And I, we would think they'd be smarter on this. And, and the other piece is, why would you pick a city that just went through what we went through on the pfas contamination on the north side? It is mind boggling that they would even consider, they, they've gotta understand what we're going through as, as a city and to force this, because I'm getting all sorts of, of, of, um, guidance in the sense of what kind of authority or that we really do have. I will say, this is the last time I'm gonna give an easement to anything when it gets in front of us and it says, the reason why we gotta, uh, support it is because they'll end up getting it in court. That's not gonna fly with me anymore. I'm, I'm going to make sure that, you know, those questions are answered prior to going in because it, it just, I I, I just questioned the, the not so much the motive. I understand what they gotta do, and I understand that this is their job, and it's not a personal attack, but to try to exclude us from the public meeting at Westfield State and then to choose Westfield as a whole after the PFAS issue that we had on the north side, and to put this facility right on the aquifer is, is, is probably one of the stupidest moves I've ever seen in my life. Thank you. Councilor Matthews Kane. Thank you. I would like to follow up on Councilor Bean's comments about how this process is not working for the city. The date that they picked was unfortunate, but I was extremely concerned. I was at the meeting and people would ask questions and their response would be, oh, that's in the 5,000 page document. The one that bothered me the most was someone stood up and said, you are asking for zoning exemptions. What zoning exemptions are you going to get? And they said, oh, the project's a little high. There's a height issue, and the setbacks a little close to the road. Oh, and something else. It's in the 5,000 page document. And the other thing is that they would be overruling our water resource protection, uh, ordinance. And to pretend that they didn't know that or that average citizens are supposed to go sift through a 5,000 page document, they claimed that they were there for a fair process and that they were being transparent. And I found they were not. And to ever say, oh, that's in the document. Go read it. It's not. And so I think that's another strike against 'em. I think they've been, there's been a lack of transparency for that. I found out This. All right. We ready to vote on this roll call, please, Mr. Andy? Absolutely. Barnes? Yes. Yes. Damon? Yes. Fige? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan? Yes. Ky? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Item 28, council Morgan. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, motion of Council Morgan Elli to amend zoning ordinances relative to battery energy storage facilities referring to the planning board and schedule a public hearing at the next applicable date. Second motion made it seconded. Further discussion. Council? Yes. Thank you. Um, so the, um, Jay Vinky had, uh, I've talked to him about this. I also spoke to law. I also spoke to the mayor, um, and Jay Minsky's, uh, submission to the, uh, the council. The two sections that would be looked at for this would be section three dash one 30 of our city ordinances, which would make it a, um, for the industrial areas of the city, would have to be a special permit, would have to be, um, utilized for that. So thinking of, uh, potentially putting this under the special permit, uh, for industrial. But the one that is, uh, the one I'm, uh, I know is necessary is the three dash one 70.5, which is prohibited Uses. And this is under three dash one 70, the Water Resource Protection District, which was just mentioned a couple of times. Um, so the prohibited uses. We already have many, um, types of businesses including self storage, um, you know, agricultural businesses, waste water, um, dumping or disposal. There's all kinds of things listed there that we know should not be, uh, put onto a water resource protection area. Um, this is a brand new type of business, brand new type of energy, um, in, in the scope of energy, uh, that has been around. Some of it's been around for a century. Um, so, so we've had, you know, we started with coal. We went to, you know, uh, gas and oil and all kinds of other things. Wood. Uh, but this is, this is totally new. And we need to add this to our, uh, protection prohibited businesses under the, uh, water Resource Protection District, which is section three dash one 70. Uh, so that's what this aims to do. Um, the company, from what I understand, uh, because it's an energy utility, may be, may apply for exemption. Maybe, uh, councilor Sullivan can speak, uh, more elaborately on, on that. They can apply for an exemption, um, with the state and, and which would trump our zoning laws. Um, but at least we are doing this as being proactive and get it into this section as a prohibited use for the Water Resource Protection District. And this is really the only way, um, we can protect the city's water supply by putting it into this ordinance. And that's why I proposed that tonight. Anything further? Roll call please. Madam City Clerk Councilor Me? Yes. I'm sorry. Did we miss somebody? Right? Councilor Meow had her hand up. I just wanted make sure she, councilor Miller. Uh, thank you Ms. President and Councilor Matthews Kane. I was just, just, uh, going to mention to Councilor Morgane. Um, and since we're an open meeting, it's not a violation. Uh, I don't have any control about, uh, industrial A, but the Water Resources Protection District zoning ordinance is under reviewing committee. Uh, and we can totally discuss that at our next meeting. It's already open and in there. So, you know, discussing prohibited uses is already a topic under review. Uh, councilor Adams? Yeah, Just one quick thing and, and I don't know a lot about energy, um, but we have to be a little bit careful because the state is saying, get rid of your oil, get rid of your propane, get rid of all that stuff. So they want to go fully electric. So we may need these down the road or we're not gonna have any energy. So just, we have to be very careful when we do this because this may be something the city does need. Certainly not where they want to put it, but down the road we may need these facilities. So we have to be careful when we zone these ordinances. Anything further further? Roll call matter. City Clerk. Clerk. Well, Shandy, yes. Burns? Yes. Fanny? Yes. Gie? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane? Yes. Me? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Yes. Monki? Yes. Sullivan? Yes. Adams? Yes. Allie? Yes. Bean? Yes. Thank you. Any announcements? Councilor Morgan Alley? Yeah, just that, uh, Sunday morning and Monday morning. Probably the two, two of the coldest mornings of the winter coming up. So I hope, uh, you and your family stay warm and, uh, have a blessed Christmas, Hanukkah, and whatever holiday you're celebrating as we approach the holiday seasons. And I'd like to say the same to everybody. And thank you for tonight. It was a little bit long, but we got through it. And, uh, we'll see you all in January. Councilor Harris. Motion to adjourn. Second. She made it seconded. We'll call Madam City Clerk. Sorry. Yeah. Be Burns. Yes. Fanny. Yes. Peggy? Yes. Harris? Yes. Matthews. Kane. Yes. Meow. Yes. Morgan. Ellie. Yes. Ky Yes. Yes. Adam? Yes. Allie. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Yes. Merry Christmas everybody. Merry Christmas. Thank you.