06-05-2025
Westfield City Council votes to increase trash fee to $260 per year
WESTFIELD — On May 1, the City Council voted 9-3 on an ordinance increasing the refuse and recycling fee to $260 per year, an increase of $175 from the current fee of $85. Prior to that vote, the council voted 11-1 in favor of an amendment to extend a 50% discount on the fee to seniors who qualify for enrollment in state and city tax deferrals and exemptions.
Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski, chair of the Legislation & Ordinance Committee, introduced the initial amendment to increase the fee with no recommendation from the committee, which he said voted to bring it to the full City Council for discussion.
Onyski said the mayor has spoken about the need to increase the refuse and recycling fee several times in recent weeks. He said in 2024, with the annual fee at $85, the city used $2 million from the general fund to supplement the $1 million raised from the fee.
He said at one point, the city had been getting paid for its recycling, but that no longer happens, and that's just one of the increases the city has been seeing.
Ward 3 Councilor Bridget Matthews-Kane said when the council first started talking about this, she had a lot of concerns because the fee was going up so much, especially for seniors on a fixed income, who are the ones reaching out to her. 'They're really upset,' she said.
Matthews-Kane then made a motion to amend the current ordinance before the council, which allows a 10% discount for permanent residents 65 or older who own and occupy their homes. The ordinance also states applications for abatement other than senior discount must be submitted in writing.
Instead, her amendment proposed that for permanent residents 65 and older, a 50% discount be offered to seniors based on qualifying for the senior circuit breaker on the state income tax, or the city's 41A real estate deferral, 41C tax exemption or 17B real estate tax exemption. She said she had her amendment reviewed by the Law Department, who said it was legal.
Matthews-Kane said her problem is the current language in the ordinance gives multi-millionaires a 10% discount they don't need, and those who are really struggling only a 10% discount.
'This is means-tested based on four criteria. Giving a 10% discount to those who are multi-millionaires is not a good idea, and giving 10% is not enough to those really struggling,' she said.
She said looking at the numbers, 648 residents receive the state's Senior Circuit Breaker tax credit, but some of them are renters. She said if you assume that two-thirds of those that get the Senior Circuit Breaker apply for the fee abatement, it would come to $56,100 less in revenue, compared to giving all seniors 10% , which would be $52,130 less. 'It's roughly the same amount given out as a discount, but going to people who most need it,' Matthews-Kane said.
During the discussion on the amendment, Councilor Kristen Mello said she loved the idea, but was 'a hard no on the ordinance if I don't get the answer to my questions from last week.' Later, she commented on a lack of transparency and accountability in the process.
Councilor Brent Bean asked if Matthew-Kane's amendment was discussed at all in the L&O subcommittee. Onyski said they received it only hours before the committee met on April 30, and did not discuss it.
'We received the suggestion at 12:45 [p.m.] yesterday, and the meeting was held at 5:30 p.m.,' Onyski said.
Councilor Kevin Sullivan questioned whether Matthews-Kane was undercounting the people who would apply for the abatement, and said he would go with the upper figure of $97,000, based on the total number of people who could qualify.
'Every single person would have to apply,' Matthews-Kane said.
Sullivan also questioned how many multi-millionaires would be getting the 10% discount. 'My guess is zero. I can support the motion, if we're going to go to the mayor's request of $260,' he said.
Ward 4 Council Michael Burns said he is a senior himself, but there are other people struggling, including younger people with children.
Matthews-Kane said she and the auditor looked at ways to include other groups of people, including veterans with 100% disability, and blind.
'There is no legal mechanism to identify every person who would apply,' she said, adding that it would require too much manpower, and the city might have to hire someone to do the work.
Onyski said there is a sense of urgency on the vote for the ordinance, due to the upcoming budget presentation, but since the amendment hadn't been vetted by any committee, he would be a no until it is sent to committee.
'I like the idea,' said Bean. 'I would rather help people who need help. The reality is we need money to run the department.'
Bean said he has been on the council since 2002, and the rate hasn't been touched in years. He said his concern is if the revenue is truncated, it would be back before the council in another year. He said something the council has not done well is keeping up with the cost of business. 'I'm going to support the $260 and the amendment,' he said.
'I don't understand how you run a business or an enterprise that on an annual basis costs went up 3% and just went to the general fund — where there is no accountability, everybody pays it,' said Councilor Dan Allie. 'You have to pay for business. This should be a report every year when we do the budget.' He told Matthews-Kane he commended her work for seniors.
'Everybody's going to get hammered. It is what it is,' Allie added.
Councilor Nicholas Morganelli said he loved the idea of giving seniors a break, as do other municipalities in Massachusetts. He said the highest trash fee he saw in the state was $430 a year. He also asked what the mayor said about the proposed senior discount.
'He didn't say if he is for or against it, but if it passes, he's happy to do the administrative work,' Matthews-Kane said.
Ward 2 Councilor Ralph Figy said when he became acting mayor in 2019 for two months was at the time when recycling started no longer paying for itself. He said he had no authority as acting mayor, but did invite DPW departments from around the area to discuss what they could do going forward.
'I'm going to support this, because I cannot stomach the idea of more cuts, especially talking about the schools — 43 positions already. I know we haven't had a lot of time to vet this. I will be a supporter,' Figy said.
Ward 1 Councilor Karen Fanion said she did like the idea of the amendment, and asked if it only applied if the mayor's request of $260 annual fee passed. Council President John Beltrandi said the amendment was tied to the $260 fee.
'I said I would not vote to go from $85 to $260 — I gave my word,' said Councilor Cindy Harris. She thanked the mayor for giving some thought to her suggestion of putting the trash fee back in the general fund, but that he did not think it was a good idea. She said she might consider a motion to reduce the amount from $260, but otherwise she was a no. 'I gave my word,' she repeated.
Matthews-Kane said councilors could vote yes on her amendment, and no to the $260. Her amendment giving means-tested seniors a 50% discount then passed 11-1, with Onyski voting no.
The amendment to increase the tax fee to $260 passed 9-3 on its first reading, with Harris, Mello and Onyski voting no. Councilor James Adams was absent at the meeting.
A second reading on the fee increase was scheduled for the next City Council meeting on May 15.
Read the original article on MassLive.
