WEST SPRINGFIELD – After months of work, the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance is not ready, according to the City Council.

Council members voted 8-1 on Nov. 6 to send the ordinance, aimed at combatting blight in the community, back to the Ordinance & Policy Committee, where it has been discussed and debated for more than 120 days.

Council President George Condon said the document had many issues when it was first discussed at a public hearing on Sept. 19 and “it still has a lot of issues.”

He added he felt the process was being rushed to get something passed and could identify 16 amendments to the document he wished to see.

“I would rather see this shot back to the ordinance committee or voted down and then a new one re-written,” he said. “I think the intent of it was to capture the blighted properties and in the process of that we’ve picked up a lot of unintentional things that we hadn’t planned on.”

He went on to say he believed it was “ridiculous” to “punish 99.5 percent” of the town’s 782 commercial properties and the vast majority of the owners of approximately 8,000 homes with excessive regulations.

“I think this is kind of ‘Johnny come lately’ property maintenance in reality and I just think there are too many inconsequential things getting scooped up with it that were not the intent of it,” he said,

“I think everybody up here is very much in favor of doing something about blighted properties, but this is oh so much more,” said Councilor George Kelly, who moved to have the entirety of the 11-page ordinance read prior to the discussion and vote. “This is going to penalize an awful lot of people who are just going about their lives in a regular manner. I can’t believe on the eve of an election we’re putting in such an anti-business piece of legislation and want it to go through the way it is.”

Councilor David O’Brien expressed concerns for residential property owners who might not be able to afford the level of property maintenance required in the ordinance and resultant fines would make their hole bigger.

He added, “There is no appropriate safety valve for that person to go and have their case heard and be given some kind of exemption or help through community funds that are available to help them in fixing their house.”

After the meeting, Mayor William Reichelt expressed his displeasure with the decision.

“I’m disappointed,” he said. “[Town] Attorney [Kate] O’Brien and Councilor [Jill] Fortier have spent a ton of time on outreach and changes to the original draft over the past four months. But I’m hopeful that we can come to a workable consensus in the coming weeks.”

Residents at the meeting attempted to speak on the subject during the Citizen Speak Out portion of the meeting, but were not allowed because the open hearing on the ordinance had already been closed at an earlier meeting. Residents pushed the council to suspend the rules for the meeting, but Condon did not feel he could. Residents asked him to consult with Attorney O’Brien, but he did not.

The Ordinance & Policy Committee has not taken a stance on the ordinance. Having been in committee for more than 120 days without action, technically the issue would be presumptively tabled, according to Attorney O’Brien, but that does not preclude the issue from being taken up again.

Attorney O’Brien expressed displeasure during said during the Ordinance & Policy Committee meeting that took place prior to the City Council meeting, stating, “My frustration is the council got this in July and just now I’m learning about issues with things that were there in July.”