WESTFIELD – On April 15, the City Council passed the first reading to authorize a $12,250,000 bond for the construction of the Dry Bridge Treatment plant for Wells 1 and 2.

Finance Committee Chair Ralph J. Figy said that the city treasurer, purchasing agent and Water Department officials attended the subcommittee meeting to answer questions submitted by At-large Councilor Kristen Mello and himself regarding the bond and water treatment.

Figy highlighted the responses, including the cost savings of the new bond being financed through a state revolving fund (SRF) at a zero percent financing rate and 18 percent forgiveness rate, for a total savings of $5 million.

In response to a question on how much remained on two previous bonds for water treatment, totalling $18 million, Figy said $5.3 million remains unspent, and will not be spent if this bond is approved.

Regarding questions on whether any PFAS contaminated water from Well 2 had been put into the distribution system, Figy said he received an emphatic “no.”

At the Council meeting, At-large Councilor Dave Flaherty said he was going to support the bond.  He said questions from the public had been answered.  “I personally talked to (Systems Engineer) Heather Stayton and others knowledgeable about this system,” he said, adding that nobody can say “no” PFAS had entered the system, only that no amounts had entered according to testing standards.

Flaherty also spoke about alternatives for treating Westfield water. He said the council looked into connecting to Holyoke or Springfield for a few years, and both options would be cost prohibitive. “The Water Department has evaluated that, and does not recommend we take that path. It would be a much more expensive way to get water,” he said.

Ward 5 Councilor John J. Beltrandi, III acknowledged the hard work, time and energy the Water Department put into presenting the bond. “They’ve been receptive, they’ve done their work,” he said.

At-large Councilor Rick Sullivan agreed, saying they’ve been transparent and answered a lot of very detailed good questions in a detailed manner. Sullivan, who also serves on the Finance Committee, said the questions and answers will be included along with the committee meeting minutes, and available to the public once the minutes are approved.

“I would like to thank the Water Commission for all the time they put into this, and I would like to thank my colleague for her time in investigating this,” said Ward 4 Councilor Michael Burns, referring to Mello, who asked most of the questions.

Mello wasn’t satisfied, however, saying that she had asked three separate times about specifics regarding the concentrations required for carbon changeout of the granular activated carbon (GAC) filters. “I would still like to see those answers. We’re going to end up in this same boat again. Everybody knows the people who asked me to be here would not want me to vote for this,” she said, before casting the sole vote in opposition to the bond. The second reading and final passage was scheduled for the meeting on May 6.

Also approved at the council meeting were police department expenditures of $42,411 from free cash for protective gear and a new drone.

Ward 3 Councilor Bridget Matthews-Kane renewed her objections to spending $3,600 from free cash for 10 shields, helmets and batons for the police department. She said as the sole no vote on the Finance Committee her concerns included calling it personal protective gear instead of riot gear, as stated on the invoice. She questioned the need for riot gear and cited research that wearing intimidating gear increases escalation. She also raised concerns about the department being making plans to purchase the equipment following a peaceful protest in Park Square Green on June 4 for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Matthews-Kane said if passed, she would want to see an equal amount of money spent on de-escalation training, and also a written policy for use of the gear.

Several councilors conceded that Matthews-Kane raised some good points, but most supported the purchase. “I just want to make it clear that this gear was bought 30 years ago. It’s a great thing that it’s lasted that long because we haven’t had to use it,” said At-large Councilor James R. Adams, liaison to the police department. He said the $3,500 for the equipment was worth it to keep officers safe. “We don’t want to use it unless we have to,” Adams added, saying he agreed with a written policy and training.

Mello was the only councilor to vote with Matthews-Kane. “I have concerns that dovetail with hers – if we have mutual aid agreements and our guys can’t participate because of a lack of gear; if they don’t want to wear it or be assaultive, maybe we shouldn’t buy it,” she said. After more discussion, the purchase passed 11-2.

The second purchase requested by the police department was $38,000 from free cash for a new drone. Figy said the current drone that the department wishes to replace will be sold to Southwick for $5,000. He said the new drone will be used by the police and fire departments, who each have two FAA certified drone pilots, and to support other departments in the city.

At-large Councilor Nicholas J. Morganelli Jr., the sole dissenter on this vote, questioned spending $38,000 for one drone when three may be purchased for the same price. “Seems like an awful lot of money for a drone,” he said.

Matthews-Kane, who supported the purchase, detailed the features of the Inspire 2. “This will have higher capability, better video, infrared, two batteries, longer flight time, larger payload that can drop supplies up to six pounds, louder speaker, flood lights. It is an expensive drone with increased capabilities that can be used by different departments,” she said, adding that she was impressed by the “very robust” FAA policy. “The Westfield Police Department has helped to find lost children in the woods using drones,” she said.

Adams noted additional features, including a $12,000 camera with 30 times zoom and infrared capability. “At nighttime if someone is lost, heat sensing (will find them). Between that and the flight time, 45 minutes versus 15 minutes, this is the best drone [drone manufacturer] DJI has. If it’s going to save a life for $38,000, it’s worth it,” he said.

Morganelli said he appreciated the comments but wasn’t convinced about the cost.

“I think we need to trust the experts on this, and the experts are the police department,” said Ward 6 Councilor William Onyski, before the drone purchase passed 12-1.