The Westfield City Council on Dec. 22 approved Resolution 25-161 to encumber $4,265,972.84 for contracts and purchase orders carried forward into 2026 after an extended debate about year‑end contracting and budget transparency.

Clerk Treasurer Marlejo presented the encumbrance packet and told the council the full encumbrance total was $4,265,972.84, explaining that encumbrances typically require a signed contract or purchase order before year‑end to preserve appropriated dollars. "A PO is also acceptable," Marlejo said when describing acceptable supporting documentation.

Several councilors criticized the timing of many encumbrances. One councilor said that carrying dozens of encumbrances at the end of December undermines proactive budgeting and could shortchange the city if competitive bidding and negotiation were rushed. "We shouldn't be sitting here on December 22 arguing about contracts," the councilor said, urging a process change to move such decisions earlier in the budgeting cycle.

Council debate singled out an economic‑development line item (approximately $324,124) that includes a three‑dimensional downtown model. Janelle Fairman, director of economic development, said the model was delayed because the final downtown plan was not ready earlier in the year. "This is a really helpful tool for the mayor to be able to talk with potential developers or investors in our city," Fairman said, explaining the model is intended as a living, updatable communication tool to illustrate the future downtown build‑out.

Fairman also described the city’s plan for a roughly $4,000,000 REDI grant from the IEDC: the ordinance preserves bond or loan capacity to "cash flow" such a grant on a short‑term basis if grant funds are not immediately available. She cautioned the city did not yet have a firm commitment on timing from IEDC for that grant.

After discussion and an exchange about which items could be reviewed or removed, Councilor Wanninger moved to approve the encumbrances and Councilor Huff seconded. On roll call the resolution passed 4-1; Victor McCarty voted "No." The council did not adopt changes to the process at the meeting but several members said they want a tighter timeline and more detailed line‑item reporting in the 2026 budget cycle.

The council also noted some encumbrances reflect delayed deliveries (for example, vehicles or fire equipment) rather than new initiatives, but members asked staff to provide clearer advance notice of anticipated encumbrances next year.

The meeting proceeded to other new business after the vote.