Councilor Allen’s meeting was no last supper, nor a last visit. Commish Baacke promised DCAMM would be back. (WMP&I)

SPRINGFIELD—Residents of the city and state officials agree something must replace the aging and possibly dangerous Hampden County Courthouse. Yet, they aligned on little else during a nearly two-hour meeting at City Hall. Ward 7 Councilor Timothy Allen, who chairs the City Council’s Finance Committee, convened the Wednesday meeting to provide residents with another opportunity to hear from state officials and provide feedback.

The Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance (DCAMM) is moving forward with a new courthouse secured via a lease. The bid will require a new building that a developer will finance and construct. The lease payments are effectively collateral. This, rather than a state-owned building, has prompted criticism and fears the state has made up its mind to site the facility outside downtown.

“As was presented in the presentation, the vote that was taken by the Asset Management Board, which is the only formal action taken that has taken to date on this, merely authorized the process which will be used to both to receive proposals, evaluate those proposals, select one of those proposals,” said Adam Baacke, DCAMM’s commissioner.

The proposals must include the site and development team that will design and build the courthouse.

For over a decade, legal professionals, courthouse staff and local officials have clamored for the state to replace what is formally the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse. Employees have linked severe illnesses and even deaths to the building’s condition.

The new “Springfield Regional Justice Center” would house all Springfield-based courts and the offices of extant county officials. These offices now report to the state.

Unrecyclable… (WMP&I)

DCAMM had initially begun a bidding process for a new courthouse the state would directly finance and own. Since then, officials have claimed this would take longer, due to state procurement laws and the state’s bonding capacity. In other words, state finance officials doubt the state could borrow the funds to build the courthouse as quickly as a private developer-turned-lessor could.

In January, DCAMM sought and received permission from the Asset Management Board (AMB) to proceed with the long-term lease scheme.

Haunting the process is the new courthouse’s location. Fears are high that the state could go for motorcoach mogul Peter Picknelly’s cockamamie plan to build the courthouse and other amenities near the river. Picknelly owns or has options for strips of land between I-291 and the Connecticut River. However, infrastructure is minimal and far from transit and existing parking.

At-large councilor Tracye Whitfield flat out asked if a site had been picked.

“We appreciate the directness,” Baacke said, before assuring not site was chosen.

Shapiro on long-term lease: Thumbs down. (WMP&I)

Mayor Domenic Sarno, who did not attend Wednesday’s meeting, has fanboyed hard for Picknelly’s proposal, which scored poorly when the state itself planned to build the courthouse. Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro, a member of AMB, declined to support the long-term lease.The IG said unnamed public officials’ advocacy for one site—the riverfront—risked undermining the competitive bidding process. The AMB’s approval came despite Shapiro’s objection, but the body imposed additional conditions to encourage competitiveness.

While there were allusions to Picknelly’s waterfront ambitions, the family name did not come up directly. The only reference arose when union representatives for janitors at Monarch Place spoke Wednesday to decry a switch to a nonunion one. Paul Picknelly, brother to Peter, owns Monarch Place, Springfield’s tallest building. There has not been an indication Paul is involved in the riverfront proposal.

Meeting attendees broadly preferred keeping the courthouse where it is. Baacke said this was “highly unlikely” because the state would need to relocate staff and court functions in alternate spaces while contractors demolished the current courthouse and replaced it.

“I was saddened to hear that the current site is not among those being considered because it had to be occupied until the end,” former City Councilor and City Solicitor Pat Markey said during public comment. “As Judge Contant mentioned, there are many courthouses in the state that get built on the same site as the old existing courthouse.”

Former Councilor and retired District Court Judge Phil Contant was among those who attended the meeting. He had pointed out that the state had rented temporary space in Greenfield when it chose to build a new judicial facility roughly where the old one had been.

Others challenged the state’s resistance to temporary spots. At-large Councilor Jose Delgado stated he had worked in the ex-post office-turned-State Building on Dwight Street. He said it has unused courtrooms that date to its New Deal days as a federal building.

“In my time my previous role, those sat vacant, unused and I know you’ve moved—we’ve moved—people temporarily to that building as well,” Delgado said.

Karen Lee, essentially: See the whole board. (still via YouTube/Focus Springfield)

One of the principal progenitors of the hearing, Karen Lee, questioned the state’s decision to sell the former federal building at 1550 Main Street. She rattled off amenities the structure has that could be useful as a courthouse structure, albeit a temporary one.

Lee also noted that the state ended up selling the structure in 2022. The current buyer paid $6 million. That is considerably less than the $15 million federal government had paid to build it in 1981.

“Local officials rejoiced over the sale in the future of the new economic development while at the same time expressing grave concern over the health issues related to the current courthouse,” Lee said.

However, she also provided one of the clearer allusions to the riverfront proposal. The old federal building went into private hands the same year Picknelly unveiled his proposal.

“Were the employees used as pawns by…the economic development marketeers to advance this private lease proposal?” she asked rhetorically.

Beyond this reference, allusions to Picknelly’s proposed location were vague. They manifested most clearly as a fear that the courthouse would not rise in the city’s core. Away from Court Square was bad enough for many at the meeting. However, pulling it out of the heart of downtown may carry severe economic consequences.

Baacke said state law requires the courthouse be in Springfield. He did not commit to a downtown site. However, DCAMM’s presentation at the outset indicated proximity to downtown would be a factor in site selection. Thomas Ambrosino, the Administrator to the Trial Court attended Wednesday’s meeting to back the long-term lease and indicated a preference to keep the courthouse downtown.

The lease proposal, Ambrosino said, “is the most expeditious way to get a new courthouse to the downtown area and that is of utmost concern to the trial court.”

Attorneys like Markey and Timothy Ryan, also a former city councilor, flagged the economic impact of moving the courthouse out of walking distance of law offices downtown. Markey noted that the area had struggled after the pandemic. Ryan said that parking infrastructure for the courthouse is already prevalent downtown.

Michelle Grout, executive director of the Springfield Business Improvement District, bluntly asked what DCAMM considers downtown. “If you don’t have any, I could give you some,” she said, drawing cheers and laughs.

Baacke to the Future on the Courthouse location. (via Instagram/@CREWBoston)

Baacke replied that while DCAMM did not want to be overly restrictive beyond locating the facility in Springfield. However, he wanted to hear residents’ priorities on location.

“So, you joke that you might offer us that, we would welcome people’s ideas about what should be prioritized,” he said.

By most popular definitions, the properties Peter Picknelly is eyeing are not in downtown. City maps suggest they lie in Brightwood, not Metro Center, the city’s formal name for the area that includes downtown. It is not a legal, comprehensive or exclusive definition of downtown.

Baacke’s answers on feedback and about interest among potential bidders offered some reassurance that Picknelly has nothing in the bag. In perhaps his clearest acknowledgment of the chatter about the riverfront location, the commissioner suggested a project like this should draw many bids. The reason, he said, was weakness in the commercial construction market. He added that even if there is just one bid, it has no guarantee of winning the job.

While the less sexy topic by far, there were objections to and support for the public-private partnership (PPP)/long-term lease, too. In addition to Ambrosino and DCAMM officials who highlighted somewhat faster delivery, the city plugged the lease as financially advantageous. Springfield financial and economic development officials said the city could tax the courthouse. It only gets a small stipend from the state now.

Baacke told councilors earlier on such long-term leases were not unusual. He pointed to a new State Police crime lab as a recent example of a large project. The state also leases space for some courthouses.

Judge Contant has a ruling leased courthouses. (WMP&I)

That did not necessarily inspire confidence in Judge Contant. He recalled his time in Westfield District Court and its lease with a company Paul Picknelly controls. Contant said there were waves of negotiations and uncertainty. He suggested the amount the state paid for leases may have exceeded the cost of building a courthouse.

“I think in general, it’s very shortsighted to be leasing courthouses, especially in major cities, where you have a major court facility with all the different departments in it,” he said.

In addition to urging DCAMM to consider a temporary spot to move the courthouse quickly—and open the current site as a possibility—Contant recommended including an option to buy.

Regarding leasing generally, Baacke indicated that the length of the lease and specialization of the property would limit some of the issues Contant and others identified. The commissioner also confirmed to Attorney Ryan that the lease would have a “subject to appropriations” clause. However, that line is standard, Baacke said.

Councilor Whitfield asked what happens after the end of the lease, which could be as long as 60 years. Baacke said any facility, whether state owned or leased, would face replacement or refurbishment, after that time.

While residents and DCAMM are clearly both reading Zen and the Art of Courthouse Replacement, they are not on the same page. Skepticism about a long-term lease remained high. The reluctance to consider temporary sites, which would both open the current site and get workers out sooner, baffled.

As the meeting began to wind down, Baacke assured that outreach would continue. After Wednesday, it is clear they must.