Following is a transcript of the Springfield Finance Control Board‘s last meeting, on Friday, October 20, 2006, provided by resident Sheila McElwaine. The FCB’s next meeting is this coming Monday at 11:00 am, room 220 in City Hall.
FCB Chairman Alan LeBovidge: I’d like to welcome you to the October 20, 2006 Finance Control Board meeting. I guess I have to say that we’ll have an executive session after this meeting from which we will not be returning (hopefully), and we’ll try to do all our business up front. The first item is the acceptance of the minutes from the September 11, 2006 meeting. Any comments or changes?
The motion is approved unanimously.
ESCO/Energy Update
AL: Mr. Puccia, I know we have a series of items—I’d call them administrative in nature—so can you take us through the agenda?
FCB Executive Director Philip Puccia: Yes, sir. Actually, the board has seen a couple of these items already, in particular item numbers three [bulk and waste hauling services ordinance] and four [state highway funding], but let’s start with the ESCO (Energy Services Company) project update by Mr. [Patrick] Sullivan.
As you know, the city has a very old physical plant. It’s got about four million square feet of buildings, principally in schools with the average age of 54 years old. Needless to say, there’s been a distinct lack of investment within those heating and ventilation systems, and all the support things that you would take for granted in normal routine maintenance. This has certainly put a strain on how we manage energy and, to that end, we looked at hiring someone to help us improve a) how we manage our own energy, and b) preparing to improve the heat and the ventilation systems over the long haul. Having said that, Pat will give us another update on where we are.
Parks, Buildings, and Recreation Management Director Patrick Sullivan: Thank you. We are making progress. We have even a more-updated plan from the one that went out in your package. We have now determined what we would like to do for our ESCO program in all three years. There’s a cover sheet that indicates each block. There’s a column that shows the recommended—and then what can actually be—what we feel can be paid within a 15 year payback period of the loan. The project is a total improvement of $31 million. There was $51 million, though, in recommendations. The savings are estimated at basically $2.3 million a year, which would support these energy saving projects being implemented.
The other important piece to this is that we are now managing our utility costs, and we have now locked in for our natural gas. [FCB member Jake] Jacobson had asked that question at the last meeting, and those rates for heating oil, gas and electricity are being provided to you today.
AL: I’m just curious, given the reduction in gas prices lately, is this a good [deal]?
PS: Back in July, because we didn’t know which way the market was going, we had locked in our oil at $2.34 a gallon, but we only locked in for 600,000 gallons. The market started falling towards the end of August. We locked in to a natural gas rate, which is equal to $1.80 per gallon of oil. So we’re converting over this year on our boilers to a natural gas.
Last year, the city burned 1.7 million gallons of oil. We’re only going to burn 802 [sic] gallons of oil, so we’re going to cut our consumption of oil in half and burn the natural gas. So that way, we’re going to get savings in that area for the city. We feel we’re stabilizing our costs, and could be very close to what we had spent last year on fuel and electricity in the prior year’s budget, which is good news.
AL: Okay.
PS: [FCB Deputy Executive Director] Steve Lisauskas and I are going to be meeting with Western Mass Electric on Monday. We’re going to be doing projections over five years, ten years and 15 years of what we think consumption could be. And we’re also looking at rebates offered at both the utility companies, Western Mass, and Baystate Gas. We feel that by November, we’re going to have a very comprehensive plan put before the board, but there’s a lot of information, and we felt that you should have an update now, and then, hopefully, finalize it at the November meeting.
PP: But Pat, much of what we’re trying to figure out about the next month or so is how we will fund the improvements, based on potential savings in energy.
PS: That’s correct. And the savings have been figured out. It’s now put the pen to paper to figure out what we think the utility rates increases could be. That’s very difficult, but we’ll get there.
FCB member Jake Jacobson: And could you remind us what the whole structure of the financing is, and how the savings play into repaying the bond, and all of that?
PS: The proposed structure could either be a lease or the city bonding. Right now, we seem to be headed towards a bond for this project, and the energy savings are going to be guaranteed by the ESCO company. They are guaranteeing $2.3 million. They have to pay the difference on that if those energy savings are not met.
AL: If you had $2.3 million a year in savings, would that be enough to carry the bonds?
PS: We’re working on those, and to date, we’re told that they would be.
PP: That’s our objective.
AL: So it will be self-financing.
PS: That’s right.
FCB member Thomas Gloster: The objective is to use the savings, the cost of the power, to fund the financing.
PS: That’s correct.
PP: One of the difficult questions for us: we’re trying to create the right sort of financial structure, while at the same time, we’re trying to do a capital plan, a bond issuance of, hopefully, $50 million for other projects. They’re really coming at the same time, which is why the estimated savings are crucial. We really have to feel comfortable that it’s going to pay for itself, for lack of a better term.
TG: So, we’re looking for at least a neutral result.
PP: That’s exactly right.
PS: And that’s a good—
Mayor Charles Ryan: [Unintelligible] will carry how much of the bond for this?
PS: We’re getting these numbers now.
PP: But what you’re talking about is projects valued at about $30 million.
PS: That’s correct.
CR: And the debt service would be about $2.3 million a year.
AL: Therefore, the $50 million number you threw out, you could treat that separately.
PP: That’s the objective. We’re not there yet. I had hoped to be in front of the board with a specific financing plan on the $50 million, but we’re just simply not ready yet. It is something we intend to accomplish by the end of the year.
JJ: So has ESCO signed off on the $2.3 million a year for the duration?
PS: Yes. By the week after next, we’re going to start contract negotiations with the ESCO company. We’ve hired Alan Mandl to assist the city in negotiations with the ESCO company.
JJ: Doesn’t that imply that if this is going to be a 15-year bond, or whatever the duration of the bond is, and these savings are calculated off of current rates, ESCO’s assumption is that gas, oil and electricity will be the same for 15 years? Is that the implication of this?
PS: Yes and no. We have told them that we know costs are going to go up, and we’ve asked for further information to show how much the city would have to budget then, on top of this program, to ensure that we have sufficient funds to pay for any fuel increases. The first five years, we feel it would be stabilized, because your energy consumptions would be down. That’s why we’re running those numbers out for ten and 15 years. There will be increased costs at some point.
PP: It’s not a one-for-one trade, all right? If we’re doing the improvements, our actual consumption and efficiency is improving.
AL: Well, we hope.
TG: So, in sum, it’s actually guaranteed savings of $2.4 million, plus a little bit.
PP: Not signed yet, but yes. It’s not a final—we don’t have a contractual relationship.
TG: It’s guaranteed at a minimum. Is there some mechanism by which you can be at greater savings than this?
PS: There could be. I think they’ve been conservative, so I think there could be a little more in savings at the end of the day with this program, yes. With these savings, windows were a big part of this plan, and that plays into the $50 million program. It takes 38 years to get a payback on windows for our school buildings, so that’s why the $50 million bond is going to be very important. Under law, we can’t do that under the ESCO, because you have to do it within the 20-year period. On the recommended $51 million, there are certain things that are not going to be able to be done under this ESCO project, and windows—
AL: —funded will be under the $50 million bond.
PS: That’s correct.
AL: Okay. Otherwise we could have funded those?
PS: Exactly, but the payback is just too far out.
JJ: The structure of the bond issue becomes sized by the amount of the guarantee payment. Essentially, you calculate the size of the bond issue once you finish negotiating the size of the guarantee.
PS: That’s correct.
PP: Right, and we want to make it neutral, so we can do the $50 million that we all know we desperately need to do.
JJ: And do we get an interest rate savings on the bond issue because of the ESCO guarantee, or the Siemen’s guarantee, whoever is going to do the guarantee?
PP: I don’t know the answer to that. One of the items that has not been fully explored is whether there is a state program, or a state guarantee, similar to the State Qualified Bond Act that we will use to issue the $50 million debt specific to energy improvements.
AL: No, but even if you didn’t have it guaranteed by the state, his question is, since you’ve got a big company standing behind the bond, does this get us a better rate?
PP: It will have to help us for sure, but I don’t know what the rate reduction will be, Mr. Jacobson.
JJ: Then, making sure that I understand: once the negotiation is complete with ESCO, and the projects and the amount that can be financed is determined, then that’s a separate bond issue that will go out and stand on its own for $30-odd million. In addition, we will attempt, either under the state program, or because we can convince the rating agencies that Springfield is now capable of bonding new debt on their own, to go out for a further $50 million, which we will use to put windows in the schools and things as well as the fire stations and other things—
PP: That’s correct.
CR: Within that $50 million, there’s been no judgment yet as to how much of it will be for windows, etc., or for other school uses. There’s intense competition, and there are so many things that haven’t been done. Fifty isn’t going to go that far.
PP: No, that’s right.
AL: $50 million doesn’t go as far as it used to go?
CR: Yeah. [Laughter] That’s for sure.
AL: But it sounds like you have to have enough of the windows, etc. to produce the savings. I mean there are certain things you need to fund out of the $50 million to make the other bond issue work.
PS: There could be additional savings if you do windows.
PP: There is a series of extremely difficult choices on the $50 million that the mayor and myself and everyone that’s part of the different management teams are trying to figure out. There’s very little opportunity to say, “This is something that we shouldn’t do,” or, “It’s someone’s pet project.” There isn’t much of that at all.
AL: I’m sure there are more good projects than there is money.
PP: There really is.
JJ: So why have you latched onto $50 million?
PP: Because at the end of the day, I don’t know how the city can afford to finance more than $50 million, based on what I know about the operating budget for the upcoming years. That will be a stretch unto itself.
AL: Okay. Well, get more efficiencies.
PP: Get more savings, yes.
AL: You get more savings, we can borrow more money. Okay, it’s the American way. Thank you—take it away, on the wireless fire boxes.
Wireless Fire Alarm/Fire Inspection Fee Ordinance
PP: I believe the board has seen already the ordinance on the fire inspection fee and wireless fire alarm. I have Fire Marshal [John] Casaboom here if you have any additional questions, but this is actually a second reading. Am I correct in that, Mr. Clerk?
Clerk Wayman Lee: Yes, you are.
PP: If you’re so inclined, you can just vote to approve.
AL: This is to update the fire boxes, and also the fire department, all supports on this.
Fire Marshal John Cassaboom: Good morning. Our fire alarm dispatch center is going to be phased out, and these men will be returning back to company level. There’s going to be nobody to maintain the existing underground cabling system, and there’ll be no change as far as the monitoring goes. It will still be monitored by a civilian fire alarm dispatch unit. It’s just a matter of swapping out from the old game well to a wireless system.
AL: But it is a proven technology, it’s a modern technology other people use.
JC: It’s in use in the city right now. It’s in use throughout the state, yes.
AL: That’s good. Any questions? Mr. Gloster?
TG: I assume it’s important to the city that the individual operations center can put the radio boxes in at their own expense do so. In other words, it’s important that this ordinance be complied with. A $25 fine if they don’t do it strikes me as—
AL: Too low?
TG: If you just paid the $25 fine and [didn’t] bother with putting in the box, I don’t know if that’s something—
JJ: I was going to comment the same thing, but it’s the second reading, so—
TG: Yeah, I mean it’s just…I don’t want to slow anything down.
PP: Mr. Rodriquez is not here, but I thought, recently, we approved an increase in the fine, for—maybe it was fire alarm non-compliance. We are happy to revisit this issue with a more appropriate fine.
AL: I think it’s a good point. You don’t want people not to comply.
JC: [Aside to PP] Definitely. It should be addressed, and it should be changed.
JJ: I think the way to make progress is you approve on the second reading, but then redirect you guys to look at that issue and come back to us, because it seems like you actually don’t have a proper enforcement mechanism in this ordinance.
Springfield City Councilor Jose Tosado: I’m not sure you can do that.
WL: If someone wants to make a motion, and second to raise those fines, and raise that penalty amount today—
PP: Right now.
WL: —any more than to make an amendment to increase the fine from whatever it is now, get a second, and vote on it.
TG: You’re saying it won’t require a second reading of the amended ordinance.
AL: Well, let me ask you the question. What would it cost a business to put in a system?
JC: It would cost anywhere between $4,500 to $6,800, depending on how the installation has to go.
TG: So $25 is way too low.
PP: We could give you a fine recommendation between $500 and $1,000.
AL: We obviously want people to comply.
PP: We want people to comply; we don’t want to pay the fine.
AL: Well, do you want to make a motion?
TG: I move we increase the fine to $500.
AL: Any discussion about that?
JJ: It has to be replaced by December 31, 2008. If it’s in existing condition, there’s a one-sentence section—it only says there’s a one-time fine; it doesn’t say there is a monthly fine, or a quarterly fine, or an annual fine. If the cost is…I’m sorry I can’t find—between $6,000 and $8,000.
PP: $4,500 and $6,800.
JJ: If we only get one shot at this without rewriting the ordinance, I propose we make it a $10,000 fine so everybody, in fact, will do what the fire department wants them to do. Otherwise, if we make it $500, there’s going to be some blockhead out there that has the economic incentive to say, "I’ll pay $500, and now I don’t need to upgrade my system," and the city of Springfield has no way to maintain the old system. So, we’re going to start having buildings that don’t have adequate fire protection, because we’re not going to have a maintained system. Either we rewrite the ordinance, or we should build a fine big enough to make sure that they’ll comply.
CR: I would feel most comfortable if we didn’t act on this today, to give Phil, and the fire department, and myself a chance to examine this and come back. We don’t need to have a second reading today, and I hate to do it in half measures. This is too serious a matter. I want it to work, but I also don’t want to impose a $10,000 fine in a sense of frustration, or trying to button up a loophole. I don’t think we’ve really thought this through.
JT: I agree with the mayor. I’d be hesitant to come up with a number, because we’d be coming up with a number without any background research.
JJ: If you want to change the ordinance, you can have a lower fine, then have the fine assessed monthly. Starting in January 2009, have a monthly fine that is a much smaller number, but that is going to be big enough—
PP: —get their attention. What we want is a fine structure and methodology that forces compliance. This does not. I apologize: that encourages compliance. We should have thought this out more, in more detail.
CR: Take it back to the drawing board, and we’ll do it next time?
PP: What options do we have here, Mr. Clerk, based on this discussion?
WL: Well, you can go back, you can lay it on the table; you can come back next month. You also have the option of doing it on a daily basis. You can put in a particular fine, and do it on a daily basis—add that to the ordinance. Any day they’re in violation, or additional days—$1,000 each day.
JJ: If we were going to change it to a daily fine, is that a two-reading thing? If we pass this, would we then just be able to change the fine section?
WL: If you’re going to change the fine, you need to come back, so you could make most of the changes today and come back once you [finalize].
JT: So, Mr. Clerk, we can just do an amendment to the penalty section, vote on the amendment today. The next meeting, would that be a second reading or a third and final reading?
WL: A third.
AL: I’m a little confused with all this second and third. Are you suggesting that we should pass it today, increase the fine to $500, or something like that?
PP: Whatever method works.
AL: And then come back next month—
JT: And it’ll be a final reading.
AL: At which time we could change the $500 to whatever you think is appropriate?
JT: We could change it today in terms of an amendment.
TG: We need a recommendation from—
PP: Yeah, neither one of us [PP and JC] is comfortable in working out the math today. These are important questions.
AL: Should we just do nothing?
JJ: Why don’t you come back with a daily, a relatively small daily amount, but it will add up rapidly, and we’ll all have access.
JT: OK. Do we need a motion to lay it on the table, Mr. Clerk? OK. So made.
AL: Even though we have to remove his motion first.
TG: I withdraw it.
JT: It wasn’t seconded.
TG: I withdraw the motion.
JT: So moved to lay it on the table.
Motion to table passes unanimously.
PP: I beg the board’s indulgence. I apologize. We’ll have it buttoned up the next time we see you. Thank you.
AL: No, that’s okay.
JC: Thank you.
TG: Thank you.
Bulk and Waste Hauling Services Ordinance
PP: This is the ordinance, that defines the terms, should a homeowner wish to not participate in the city’s trash disposal program and pay the $90, they have the right to hire a private hauler. What this ordinance here does is outline the terms and requirements for someone to be a private hauler in the city of Springfield. We have to issue them a license, we have to know where the garbage is being disposed of, we have to know who they’re doing it for, and the like. We expect, frankly, there to be very limited use of private haulers for residential trash based on the fact that $90 works out to be—it’s not economical. It’s $1.72 a week, is what our costs are, so I don’t know how anyone in the market could compete, so that’s what this is.
AL: Any questions? So we need to just approve this?
PP: Yes. It’s, I believe, a second reading.
CR: I’ll make a motion to approve.
Motion passes unanimously.
AL: That was easy.
PP: Yeah. We have a handout that summarizes it in addition to the ordinance I’ve provided you. Thank you.
Executive Order Accepting Chapter 90 Supplemental Funding
PP: The next item is allowing us to receive additional state aid for road paving; it’s called Chapter 90. All cities and towns are entitled to a certain amount of money when there’s extra money. This is what we’re entitled to under the Chapter 90 formula, which distributes transportation dollars to the cities and towns. You will see there’s an attachment of streets.
AL: This is $1 million additional.
PP: Yes, it’s $1 million. This, I believe, is a plan that the mayor, and [DPW Director] Al Chwalek, and the folks at DPW have worked out. These are streets that obviously need to be paved, so it’s allowing us to receive the money and spend it in this fashion.
AL: We’ll take all the money we can get. Any questions?
Motion passes unanimously.
Land Disposition Agreement
PP: Mr. [David] Panagore will now brief the board on an amendment to a land disposition agreement. David.
Springfield Chief Development Officer David Panagore: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good morning. What you have before you is a first amendment to the Land Disposition Agreement between the city of Springfield, the Springfield Redevelopment Authority, and Springfield Food Service. I will also report that Springfield Food Service, known as PFG, has broken ground. We’ve closed and transferred title to PFG out at the Memorial Industrial Park II. If you take a trip out there, you’ll see that they’re moving dirt, they’re beginning utility work on the site, and we are well under way. We have spent the last 30 days or so working very closely with Smith & Wesson to insure that we can be a good neighbor to them, and that we can work well with them. It’s been a very productive series of discussions. This land disposition agreement will allow us to close the final open items with Springfield Food Service. Predominantly, it will allow us to separate the utility work on the site.
AL: Why are you doing this as an amendment? Why wasn’t it done originally?
DP: Correct. If I will run through them. If you turn to the second page, it states “Agreement.” First one is “option to purchase with contiguous acreage.” This is merely a lawyer’s closing the loop. The redeveloper, who’s Springfield Food Service, has already waived its right as part of the project. They wanted to reserve the option to buy two more acres of land for parking. They’ve waived that right; this merely reflects the decision.
The second is the obligation regarding the 2.7-acre parcel by Roosevelt Avenue. At the time we entered into the agreement, we described it as a “2.75-acre parcel.” Subsequently, our survey has indicated it’s a 2.647-acre parcel, so we’re just being exact.
The third is the drainage improvements, and this is really the meat of it, the drainage. From the northern side of the Smith & Wesson property, all the way to the railroad on the southern side, the western side—the site had one set of utility plans, one set of drainage plans. We’ve now separated the utility so that the site drainage for Smith & Wesson will stay with Smith & Wesson, and the site drainage for Memorial Industrial Park will stay with Memorial Industrial Park, so we won’t be mixing and matching the overflow and the drainage systems, which is a very good thing, so that everybody carries their own water as it really, literally, is. This clause, “Drainage improvements,” allows us, per the discussions with Smith & Wesson and Springfield Food Service, to separate the systems. The core of the system was that everything came together in the fire pond, and the fire pond will now be the exclusive use of Smith & Wesson. And we will be draining directly out of the site on the drain pond on the Memorial Industrial Park side.
The fourth is a miscellaneous provision to ensure that everything in effect remains in effect. Springfield Food Service has signed the agreement. We will have a meeting of the Springfield Redevelopment Authority, which also needs to execute this, on November 6. There are some obligations of the city, just in general, related to the agreement. They are requesting the approval of the control board as it was requested on the original LDA [land development agreement].
AL: Any questions?
Motion passes unanimously.
DP: Mr. Chairman, the lawyers will be sending you directly the agreement, handling it directly. Thank you.
AL: Okay, great. Alright. Next.
Establishment of Revolving Funds: Riverfront
PP: Mayor, did you want to speak about the riverfront fund?
CR: I think David was. I’d be glad to speak on the Park Department, or Pat Sullivan can.
AL: This is Executive Order 10-20-02 we’re talking about? Is that right?
PP: Yes it is, sir, 10-20-02.
DP: Mr. Chairman, board members. You have before you a request for a revolving account, the authorization to create a revolving account, related to the riverfront. The riverfront as a project area does generate some limited rental lease payments. The parking lot at State Street crossing generates about $12,000. And the Bassett Boat yard up by the bridge in the North End generates about $1,007 a month. These are small amounts of money, but they are significant when you look at the riverfront, and we want to move forward there to improve its safety, integrity, maintenance.
It’s an income-generating property, and what we’d like to be able to do is to roll back the income into the property. There are safety concerns out there. There are tree-trimming concerns out there. There are simple things like maintenance of the park benches. Recognizing the interest and importance of the riverfront, we are requesting the creation of a revolving account so that, through the Parks and Recreation Department, we’re able to start work and have a direct source of funds so that the riverfront does not become an “orphan.”
AL: If we didn’t have the revolving fund, how would they get the funds?
DP: Without the revolving fund, these funds go into the general fund. They have a minimal impact on the general fund, and then the riverfront competes with all other projects in the city. As an income-generating park area, we think it’s the best use of these limited funds to be able to roll them back in. As a simple example, the visibility of the riverfront tree trimming: that’s an expense that competes with all other parks. There is also down there structures, wooden structures from an old ramp system for a dock that need to be torn down. These aren’t large things, but in the scheme of it, they get lost, in the huge issues we need to deal with.
AL: I got it. Any questions?
JJ: [unintelligible] structural [unintelligible] segregated pool which could then be used to do maintenance in that same general vicinity.
PP: Technically, it will still be deposited in the city’s general bank account, but the accounting is such that we—
JJ: So that the $20-odd thousand a year generated will be focused on the areas that actually generate that income.
AL: And if, by some miracle, the revenue goes up to $10 million a year, it’s still only $200,000, so the rest of the money would be—
DP: Yes. There’s a cap. I would also mention that the city receives, as part of their underlying agreements with the Hall of Fame, a $100,000 payment per year into its general fund. As you note, if you see in this second paragraph, that would be excluded. It’s a significant amount of money, $100,000, so that’s excluded from this.
AL: Okay. Have a motion?
Motion passes unanimously.
Establishment of Revolving Funds: Bright Nights Revenue
PS: We’re recommending to the board today to have the funds dealing with park application fees and the Bright Nights reimbursements for Forest Park go into a revolving account.
PP: It’s the same concept. Not all the board members know Bright Nights.
PS: Bright Nights is one of the largest Christmas lighting displays on the east coast. It brings in 40,000 cars, over a half a million visitors over a six-week period, to Forest Park. We would like those funds going back into Forest Park properties for building repairs. It’s a 735-acre park, so you can imagine it’s very difficult to continually upkeep.
CR: More than that, because some of the expenses for getting the park ready for Bright Nights come right out of your general fund budget—
PS: That’s correct.
CR: The Spirit of Springfield, which puts this on—in some respects, this is reimbursing money you have forwarded.
PS: That’s correct.
CR: And $50,000 of this is an annual fee that they pay to the park for the use of the real estate. This is a critical thing for the city. It’s one of the signature events of Springfield, and this really is to make sure that the Parks Department isn’t penalized for the fact that it allows its men to work on this and its real estate to be used for this festive occasion.
AL: Any other questions?
Motion passes unanimously.
PP: And then the last item is related to Bright Nights, isn’t it?
PS: Right. That is the monies that were reimbursed and taken in for last year’s event. We are requesting that it be transferred over.
AL: So you want to push that in?
PP: Yes, push that in.
CR: We’ll need a separate vote for that.
PP: Yes, we’ll need a separate vote.
Motion passes unanimously.
New Business: $10,000 Bonus for Philip Puccia
TG: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that in recognition of the extraordinary service that Mr. Puccia has rendered to the city of Springfield during his term as executive director, that he be awarded a bonus of $10,000.
Motion passes 4-1, with City Councilor Jose Tosado voting no.
AL: I have one other piece of good news.
Implementation of Teachers’ Contract (for next meeting)
JJ: I think there’s a lot of complexity in the teachers’ contract, and I think in our next meeting, it might be beneficial for all of us to hear from the superintendent as to how the implementation of that is going. If that’s acceptable to all of you, then I’d like that to be put on the agenda for our next meeting.
State Data Back-up Center at Former Tech High School
AL: The state has been looking at having a disaster recovery site for its technology resources, should something happen in Boston with the main site for the state’s IT [information technology] function. And, after studying the issue, one of the recommendations was to put it in Springfield. I’m happy to announce today that I spoke with Secretary of Administration and Finance Tom Trimarco yesterday evening, and he authorized me to announce that a final decision has been made by the administration, pending the approval of a bond bill which the legislature was looking at to finance this, to site the back-up center in Springfield at the old Technical High School location. I think this is a big win for the city to have this facility located here. It’ll be a state-of-the-art facility, so I’m glad they made that decision and they can start moving forward, once they have the money appropriated to build the building.
TG: Do you have any sense of the magnitude of this?
CR: $70 or $80 million is my understanding.
AL: It’s a big project.
CR: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a remark in light of your announcement. This is a tremendous accomplishment for the city of Springfield administration, and Tom Trimarco especially, over the last nine to 12 months. That Armoury-Quadrangle area, ten years ago, was a mini-disaster. A great deal has happened there, with the resurgence of Byers Street, the construction of a $65 million federal courthouse, the restoration of many properties of the diocese and the museum association—but we had one gaping hole there in Tech High. It’s been a very high priority of all of us and, again as usual, Phil played an enormous role in this.
In many respects, our fortunes coming back is closely tied with a strong working relationship with our congressman. Our congressman is an ex-mayor of Springfield. He very much cares about this city. He has done, I think, an outstanding job in helping us in many, many ways. And I know that from his point of view, the restoration of Tech High School is enormously high priority.
This solidifies that neighborhood. In other words, there are no more gaping holes. There’s no, “Well, someday hopefully we’ll get this done.” As part of the federal government’s money, not only for the courthouse, but the State Street corridor. It also is providing money for the restoration of Elliot and Spring Streets, two major side streets there. So the action of the administration and the tremendous help of Tom Trimarco, I think, is just huge and we will feel the beneficial consequences of this for generations to come.
AL: If I understand it correctly, they’re going to work with the architecture to try to preserve some of the exterior of the building. I’m just glad that they decided that and we can move forward.
CR: One of the things we learned in our discussions back and forth with state officials is the catastrophic effect it would have on the Commonwealth if the one computer center went down for any reason: terrorism, earthquake, you name it. It would mean Massachusetts, as an entity, is out of business—not just the state government, but all sorts of suppliers, vendors and everything. All of our public safety is contingent upon all of the records that are now computerized. It’s certainly a wise action, on the part of the state government, to make sure there’s a fall-back or an alternative. We’re delighted that not only is it in Springfield, but it’s in the location at the 20-year-old-vacant Tech High School.
AL: Let me assure people that we have back-up systems. The problem is the back-up system is paying outside vendors to provide that security off-site, and I think this would be a much more economical and efficient way of doing it. And, certainly, for my other job, we’ve been lobbying for a long time to have a state-owned facility here. We do have protection, but this makes sense to go forward, and I’m glad they decided it also. Any other new business?
Police Department Civilian Review Board (for next meeting)
JT: …police department, but I had requested that last month, and the commissioner did come in, to get an update in terms of where we are with the civilian review board for the police department. I thought there was going to be some kind of follow-up at today’s meeting, but it wasn’t on the agenda.
PP: We’ll certainly put it on the agenda for next month.
JT: Thank you.
PP: No problem.
Meeting adjourned to go into executive session.
