It began with the pigeon poop, which for years had accumulated on the fourth floor of Springfield's South End Community Center. Officials reportedly knew about the problem at the city-owned building but believed the mess didn't pose any risk, since the floor had been unused for years.
But in the fall of 2005, the issue became unavoidable, when heavy rains caused leaking that carried the mess to the floors below, where neighborhood kids come for after-school programs and students at a nearby school have gym classes. City Hall shut down the facility until the upper floors were sealed off and air quality tests showed the lower part of the building was safe. A few months later, the droppings and dead birds were cleaned up by workers in haz-mat suits.
But the pigeon mess opened a window onto another, still unresolved mess: who has a right to the rents paid by tenants in the city-owned building—the SECC, or City Hall?
City Councilor Tim Rooke first raised the question as city and community center officials discussed who would pick up the tab for the cleanup. Rooke, then chair of the council's Finance Committee, realized that while the center does not own the old armory building it occupies on Howard Street, it collects rents from tenants who lease space in the building. Those tenants include a dance studio, a karate school and a non-profit men's group; the Hampden County Sheriff's Department and the state Department of Youth Services also rent space in the building.
According to financial forms filed by the SECC, its rental income over the past few years has ranged from a high of $49,267 in 2004 to a low of $42,599 in 2005. That year (the most recent for which there are reports), rents accounted for 11 percent of the SECC's total revenue of $386,897. (The bulk—$261,952—came from public sources, such as government grants. The city pays about $125,000 a year for utilities and maintenance at the building.)
Rooke maintained that the rental income should go into the general fund of the cash-strapped city, since the building is owned by the city, not the SECC, which pays $1 a year for rent. Complicating the matter was the fact that there was no lease between the SECC and the city.
Rooke called for several public meetings to address the matter and requested detailed financial reports from the SECC. Officials from the SECC, meanwhile, protested that they were being unfairly attacked; one board member accused Rooke of trying to "stir up problems" for the center, which serves one of the city's most beleaguered neighborhoods.
After some back-and-forth, then-City Solicitor Patrick Markey met with SECC officials, including its executive director, City Councilor Dom Sarno. At the time, Markey recently recalled, he left the meeting feeling optimistic that the conflict would be resolved. Twenty months later, however, it hasn't been. While the Law Department apparently drew up a new agreement with the SECC, that document was never signed, perhaps having fallen through the cracks when, shortly after, Markey left his city job for private practice. The issue has recently resurfaced—conveniently enough, as Sarno runs for mayor against incumbent Charlie Ryan.
Sarno says he can't recall off the top of his head how much the SECC collects in rent. "Let's put it this way: it's not as much as people think," he says, adding that some months he doesn't collect the full rent from tenants who have their own financial struggles. Sarno says that the rent arrangement—like the pigeon poop problem—predated his hiring at the SECC in 2002. "And, as done priorly, any money that does come in is pumped right back into the programs," he said.
Rooke, meanwhile, is not backing down. If the SECC needs additional funds, it can always ask the city for more help, he adds. But first, he says, it needs to be made clear that the rents belong to the city: "Let's make sure we're getting every penny we should be getting and make sure we're getting a fair and equal amount for every place that is being rented."
mturner@valleyadvocate.com
