In 2005, a worrisome problem was uncovered at Springfield's South End Community Center: for years, pigeons had been invading the top floor of the center's Howard Street building, leaving an unhealthy mess of droppings and dead birds. While that floor of the building had been unused for years, by that fall leaks began carrying the mess to the lower floors of the building, home to after-school and summer programs for city kids.
It was during the process of addressing the SECC's pigeon problem that another mess was discovered—one that remains unresolved. When city officials ordered the community center to vacate the building until a thorough cleanup was done, they were faced with an additional complicating factor: what about the SECC's tenants, who paid the center rent to use part of the building?
Word of the SECC's tenants caught the attention of Springfield City Councilor Tim Rooke. The old armory building the agency occupies belongs to the city, which charges the nonprofit SECC $1 a year. So why, Rooke asked, was the community center and not the city collecting those rents?
Several years later, Rooke is still asking that question, and still pushing for the money to go into the city's general fund.
*
Last week, Rooke brought a nonbinding resolution to the City Council, calling for the city to execute a new lease "that would ensure that rents collected by the South End Community Center be immediately transferred to the City's General Fund and that any other leases be reviewed to ensure that the City is collecting all monies on behalf of the taxpayers."
The Council sent the resolution to committee.
The disputed rents come from several tenants in the SECC building, including a karate school, a men's resource center, and programs run by the Hampden County Sheriff's Department and the state Department of Youth Services. Tax documents filed by the SECC show the agency received $46,409 in "rental income" in 2007 (the last year for which there are records). The agency's total revenues that year were just shy of $488,000, most of them from public sources, such as government grants and contracts. Expenses from that year totaled $455,000, with almost $345,000 going to programs and $110,000 spent on management and general expenses.
City Solicitor Ed Pikula, however, says the SECC's rental income from tenants is much lower than the $46,000 indicated in the tax records. He told the Advocate the figure is closer to $16,000 to $18,000. Pikula was unsure where the additional $30,000 or so in reported income came from, although he noted that the SECC also charges fees to local organizations to use the center's gym, at the cost of $25 an hour.
Chae Swan, the SECC's executive director, told the Advocate that, under an order from the agency's board of directors, he couldn't comment on the matter.
Rooke said he drafted the resolution because he's become frustrated by a lack of action. He first brought the matter up during the Ryan administration, and then-City Solicitor Pat Markey began work on a lease agreement with the SECC that would address the rent issue. That effort, however, apparently became sidetracked when a problem was discovered regarding the building's legal ownership.
The armory building had previously belonged to the state, which transferred it to the city in the mid-'70s. But when the Law Department did a title search on the building in preparation for a new lease, it discovered an error that meant only part of the site had been transferred to the city, according to Pikula. That problem was corrected, but the lease was never executed.
Pikula told the Advocate that the Law Department recently finished a proposed lease, which the SECC's Board of Directors is now reviewing.
*
The proposed lease would formalize the arrangement that allows the SECC to keep its rental income (whatever that figure may be)—an arrangement Pikula defends. The agency, he said, has served the city for years, "providing services to one of the poorest sections of town. It's been an oasis in an area of poverty."
For years, Pikula noted, the center operated out of what is now the site of the Gentile Apartments on William Street. When that site was taken by the Springfield Housing Authority, the city, with the help of then-state Rep. Tony Scibelli, negotiated a deal with the state to move the SECC to the Howard Street armory. The deal called for the agency to pay the city $1 a year in rent, and for the city to maintain the building.
That agreement, Pikula said, was formalized by home rule legislation that is due to expire next year. "The real concern from a policy standpoint should be: What are we going to do when that authority runs out?" he said. "Where is the South End Community Center going to have a home after that? And if they don't have a home, will the city be forced to carry the burden of providing the services the South End Community Center currently provides to that community and its low-income citizens?"
Rooke said he's not trying to keep the SECC from doing its work. Rather, he's trying to end an improper arrangement that allows a private organization to collect rents from a building owned by the city.
"The South End Community Center does a great job," Rooke said. "I'm not here to criticize them. What I'm being critical of is the financial oversight that is lacking."
(Rooke also said he has no political motives for his campaign, although it's important to note some sticky political context. When Rooke began questioning the SECC's rent collections, the agency was headed by then-City Councilor Domenic Sarno. In 2007, Sarno became mayor, unseating Charlie Ryan, whom Rooke strongly supported. Rooke has gone on to be a vocal critic of the Sarno administration.)
Allowing the SECC to keep the rent money is simply not fair, Rooke said: "The Parks Department collects a fee when you go into the park—that money gets turned over to the city. The School Department charges rent to hold events in their schools—that money gets turned over to the city."
Rooke doesn't necessarily object to the money, or part of it, being returned to the SECC for programs—if that's what city officials decide is the best use. "We should decide where the money should go," including considering whether other nonprofits should have a shot at it, he said.
"We just want a lease in place that makes this legal, whatever we're doing," Rooke said. "That would make everything proper, so it doesn't come under scrutiny in the future."
Pikula maintains the city's proposed lease would provide the kind of accountability Rooke is calling for. "I believe we can have that same oversight through a lease that provides the city with approval of the programs. We can review the sources and uses of the funds," the solicitor said. "By doing it through the lease we could minimize the administrative burden on the city. We could just have a review function, rather than providing accounting functions."
But to Rooke, that arrangement gives up too much power that rightfully belongs to the city, and denies other organizations the chance to compete for money that's generated by a public building. "I think Eddie Pikula is losing focus on this issue," he said. "The issue is, there's taxpayers' money that should be going into the general fund."
