Thomas Ambrosino (left), the court administrator of the executive office of the Trial Court administration, speaks in favor of a public/private partnerhsip for Springfield’s new Regional Justice Center during a Jan. 7 hearing at the Springfield State Office Building. DCAMM Commissioner and Chair of the Asset Management Board Adam Baacke sits on the right.
Reminder Publishing photo by Ryan Feyre
SPRINGFIELD — The Massachusetts Asset Management Board is currently considering a public/private partnership for a new Hampden County courthouse in Springfield with hopes of having a decision on the matter by the end of this month.
The Department of Capital Asset Management and the Asset Management Board hosted a virtual public meeting on Jan. 2 and an in-person public meeting at the Springfield State Office Building on Jan. 7 to consider a plan and timeline proposed by the Massachusetts Executive Office of the Trial Court regarding the city’s future Springfield Regional Justice Center.
Currently, the Massachusetts Trial Court is seeking approval to build a 330,000-square-foot complex it will lease in Springfield for an initial term of 40 years and a maximum term of 60 years, according to Peter Woodford, the senior project manager for DCAMM who was assigned to work with the Massachusetts Trial Court on the project.
The proposed justice center would house administrative, retention and court service spaces, Woodford said during both public hearings.
Adam Baacke, the DCAMM commissioner and chair of the Asset Management Board, told the public on Jan. 7 that the board is considering this leasing plan from the Trial Court because the state’s current capital plan is “extremely constrained, and frankly, oversubscribed.”
If this project were to be added to that plan, then it would most likely not be addressed until the 2030s, according to Baacke.
Instead, Baacke said that a public/private partnership proposed by the Trial Court would accelerate the creation for a new facility in the city and foster a hope that a lease for the new courthouse can be executed in 2026.
“If we were to deliver the Regional Justice Center for Springfield under the current capital plan, in order to have enough space in the capital plan to do it, it’s going to prolong our ability to deliver the project,” Baacke said. “So, part of why we’re interested in considering the alternative approach this evening as part of this effort is because we think that we can greatly accelerate getting a new facility for the people of this region.”
Background
The reason for the state’s eagerness to quickly build the new Regional Justice Center is because the current Roderick J. Ireland Courthouse has experienced a long history of poor health conditions, including an accumulation of mold and dust that has led to respiratory and fatigue problems for those who work in the building.
During the public comment portion of the meeting on Jan. 2, Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno expressed his support for the proposed leasing of the new justice center. He noted the “serious context” from which this new proposal originated. He mentioned how five people who worked in the current courthouse have died from ALS and 60 cases of cancer were linked to people working in the building.
“I lend my full support to this project proposal, and I strongly encourage the Asset Management Board to approve it so DCAMM, in cooperation with the Trial Court, can commence with this much-needed project,” Sarno said during the Jan. 2 hearing.
The commonwealth currently owns the two existing courthouses in Springfield totaling just under 300,000 square feet: the Roderick J. Ireland Courthouse at 50 State St., and an adjacent facility at 80 State St., which houses the Springfield Juvenile Court.
In his remarks during the Jan. 2 and 7 hearings, Thomas Ambrosino, the court administrator of the executive office of the Trial Court administration, said that the Trial Court is in full support of the state leasing the new justice center.
“This has been one of my highest priorities; to get a regional justice center built in the city of Springfield to replace two outdated locations where we operate our five court departments in Springfield,” Ambrosino said.
A presentation from Woodford on Jan. 2 and 7 depicted a tentative timeline for when tasks will be completed. According to that timeline, the Asset Management Board is expected to approve or disapprove the Trial Court’s leasing proposal by the end of this month, and a request for proposals process is expected to begin in the second quarter of this year if the proposal is approved.
The timeline also included a tentative execution of a lease for the new complex by the second quarter of 2026.
Public comments
A collection of city officials, union members and residents spoke during the Jan. 2 and 7 hearings about their thoughts regarding the proposed leasing plan for the justice center.
Chief Development Officer Tim Sheehan and Sarno’s Chief of Staff Bill Baker spoke on behalf of the city in support of the Trial Court’s proposal during the in-person hearing on Jan. 7.
“We believe it’s responsive to the immediacy of the need for a new courthouse in the city of Springfield,” Sheehan said, of the Trial Court’s proposal. “It also balances effectively the cost constraints that the commonwealth has in terms of advancing this project.”
Baker echoed those sentiments by saying that the city is on board with this “unique” public/private partnership between the state and a developer.
“It’s a win-win for all parties; the commonwealth, DCAMM, Trial Court, city of Springfield, [and] all the employees and agencies and all the residents that have to go through one of the busiest courts in all of the commonwealth,” Baker said.
Hampden County Register of Probate Rosemary Saccomani noted the building is not ADA-accessible, and the current HVAC system had long outlived its useful life.
She spoke in favor of the Trial Court’s proposal in her remarks.
“I fully support this plan for leasing,” she said. “It will accomplish a more expedient building of the new court complex, and it will save the Commonwealth some money.”
In his remarks during the Jan. 7 meeting, Springfield resident Juan Latorre, who previously ran unsuccessfully for City Council, said he is a little leery of a public/private partnership for this project but added that he plans to have “an open mind.”
He also mentioned that he was appreciative of DCAMM’s determination and attention to this matter.
“The fact that this is motivated more so by timeline and less so by cost savings is comforting to hear from a part of the community where we don’t always feel like that,” Latorre said. “I can respect the fact that you’re trying to move fast, because we’ve got a sick courthouse, and we want to come up with a solution as quickly as possible to get those employees out of that building and into a much healthier building to conduct a commonwealth business.”
Although no location has been chosen for the new courthouse, one such plan from developer Peter Picknelly in 2022 included a proposal to have the courthouse on the North End Riverfront site.
In his written statement before the Jan. 2 public hearing, Sarno voiced his approval for the new courthouse on this site.
“I have made it very clear; I am in full support of the relocation of a new Roderick Ireland Courthouse to the north riverfront area,” he said. “This would be a game changer for the city of Springfield.”
One Springfield resident, Karen Lee, opposed this proposal during the Jan. 2 hearing, noting how that proposed location could compromise natural resources, specifically on the Connecticut River.
She instead proposed building the new courthouse on the same land as the current one.
“The riverfront proposal may save two or three years of construction time, but at the expense of 60 years of lease payments and the end-of-life environmental costs; and we still need to remove the Roderick Ireland building,” she said.
According to the state, potential locations for the new site will be discussed at a later date. If the state chooses a location outside of the courthouse’s existing location, a temporary relocation of the current courthouse will not be necessary, according to DCAMM.
Residents had until Jan. 11 to submit their comments on the matter.
