Some questioning plans to have private developer lease new Springfield courthouse (2025)

SPRINGFIELD – As the state moves ahead with a proposal to replace the problem-filled Roderick Ireland Courthouse, some are questioning if the plan to have it constructed under a public-private partnership is the best solution.

The state’s Asset Management Board voted 3-1 in late January to request proposals from private developers interested in constructing and then leasing a new courthouse that would measure roughly 330,000 square feet. It would be designed to include space for the neighboring juvenile and housing courts as well as replacing the Roderick Ireland Courthouse.

But City Councilor Timothy Allen said he is concerned that too few people have weighed in on the partnership, especially those who will be directly affected. He has scheduled a Finance Committee meeting on April 30 at 6 p.m. to try to get more people involved.

“I like a government where people are engaged and that has people who speak up about things they care about,” Allen said.

The state Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, which is overseeing the project, held one remote and one in-person meeting in January to discuss the options and get feedback, but Allen said attendance at the in-person meeting, which numbered around 30, was “pitiful” for a project that will have such a large impact on the city.

“This is my city and we are building a new courthouse in Springfield,” he said. “I have talked with lawyers and bankers and business owners and they haven’t heard anything about it,” Allen said of the private partnership.

The project is run and financed by the state so the City Council does not have to act on it, but Allen said he wants people to discuss the impact the project will have on the city, especially on downtown.

For one thing it could have financial consequences. For example, Allen said, many lawyers currently rent office space downtown near the courthouse and at least one attorney said he will likely discontinue that practice if the courthouse is located along the Connecticut Riverfront, which is one location most often discussed for the project.

Allen said he has been in contact with Adam Baacke, commissioner of the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, who agreed to return to host another meeting.

Baacke did not return requests for comment last week.

A public-private partnership proposal will speed up the process of replacing what is believed to be a “sick building” that is plagued by mold and other problems. Over the years five judges, including two who shared the same office, have died of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, and other employees have suffered multiple cancers and respiratory illness, which some attribute to the building.

Construction could start in late 2026 if a private developer built the courthouse. If officials were to wait for an additional $500 million to be available from the state capital budget, it would take an extra three to eight years to get the work started. State estimates show it would also save $153 million over the life of the lease, officials said.

The plan has been endorsed by Mayor Domenic J. Sarno. Officials for the Trial Court have not weighed in on the plan have a private developer construct the building, but said replacing the Springfield courthouse is a priority.

Sarno and other city officials have been specifically backing a plan from regional business mogul Peter A. Picknelly for the courthouse to be built along the Connecticut River just north of downtown, saying it will spark economic development in an underdeveloped spot.

That plan calls for a mixed development of apartments and other uses along with the courthouse. Some of the land Picknelly proposes to use is owned by The Republican’s parent company.

Several members of the Asset Management Board did air concerns that frequent conversations about the Picknelly proposal could have a “chilling effect” on fostering competition for the project, but agreed there are ways to attract interest.

While Allen has been spreading the news of the next meeting by contacting the Hampden County Bar Association, the Springfield Business Improvement District, the Chamber of Commerce and others, he said he does not have an opinion on the lease proposal.

But Karen Lee, a resident and activist, does. The lease, which will begin at about $30 million a year and increase to an estimated $38 million over 40 years, will be expensive and, when it ends, the state will not own the building, she said.

Last week she gave a presentation to Union Capital, a social networking and community activism forum, explaining the project and urging people to attend the April 30 meeting and air their opinions.

During the presentation, she said the state already spent a lot of time and money to identify and rank different suitable locations for a new courthouse and the riverfront proposal was not in the top three.

“This is a very bad idea and Springfield needs a champion,” she told the City Council last week. “We need to own our stuff.”