FINANCE CONTROL BOARD, October 20, 2006
Present: Tom Gloster, Alan LeBovidge, Mayor Charles Ryan, City Council President Jose Tosado, Jake Jacobson, City Clerk Wayman Lee
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.
Approval of Minutes
The first item is the acceptance of the minutes from the September 11, 2006 meeting. Any comments or changes?
**MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
ESCO/Energy Update
AL: Mr. Puccia, I know we have a series of items—I’d call them not housekeeping, but administrative in nature--so can you take us through the agenda?
Phil Puccia: Yes, sir. Actually, the board has seen several, a couple of these items already, in particular Item Numbers 3 and 4, but let’s start with the ESCO project (Energy Services Company) update by Mr. Sullivan.
As you know, the city has a very old physical plant. It’s got about 4million 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, sort of, 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 up-date on where we are.
Patrick Sullivan: Thank you. We are making progress. We have even a more up-dated 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 pay-back period of the loan, so...of the project...which is a total project improvement of $31million. There was $51million, though, in recommendations. The savings are estimated at basically $2.3million 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, and Commissioner [sic] Jacobson had asked that question at the last meeting, and those rates for both heating oil, gas and electricity are being provided to you today.
AL: I’m just curious, given the reduction in gas prices lately, how do we...are we fare...deal or...is this a good?
PS: We did well, and I’ll tell you what we did. Back in July, we had locked in...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 by the...towards the end of August...we locked in to a natural gas rate which is equal to $1.80 per gallon of oil. So what we’re doing is we’re converting over this year on our boilers we can over to a natural gas.
Last year, the city burned 1.7million 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. And so 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: OK.
PS: Steve and I—Lisauskas—are going to be meeting with Western Mass Electric on Monday. We’re going to be doing projections out over five years, ten years and fifteen years of what we think consumption could be. And we’re also looking at the rebates that are being offered at both the utility companies, Western Mass and Baystate Gas, so 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 what, 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 to put the pen to paper to figure out what we think the utility rates increases could be, and that’s very difficult, but we’ll get there.
Jake Jacobson: And could you just remind us what the whole structure, 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, and 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, and they are guaranteeing $2.3million. And if...they have to pay the difference on that if those energy savings aren’t...are not met.
AL: And if you had $2.3million a year in savings, would that be enough to carry the bonds?
PS: We’re working on those, and to date that we’re told that they would be.
PP: That’s our objective.
AL: So it will be self-financing.
PS: That’s right.
Tom Gloster: The objective is to use the savings the cost of the power to fund the financing...
PS: That’s correct.
PP: And one of the difficult questions for us is we’re trying to do this and 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, $50million for other projects. And they’re really coming at the same time which is why the savings...the estimated savings...are crucial to us doing.... 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 V. 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 $30million.
PS: That’s correct.
CVR: And the debt service would be about $2.3million a year.
AL: So therefore, that...you’re saying that so that the $50million number you threw out would be on the...you could treat that separately and that...
PP: That’s the objective. OK. We’re not there yet, and I had hoped to be in front of the board, actually, now with a specific financing plan on the $50million, but we’re just simply not ready yet. It is something we intend to accomplish by the end of the year.
AL: Good luck That’d be good...
JJ: So has ESCO signed off on the $2.3 million a year for the duration?
PS: Yes, we’re...by the week after next, we’re going to start contract negotiations with the ESCO company. We’ve hired Alan Mandl (his credentials are in this package to you today) to assist the city in that negotiations with the ESCO company.
JJ: But then 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 that ESCO’s assumption is that gas and 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, so that’s why we’re running those numbers out for the ten and fifteen years. There will be increased costs at some point....
PP: It’s not a one-for-one trade, all right? Because if we’re doing the improvements, our actual consumption and efficiency is improving.
AL: Well, we hope.
PP: We hope.
TG: So, in sum, it’s actually guaranteed savings is $2.4million plus a little bit.
PP: Not signed yet, but yes.
TG: I’m sorry?
PP: Yeah, it’s not a final...we don’t have a contractual relationship...
TG: It’s guaranteed of a minimum. Is there some mechanism, you know, by which you can be a 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.
AL: OK. Well, we’ll wait for you...
PS: I just want to indicate one thing that Phil had indicated was that...with these savings, windows were a big part of this plan and that plays into the $50million program. It takes 38 years to get a pay-back on windows for our school buildings, so that’s why the $50million 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. So that’s why there is a difference between...on the recommended of $51million, there are certain things that just are not going to be able to be done under this ESCO project, and windows...
AL: ...funded will be under the $50million bond.
PS: That’s correct.
AL: OK. Otherwise we could have funded those?
PS: Exactly, but the pay-back is just too far out.
JJ: So the structure of the bond issue becomes sized by the guarantee, 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 that’s...so that we can go and do the $50million 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 Seimen’s guarantee, whoever is going to do the guarantee?
PP: I don’t know the...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 $50million debt that is specific to energy improvements.
AL: No, but even if you didn’t have a 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’m not... I don’t know what the rate reduction will be, Jake, Mr. Jacobson.
JJ: So then, making sure that I understand, the...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 $30odd million. Then, in addition, we will attempt either under the state program, or because we can convince the rating agencies that we’re now capable, that Springfield is now capable, of bonding new debt on their own to go out for further $50million which we will use to put windows in the schools and things as well as the fire stations and other things that....
PP: That’s correct.
CVR: But within that $50million, there’s been no judgment yet as to how much of it will be for windows, etc. or for other school uses, because there’s intense competition there, and there are so many things that haven’t been done...
AL: Yeah, but it sounds as if...
CVR: ...fifty isn’t going to go that far.
PP: No, that’s right.
AL: $50million doesn’t go as far as it used to go?
CVR: 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 $50million to make the other bond issue work.
PS: And there could be additional savings if you do windows, but....
PP: I will tell you that there is a series of extremely difficult choices on the $50million that the Mayor and myself and everyone that’s part of the different management teams are trying to figure out, because there’s very little opportunity to say that “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’s more good projects that there are ...there is money.
CVR: Money.
PP: There really is.
JJ: So why have you latched on to $50million?
PP: Because...why have I? Because at the end of the day, I don’t know how the city can afford to finance more than $50million based on what I know about the operating budget for the up-coming years. That will be a stretch unto itself.
AL: OK. Well, get more efficiencies.
PP: Get more savings, yes.
AL: So, you get more savings, we can borrow more money. OK, it’s the American way...OK, 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 Casaboom here if you have any additional questions, but this is actually a second reading—am I correct in that, Mr. Clerk?
Wayman Lee: Yes, you are.
PP: And so 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 all this and...
PP: I have Fire Marshal Cassaboom here.
AL: OK. Good morning.
Fire Marshal John Cassaboom: Good morning. Yes, what the ordinance is about is 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 fire alarm dispatch unit that’s civilian, so it’s just a matter of swapping out from the old game well to a wireless system.
AL: But it is, 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 that’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, that it’s important that this ordinance be complied with. My question is...I don’t want to slow anything down or anything, but is $25. fine if they don’t do it strikes me as...
AL: Too low?
TG: If you just paid the $25. fine and not 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: But if it’s...but I thought ...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’re happy to remove...we happy to revisit this issue with a more appropriate fine.
AL: Yeah. I, I mean I think it’s a good point. You don’t want people not to comply.
JC: [in an aside to PP] Definitely. It should be addressed, and it should be changed.
JJ: I think the way to do it to make progress is that 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.
Jose Tosado: I’m not sure you can do that.
WL: You, you, if the board if someone wants to make a motion and second to raise those fines and raise that penalty and amount today....
PP: Right now. 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: So 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 anywheres between $4500. to $6800. depending on how the installation has to go.
TG: So $25 is way too low.
PP: So we could give you a fine recommendation between $500 and –I just spoke to Fire Marsh--...you know, between $500 and $1000.
AL: We obviously want people to comply.
PP: We want people to comply; we don’t want to pay the fine. We want them to comply.
AL: Well, do you want to make a motion?
TG: I move we increase the fine to $500.
AL: Any discussion about that?
JJ: The question...it has to be replaced by December 31, 2008. If it’s in existing condition, and there’s art(?) being done...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. So, if the cost is...I’m sorry I can’t find...between $6000. and $8000.
PP: $4500 and $6800
JJ: So 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, “Fine. I’ll pay $500., and now I don’t need to up-grade my system, and the city of Springfield has no way to maintain the old system. So, we’re going to then start having buildings that don’t have adequate fire protection because we’re not going to have a maintained system. So either we rewrite the ordinance or we should build a fine that’s big enough to make sure that they’ll comply. We should do one of those.
CVR: I would feel most comfortable if we didn’t act on this today to give, let’s say, 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 kind of in half measures or... I mean this is too serious a matter. I want it to work, but I don’t want also to impose a $10,000 fine just in a sense of frustration or trying to button up a loop hole. I don’t think we’ve really thought this through.
JT: I agree with the Mayor. I think I’d probably be hesitant to come up with a number, because all we’d be doing would be coming up with a number now without any background research.
JJ: You can...if you want to change the ordinance, you can have a lower fine, then have the fine assessed monthly so quarterly. So starting in January of 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.
CVR: Take it back to the drawing board, and we’ll do it next time?
PP: So 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 to you have the option of doing it on a daily basis. So you can put in a particular fine and do it on a daily basis have to add that to the ordinance. Any day that they’re in violation or additional days $1000. each day for how many days there are.
JJ: So if we were going to change it to some kind of [unintelligible] daily fine or something, is that a two-reading thing or if we pass this would we then just be able to change the fine section?
WL: Well, you... if you’re going to change the fine, you need to come back for... so you could to so you could change, make most of the changes today and come back to once you do, that would be a substantial change because you’re...or whatever [unintelligible]
JT: So, Mr. Clerk, we can actually just do an amendment to the penalty section, vote on the amendment today, and the next meeting, would that be a second reading or a third and final reading?
WL: A third.
JT: It would be a third reading, OK so it would still be in the same process
WL: If they can come back with the change
AL: I’m a little confused with all this second and third. Under what Jose’s saying: are you suggesting that we should pass it today, increase the fine to $500. or something like that?
PP: Whatever the method works.
AL: ...and then come back next month...
JT: And it’ll be a final reading.
AL: It’ll be a final reading. 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, we’re not comfortable...neither one of us [PP and JC] is comfortable in working out the math...
.AL: ...today
PP: ...today. These are important questions, and, you know, we should have...
AL: So, given that, should we just do nothing?
WL: ...Come back with a recommendation and...
AL: Fine.
JJ: Why don’t you just come back with a daily that will be a relatively small daily amount, but it will add up rapidly and will...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 OK.
JC: Thank you.
TG: Thank you.
Bulk and Waste Hauling Services Ordinance
AL: OK. the next item “Bulk and Waste Hauling Services Ordinance.”
PP: This is the ordinance, I believe, that the board has seen...Mr. Lisakowski, if you could... 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.
JJ(?): A qualified
PP: ...qualified, so that 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 any one 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. Is that not?
CVR: I’ll make a motion to approve.
**MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
AL: That was easy.
PP: Yeah. We have a hand-out 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 just really allowing us to receive additional state aid for road paving; it’s what’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 collars to the cities and towns. You will see there’s an attachment of streets.
AL: This is $1million additional.
PP: Yes, it’s $1million. this, I believe, is a plan that the Mayor and 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 [holds up a list of projects].
AL: We’ll take all the money we can get. Any questions?
**MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
Land Disposition Agreement
PP: Mr. Panagore will now brief the board on an amendment to a land disposition agreement. David.
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 ParkII. 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 and 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. You’ll see that...
AL: My only question was, why are you doing this as an amendment? Why wasn’t it done originally?
DP: Correct. The...what it first does is...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...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...the site as a totality from the northern side of the Smith and 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. What we’ve now done is we’ve now separated the utility so that the site drainage for Smith and Wesson will stay with Smith and 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 here, this clause “drainage improvements” allows us as per the discussions with Smith and 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 and Wesson. And we will be draining directly out of the site on the drain pond on the Memorial Industrial Park side.
And then the fourth is a miscellaneous provision again to ensure that everything that was in effect remains still in effect. And we request, therefore, as you can see, Springfield Food Service—I have a copy with me—Springfield Food Service has signed the agreement and is in agreement with this. 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 and 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...the agreement and be handling it directly. Thank you.
AL: OK Great. All right. Next.
Establishment of Revolving Funds
PP: Item number VII.
AL: Revolving funds.
PP: Mayor, did you want to speak about the riverfront fund or
CVR: I think David was. I’d be glad to speak on the Park Department or Pat Sullivan can
PP: OK Thank you.
a) Riverfront
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...State Street crossing generates about $12,000. And the Bassett Boat yard up by the bridge in the North End generates about $1007. 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. What we...now recognizing the interest and the importance of the riverfront, what we are requesting is 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?
AL: The...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, and, as an income-generating park area, we think it’s...you know...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, we...you know...that’s an expense that competes with all other parks. There is also down there structures, wooden structures from an old ramp system for the, 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 a few...in that same general vicinity
PP: I mean, technically, it will still be deposited in the city’s general bank account, but the accounting is such that we...
JJ: So that the $20odd thousand a year generate will be focused on the areas that actually generate that income.
AL: And if, by some miracle, the revenue goes up to $10million a year, we...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, the city receives a $100,000 payment per year, just 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: OK. Have a motion?
**MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
AL: OK
DP: Thank you.
AL: Last one.
PP: I believe there’s two.
AL: There’s two? OK.
b) Parks and Recreation (Targeting Bright Nights Revenue)
Patrick Sullivan: Yes, 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.
AL: It’s the same concept?
PP: It’s the same concept. I don’t know if the board knows...not all the board members know the Bright Nights.
PS: Bright Nights is actually 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. And we would like those funds that are taken in going back into the Forest Park properties to...for building repairs. It’s a 735 acre park, so you can imagine it’s very difficult to continually up-keep that size of a park.
CVR: But 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.
CVR: ...and so the Spirit of Springfield which puts this on, in some respects, this 181 is reimbursing money that you have forwarded.
PS: That’s correct.
CVR: 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, of all people, 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: OK. Any other questions?
**MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
PP: And then the last item related to this...this is related to Bright Nights, isn’t it?
PS: Right. That was is the monies that were reimbursed and taken in for last year’s event, and we are requesting that it be transferred over.
AL: So you want to push that in?
PP: Yes push that in.
CVR: 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 Phil 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 Jose Tosado voting “no.”
AL: I have one other piece of news that I think is good news
Agenda Item for Next Meeting: Implementation of Teachers’ Contract
JJ: [unintelligible] I think there’s a lot of complexity in the teachers’ contract and I think in our next meeting that this might be beneficial for all of us to hear from the superintendent as to how the implementation of that is going and if that’s acceptable to all of you, then I’d like that to be put on the agenda for our next meeting.
Back-up State Technology Resource Center Coming to Tech High Site
AL: OK. We’ll do it. OK. One final...I have one item. As you know, 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.
And 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. And 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 it’s...I’m glad that they made that decision and, you know, 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?
CVR: What’s this?
AL: The magnitude.
CVR: $70million or $80million is my understanding.
AL: It’s a...it’s a big project.
CVR: [unintelligible] Mr. Chairman, I’d just 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 twelve months. As you know, the, the, that Armory Quadrangle area ten years ago was a mini-disaster. There’s been a great deal that’s happened there with the resurgence of Byers Street with the construction of a $65million federal court house, with the restoration of many of the properties of the diocese and the museum association, but we had one gaping hole there in Tech High. And so it’s been a very high priority of all of us and, again as usual, Phil played an enormous role in this.
I know that also...I think that, in many respects, our fortune’s coming back is closely tied with a working...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, really in my opinion, 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 Street that are 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: And if I understand it correctly, they’re going to work with the architecture that’s there to try to—is that right?--to try to preserve some of the exterior of the building and to develop it. I’m just glad that they decided that and, you know, we can move forward.
CVR: One of the things that we learned in our discussions 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. Really, 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 in this day and age computerized. So 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 twenty-year-old vacant Tech High School.
AL: And just so people don’t go home [unintelligible] does use a lot of technology, let me assure people that we have back-up systems. The problems 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, to have it. And, certainly, for my other job, we’ve been lobbying for a long time to have a state-owned, you know, facility here. So we do have protection, but it’s like this makes sense to go forward and I’m glad they decided it also.
Any other new business?
Agenda item for Next Meeting: Civilian Review Board for Police Department
JT: [audio goes dead] ...police department, but we had a...I had requested that last month for the commissioner and he did come in to just get an update in terms of where we are with the civilian review board for the police department, and I thought there was going to be some kind of follow up at today’s meeting, but it wasn’t on the agenda.
PP: ...to have if for today.
AL: Well, let’s put it on the next...
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.