City Council - Regular Meeting

Ready counselors? Show time.

Today is April 13th. The time is now 6:02 p.m. and we are going to start our public speakout portion of the city council meeting. Our first speaker. Oh, first I want to acknowledge the counselors that are in person. Councelor Jerry Martin, councelor Zeta Govan, counselor Justin Hurst, and councelor Jose Delgado. And I also want to acknowledge the counselors that are online, councelor Kater Walsh, councelor Lavar Click Bruce, councelor Maria Perez, councelor Victor Davilla. Mike Finton was on a minute ago, but must have Oh, councelor Mike Finton is now in person. Michael Fenton. All right. So, the first speaker we have on the agenda tonight is Mr. Steven Howard. Please state your name and address for the record. Uh, thank you, Madame President. Good evening, everyone. And I really do appreciate the fact that counselors are actually here to address the concerns of the people that they went around asking to sign petitions so that they could be elected. I understand that folks have busy schedules. It's not a full-time position, but it just makes it like last time there was a speak out, I think there were close to about 10 people who came to speak and it just goes to show the respect that councilors show when they show up. It encourages people to come forward and uh address their concerns. Thank you. Uh Stephen Steen Howard, 1104 Wington Street, Springfield, Mass. Uh what I'd like to ask tonight is since the legislature in Boston passed a bill that basically

doubles the amount of Mary Jane marijuana that could be purchased from one ounce to two ounces. Uh, I would also like to ask that, you know, maybe the city councilors could put forward a proposal to have the second chance be increased from 15 days per month and reduced time served to a a much higher number. Because one of the things that that legislation does is reduce recitism and we don't want people going through the courts as a revolving door as the mayor has uh expressed on several occasions and seeing that people could actually go and buy pot now legally. I think it's it's a little inconsiderate to not try to give those offenders especially who did not commit any acts of violence while they were selling drugs on the street uh at least marijuana on the street to give them a a second chance because if they was if they were good at doing it on the street Maybe if the second chance that uh time could be increased so that they get a better opportunity to come back out and be productive citizens after they've gone through the programs for that reduction to be in place. Maybe they might even even come out and say maybe work for one of these uh cannabon uh cannabonoid cannabis uh you know stores. Maybe they might even become entrepreneurs. So now they don't have to

worry about selling it on the street and being, you know, fighting over turf and shooting people and all that kind of stuff. Now they could do it legitimately. The same way the numbers, what we used to know as the numbers racket is now uh the numbers game with lotto and all these other games. the same way that uh alcohol was once prohibited and now it's it's one of the main revenue generators in taxes for Springfield especially. So if these folks who have been incarcerated could their chances of returning to, you know, being released from jail, uh, you know, plus the expenses of, uh, not having to incarcerate them, how much does it cost to incarcerate compared to educate? Thank you, Madam uh, President. Thank you for listening to me, everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Howard. Appreciate that. The next speaker on the agenda is Miss Karen Lee. Name and address for the record, please. I think that's on right. Yeah. Good evening, counselors. My name is Karen Lee, um, resident at 18 Lawn Street in Springfield. Tonight, I'm asking for your support on a resolution regarding the Springfield Regional Justice Center. This isn't just about a building. It's about long-term municipal responsibility. This courthouse will stand for up to 60 years shaping our traffic, our infrastructure and our neighborhoods. And we know from experience that our current system including our past work on payment in lie of taxes program that cumulative impacts especially from large taxexempt or state-led projects are not fully accounted for. Some costs like environmental changes, pressure on historic resources and public safety needs can build up over decades, not all at once and not over time. But those effects are real. The concept here is simple. We move from a model of reacting to these impacts to a model of planning for them. And so who does that affect it? the residents of Springfield who shouldn't bear the financial burden of a state-led project. It affects the mayor who has been copied on the communication with the division of capital assets management and mason maintenance or DAM and it affects the city council who needs sustainable revenue sources and tools and it involves our state partners DAM and the trial courts. Currently, our system don't fully account for the long-term strain these massive projects put on our city. By aligning the project's activity with its long-term responsibility, we ensure Springfield is a partner in this development and not

just the host. So, how are we going to do this? The request into DAM is to look at a distinct lease component. Right now the project is a public private partnership where de developers are asked to assign costs of things like utilities and operations. This resolution is in support of including an additional cost component specifically for community and long-term impacts. It's a value assigned to municipal impacts and baked right into the lease. that revenue would go into a dedicated use fund rather than the general revenue and governed most likely by a service level agreement to ensure the money stays tied to the project's actual effects on our city. I want to mention that this shouldn't be confused with property tax or a diff district improvement financing or any other traditional revenue tool. It is a separate component of the lease structure. So finally supporting this resolution doesn't interfere with the state's procurement process. it it simply keeps the door open. It gives us the chance to shape the project before the contract is awarded rather than being left reacting to the consequences after. By voting yes, you are ensuring that as a justice center grows over the next 60 years that you as our representatives body along with the mayor's support agree that this model of planning for Springfield would allow for a guaranteed dedicated stream of revenue to grow alongside the courthouse. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Miss Karen Lee, we appreciate that. That is the final speaker for public speakout. So, the meeting will stand adjourned until our regular city council meeting at 6:30.