Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 6/14/2023
SPRINGFIELD — Several studies and relocation options for the existing Springfield courthouse are being considered as the need for a new one remains prominent.
On May 15, the Divisions of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance released the Springfield Courts Complex Relocation Assessment report.
The assessment reviewed potential sites to replace the existing Hampden County Hall of Justice, assessing properties in the Springfield area that have the size and capacity to accommodate a courthouse.
The existing Springfield Courts Complex consists of two buildings: The Hall of Justice at 50 State St., which houses the superior, district, probate and family courts and offices for the district attorney and Registry of Deeds; and the Springfield Housing and Juvenile Court, 80 State St.
The report noted that the assessment is not a site selection process and that some property owners might have not been included for various reasons such as not showing up in the database used for this assessment.
DCAMM’s Office of Real Estate and Greystone Management Solutions provided HDR with a list of 18 sites in Springfield, West Springfield, East Longmeadow and Agawam. Six of those sites are owned by the state — including the existing Hall of Justice site — and 12 sites are privately owned. The report said that several sites were eliminated from further consideration due to current uses, being on private property, among other reasons. Once those sites were eliminated, 13 sites were evaluated.
“The assessment compares the potential sites through a quantitative ranking scale to evaluate site attributes. To facilitate the comparison, a matrix was developed with input from the [Executive Office of Technology Services and Security], to determine the evaluation criteria, which includes desirable attributes for court locations, such as convenient access to public transportation, adjacencies to other civic uses, and visibility and prominence of locations conducive with judicial character and compatibility with surrounding environs,” the report said. “Additional attributes related to constructibility, sustainability and cost effectiveness were recommended by DCAMM for inclusion.”
The report continued, “Higher ratings determined a site’s advantages. For example, for Ownership of Land, a “1” was given to sites that are privately owned, due to assumed additional costs and time to complete the acquisition, and a “5” was given to sites owned by the commonwealth given minimal acquisition costs and time frames to transfer control.”
While some sites are currently occupied, relocation plans may add more time and cost to the project, which was factored into the scoring.
A location in downtown Springfield, proximity to public parking and access to public transportation was also held at a higher weight than availability and capacity of utilities were.
The distribution of scores determined that sites with a total of 130 points or more would be evaluated further by site visits from DCAMM and EOTC to verify conditions and conduct test fits for the conceptual building program.
Based on the findings, site No. 1, 50 State St., had the highest ranking of the sites evaluated, with a score of 172. The second highest site was 125 Liberty St. with 149 points.
At 50 State St. there are two options for reuse of the existing site.
According to the report, “The space program options are somewhat larger than the spaces in the existing courthouse, which are attributable to the designs of the existing buildings that do not meet current standards. The most significant difference between the existing space and the conceptual program are the court sets, which include the courtrooms, judge’s lobbies, waiting areas, detention areas, and attorney/client conference rooms and secure circulation.”
The changes show an increase from the existing 44,460 square feet of court set spaces in the Hall of Justice to 73,100 square feet for option No. 1, and 99,800 square feet for option No. 2.
The first option also includes departments currently in the Hall of Justice, with 22 courtrooms. The second option includes all program components in Option No. 1, 29 courtrooms and more.
“Some of the existing support spaces that are in the current program are considerably larger than in the assumed program, while other court support agencies have minimal existing spaces. All have been right sized to accommodate recommended space needs,” the report said. “Other deficiencies in the existing courthouse include staff administrative and central control space being crowded by file storage, poor separation between male and female holding cells in central holding, no detainee intake or search area, no property storage, and insufficient attorney/client meeting space.”
The total square footage of option one is 250,900 and includes seven stories. Some of the advantages include nearby public transportation and sufficient frontage and visibility. The challenges are that there is no surface parking on site and the existing building will need to be demolished which “increases the embodied carbon of the project” and prolongs the construction period, the report explains.
The second option for 50 State St. is a 322,100-square-foot facility with nine stories. The advantages and challenges are like that of option No. 1, however, the nine stories that are required would add to construction costs and the program would no longer utilize a historic district and could not be demolished.
The estimated total project cost ranges between $419 million and $531 million. The process — from site acquisition to end of construction — could take a minimum of six to seven years once funding is identified.
Following the release of the assessment report, Mayor Domenic Sarno issued a press release on June 2, to express his continued support for a new “state-of-the-art courthouse on the north riverfront area.”
Sarno said, “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. This would be a game changer for the city of Springfield. It brings to light development in the north end of our riverfront and most importantly, it brings with it some additional housing to the city, which is desperately needed.”
He continued, “Also, this proposal includes restaurants and boutique shops, along with a proposed marina. This project would also create hundreds of construction jobs and a number of permanent jobs. In addition, the city will benefit from much-needed additional property tax revenue.”
Sarno said he has had “fruitful discussions” with Gov. Maura Healey and Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll about this, as well as the Honorable Jeffrey Locke, chief justice of the Trial Court, Tom Ambrosino, Trial Court administrator and state Rep. Michael Finn (D-West Springfield), chair of the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets.
“This project also addresses major issues concerning public transportation and parking. Furthermore, this project in the north riverfront could be completed in [three to four] years vs [seven to 10] years at the current site.”
The proposal Sarno references was brought forward on June 30, 2022, by himself and Peter Picknelly. The riverfront property is owned by Picknelly and is accessible through Avocado Street.
Picknelly’s vision for the courthouse is a four-story building on 12.5 acres with 210,000 to 260,000 square feet of space. It would have a 700-car parking area, with 150 spaces in an underground garage. There would also be a raised boardwalk from the courthouse property leading to a look-out area at the river.
The design and construction cost of this project would be between $255 and $295 million.
In addition to a new courthouse, on the other side of Clinton Street, Picknelly wants to build an 11-story residential center with 120 to 180 one-and two-bedroom apartments with the first floor designated for retail and restaurants. The apartment building is estimated to cost $150 to $175 million.
The purpose of the various studies is to allow DCAMM, EOTC and other decision makers to “thoroughly vet facility needs at the complex and determine if renovation or replacement is the most fiscally responsive and appropriate course of action to meet the needs of the Trial Court and the people it serves,” the report states.
This assessment is simply a “precursor” to any decision making.