Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 8/16/2023
SPRINGFIELD — A new 21st century courthouse will be built in Springfield to replace the existing one at 50 State St., however, the question that remains is where?
For nearly a decade, officials have been looking to have a study conducted on the Hampden County Hall of Justice for various reasons including health risks and future economic development. However, it was not until Gov. Maura Healey announced that her administration would provide funding for new construction that really got the ball rolling.
On June 22, Healey released a statement that said, “Our administration envisions the Springfield court complex as an opportunity to build a courthouse of the future, utilizing the most advanced approaches to energy efficiency and demonstrating best-in-class design.”
The Healey administration will include $106 million in its fiscal year 2024-28 Capital Improvement Plan to begin the process of building a new, modern Hall of Justice in Springfield.
As the process unfolds, Healey said her administration will continue to engage with local officials, court leaders, user groups and community members to select a site and begin construction.
Leading up to the announcement, several studies and relocation options for the existing Springfield courthouse were being considered.
On May 15, the Division 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 site assessment assisted in determining whether a replacement or renovation was the appropriate course of action to meet the needs of the Trial Court and the people it serves.
“Given our commitment to a court complex that is more suited to 21st century functions and feedback from our local stakeholders, we concluded that replacing the current facility is the most responsible course of action,” shared Healey’s office.
The administration went on to explain that the DCAMM assessment was required as part of the settlement with court employees and is not to be confused with a site recommendation or selection process.
“We look forward to continuing to engage with the Trial Court and community stakeholders to review the results of the site assessment and discuss next steps towards finalizing a selection,” said Healey’s office.
The FY24-28 Capital Improvement Plan includes funding for the initial site selection and design work.
Funding for the actual construction will be incorporated into future Capital Improvement Plans — likely between FY27 and FY32.
Nearly one month after Healey’s announcement, on July 17, the Springfield City Council voted to approve a resolution to ensure that the courthouse remains in Springfield.
During the City Council meeting, Councilor at-Large Justin Hurst explained that the first part of the resolution, pertaining to DCAMM conducting a relocation assessment, had already been completed, to which it was determined that replacement was necessary.
“The second portion of the resolution, which focuses on where that particular courthouse will be, is the most important as it relates to this resolution and, you know, the hope is that that particular courthouse will be located in Springfield,” Hurst said.
He read the resolution into the record, which concluded with, “Now therefore, be it resolved that the City Council hereby formally supports the Roderick Ireland Hampden County Hall of Justice being replaced and a new courthouse be located in the city of Springfield.”
Before the City Council approved the resolution, state Rep. Carlos Gonzalez (D-Springfield) said he found it “disheartening” to see other towns and cities even be a part of the relocation assessment.
Although it is called the “Hampden County” courthouse, Gonzalez said he wanted to make sure the plan was only for Springfield — either downtown or an adjacent area.
“The highways were built with Springfield being the heart and soul of Western Massachusetts … It’s easy to access,” he said. “It’s the best suitable location.”
Once it was confirmed that a replacement was necessary, several local and state officials came forward to share their visions of the future courthouse, including Mayor Domenic Sarno, who has been an avid supporter of a new “state-of-the-art courthouse” on the north riverfront area.
Sarno expressed his thanks and gratitude to the Healey-Driscoll administration for their initial investment to replace the “ailing courthouse” on State Street.
“I want to thank and commend Gov. Maura Healey for her continued support and investment in our Springfield, especially with this initial investment of $106 million devoted to the site assessment and design of this much needed project,” Sarno said.
He shared that he looks forward to continuing working with Healey and her team, DCAMM, Gonzalez, state Sen. Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), state Rep. Michael Finn (D-West Springfield), chair of the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets and the entire Springfield delegation, whose committee will conduct the review and due diligence on the state’s capital spending plan.
Sarno believes that the relocation of a new courthouse to the north riverfront area “would be a game changer for the city of Springfield.”
Additionally, he said it would address a wide variety of needs such as parking and public transportation aspects, establish restaurant and boutique shops, create jobs, along with a proposed marina.
Sarno and local businessman Peter Picknelly — who has experience in building courthouses across the state — brought this proposal forward on June 30, 2022. 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.
State Rep. Orlando Ramos (D-Springfield), who is running for mayor, released a statement, which said, “I commend Gov. Healey for this decision and recognizing that this is the best use of public funds.”
Ramos shared that he agrees that new construction is the best option, rather than renovating the existing facility.
“Many people — especially the employees of the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse — have been waiting a long time for this great news.”
While City Councilor at-Large Sean Curran praised Healey’s initiative to set aside the funding for the construction of a new courthouse, he said, “Let’s split the courthouse project in two.”
“[The] idea of a site on the riverfront makes a lot of sense from an economic development perspective,” Curran said. “I think one idea that the city, state and private developers should consider is splitting up the courthouse.”
He continued, “We could take the Registry of Probate and Registry of Deeds and place that on the riverfront. Perhaps a private developer could plan market rate housing and restaurants and outdoor dining around such a complex.”
Curran acknowledged the amount of construction jobs that the new courthouse will create. “I think if we split up the project, it could speed up the timetable on construction. That’s a positive as a new courthouse will be one of the largest construction projects that we will see in the city for years,” he said.
In 2013, Curran was the first to file state legislation to study the construction of a new courthouse. He explained that he mainly did this as an economic development initiative. “At the time, both Boston and Worcester had both secured new courthouses. I figured, why shouldn’t Springfield get the same state investment?” he said.
He went on to say, “It made sense, as the new MGM [Springfield] casino was not yet constructed… I figured that the casino might make use of the courthouse site.”
At that time, he noted that the health issues associated with the courthouse were unknown to him.
“What does not make any sense is to build the courthouse on the current location if health issues are the reason why we are building a new building … We may end up spending $500 million and still have the same health problems.”
Some of Curran’s additional concerns are with the diesel exhaust coming from cars idling beneath the existing courthouse, along with passing by on Interstate 91.
“That car exhaust certainly cannot be healthy,” he added.
Although Curran’s 2013 legislation did not make it to the governor’s desk, he noted that one aspect of the legislation did pass. “The original legislation calls for naming the courthouse after [Supreme Judicial Court] Chief Justice and Springfield native Roderick Ireland. The legislature picked up the idea in the next session and eventually did name the courthouse after Justice Ireland,” he said.
On July 11, state Rep. Angelo Puppolo Jr. (D-Springfield) sent a letter to the DCAMM Commissioner Carol Gladstone, expressing support of Healey’s plans for a new courthouse. Like Curran, Puppolo said a new building is “much needed” to address health and safety issues for courthouse staff and visitors.
However, Puppolo would like DCAMM to revisit a proposed development project on the north riverfront site as a potential new courthouse location.
Puppolo said it is “the ideal home” for a brand new, state-of-the-art courthouse facility.
“I am very pleased at this project moving forward and please know of my support every step of the way,” Puppolo shared. “As the dean of Delegation, I look forward to having a meeting with the Springfield Delegation and all local representatives very soon relative to this project.”
On July 13, Springfield City Council President and mayoral candidate Jesse Lederman and Vice President Melvin Edwards also sent a letter to DCAMM asking the state to consider construction plans that could allow for a new Hampden County Hall of Justice to be combined with a new headquarters for the Springfield Police Department.
In a press release, Lederman explained that their letter follows a 2021 resolution that the City Council passed, and he sponsored. The resolution called on the state to demolish the existing courthouse and address the existing health and operational challenges.
“The recent report by DCAMM and announcement of an initial investment from the commonwealth is a welcome indication that action is finally on the horizon to address the longstanding health and operational challenges of the Hampden County Hall of Justice,” Lederman said. “As the state moves forward with consideration of viable options, we are asking that they also consider the concept of a combined Public Safety Complex with the Springfield Police Department to further streamline operations and move forward a new headquarters and courthouse with possible savings in the long-term, as opposed to having to construct two separate facilities.”
Lederman noted that the city of Springfield has been considering the need for a new police headquarters since 2015, due to “operational limitations” and “lack of ability to meet modern policing and national accreditation standards.”
Edwards said, “The potential of a combined public safety headquarters could be a win-win for the commonwealth and for the city of Springfield both financially and operationally.”
He continued, “I believe it is worthy of consideration amongst the stakeholders as the process moves forward.”
In the letter to DCAMM, Lederman and Edwards urged the state to consider sites nearby Springfield’s Union Station, which they believe “would spur needed business and housing development on the northern end of downtown in anticipation of the future arrival of East-West Rail, as well as open up the existing courthouse and police headquarters sites for additional needed business and housing development that is cohesive with their respective locations.”
While the councilors believe it is too early in the process to be advocating in favor of a specific site, they asked the state to consider the larger economic impact of the new courthouse construction and potential public safety complex.
“It is essential that any plan that moves forward enhances the economic integrity of Downtown Springfield and provides the opportunity for further economic spin off from this monumental investment,” they concluded.
Sarno said the current Roderick L. Ireland courthouse could become a “prime economic property,” as he assumes the building would be demolished.
When talking to court employees, he shared that they want to move one time and one time only.
Moving forward, Sarno said the city will follow proper procedures and continue to have necessary conversations with the Healey-Driscoll administration, DCAMM, Jeffrey Locke, chief justice of the Trial Court, and retired judge and former solicitor John Payne, who has continued to lobby for this.