Date

5/05/08

Discussion regarding extension of loan repayment.

When the Control Board arrived in Springfield it brought with it a $52,000,000.00 interest-free loan. The legislation which created the Control Board and authorized the loan called for it to be paid back by 2012 with repayments commencing in FY2009. There is widespread support locally for extending the term of the repayment to 20 or more years. $20,000,000.00 of the loan proceeds have been set aside and earn the city approximately $900,000.00 in interest per year. Councilor Ferrera and Councilor Foley have advocated paying the loan back in a single lump sum. They point out that for the first time in recent memory the city has significant cash on hand. I believe that most of that cash is tied up and could not be immediately released for purposes of paying off the loan. Even if it could be culled together to pay off the loan in a lump sum, I would not advocate doing so. The state is facing a significant budget crunch and it is not unreasonable to assume that state aid to cities and towns could decrease in FY2009 and/or FY2010. Paying interest free money back in a lump sum does not make good business sense. Spreading the pain of repayment out over a longer period of time, on an interest free basis, does.

Councilor Walsh proposed asking the state to extend the loan repayment schedule. We passed a resolution requesting such an extension earlier this year. Council President Williams indicated that the Control Board, the Mayor, and the legislative delegation are working on a governance package which includes extension of the loan repayment terms and cautioned against upsetting delicate negotiations with a second resolution on the issue. I suggested that it was time for the city council to get involved in deciding what our government will look like when the Control Board leaves. Councilor Rooke suggested that we arrange meetings with members of the Control Board, members of the Patrick administration, and our legislative delegation on that issue. I think that such meetings would be very helpful and that those meetings would be the place to voice our desire to have the loan repayment terms extended. Ultimately, a decision was made to briefly table Councilor Walsh's request. I voted in favor of that motion to table. I think that it makes sense to use the next two weeks to arrange for meetings on the loan repayment and related issues, including the form of governance for Springfield after the departure of the Control Board.

5/18/08

Ethics Ordinance

Bruce Stebbins and I brought a proposed ethics ordinance to the floor of the council for preliminary approval. Our proposed ordinance has three parts: the first prohibits covered city officials (elected officials and department heads) from utilizing their official positions to procure benefits for themselves and their families; the second requires lobbyists to register with the city clerk; and the third requires that covered city officials disclose their financial interests. All three sections parallel provisions in state statutes which apply to state officials. Our intention with this ordinance is to ensure that city officials are held to the same ethical standards to which state officials are held.

In the months leading up to the council meeting of May 19, 2008, Bruce Stebbins and I circulated a draft of the proposed ethics ordinance to other councilors and met individually with them to address concerns that might have had with the ordinance. Councilor Mazza-Moriarty and Councilor Tosado offered particularly useful comments which we incorporated into the version of the ordinance that we introduced on May 19, 2008.

Speaking in favor of the ordinance at the council meeting, I suggested that the transparency which our ordinance would require was necessary in order to address the view of many in Springfield that their local government officials sometimes worked in their own interests rather than in the public’s interest. Councilor Stebbins noted that in recent years, over thirty public officials and private individuals with municipal contracts have been convicted under federal public corruption statutes. Some councilors indicated that they did not believe that the ordinance was necessary and seemed to take its introduction as a personal attack on their integrity. That was certainly not our intention in introducing it. I, for one, am not aware of any ethical lapses on the part of my current city council colleagues. Nevertheless, I do believe strongly that it is important that city officials be held to some definable standard of conduct. The ethics ordinance is an attempt to define that standard.

In order to become the law of the city, a proposed ordinance needs three separate city council votes. We were hoping to take the “first step” on May 19, 2008. Unfortunately, it became apparent quickly that we would not have the votes to take that first step. Councilor Foley made a motion, which Councilor Williams seconded, to send the ethics ordinance to committee. Councilors Ferrera and Rooke joined in that motion. I opposed it because committee is sometimes the place where ordinances are sent to whither and die. Councilors Tosado, Mazza-Moriarty and Stebbins also opposed the referral to committee. Because Councilor Walsh was absent, Councilor Foley’s motion to send the ordinance directly to committee ended in a tie. Councilor Stebbins then made a motion for first step approval. I seconded that motion and was joined by Councilors Mazza-Moriarty and Tosado. Unfortunately, but predictably, Councilor Stebbins’ motion also failed to gain a majority. Like the motion to send the ordinance to committee, it ended in a 4-4 tie.

I was bitterly disappointed that the ethics ordinance did not receive first step approval. We do not intend to let it die, however. Councilors Tosado and Mazza-Moriarty have signed on as sponsors. We will introduce it again at our next meeting. Councilor Walsh has not formally weighed in on it yet. I am hopeful that we can convince her to join us and/or convince Councilors Foley, Ferrera, Williams and Rooke to change their position.

5/27/08

Special permit for proposed Hampton Inn Hotel on East Columbus Avenue.

Dinesh Patel is part of a number of limited liability corporations which own hotels in the region. He has proposed to build a Hampton Inn hotel on East Columbus Avenue in the South End. The Hampton Inn model hotel which he proposes to build exceeds the South End’s maximum height limit by a few feet. Mr. Patel sought permission to exceed that height limit. The South End Neighborhood Council voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Patel’s proposal and voiced its support for granting an exception to the height limitation. I personally am excited by the development which is now underway on the East Columbus Avenue corridor. One building on East Columbus Avenue is currently being reconfigured by Williams Kingston to accommodate office space. There are plans for another office/retail complex at the site of the former St. Joseph’s Church. The new Starbucks and the Pride gas station/convenience store are thriving. A hotel sufficient and appropriate to accommodate visitors to the Hall of Fame, Six Flags, and the Big E is a very positive sign that the local economy, despite the national and local real estate slump, is improving. I voted in favor of the special permit as did all of my colleagues.

Special permit for 192-196 White Street to relocate wireless telecommunications equipment.

192-196 White Street is an apartment building in the Forest Park neighborhood of Springfield. Sometime prior to my election to the city council, OmniPoint received permission to locate telecommunications equipment on the roof of that apartment building. Apparently, when it undertook to locate its equipment on the roof, however, it learned that the roof could not sustain the weight of the equipment. OmniPoint came before us on May 27, 2008 seeking permission to locate the same equipment on the ground next to the apartment building. I received calls from some neighbors who had questions about the special permit. They were under the impression that the special permit which we were considering was for new telecommunications equipment. Once they learned that such was not the case and their concerns were addressed by the applicant, they withdrew their opposition to the project. The Forest Park Civic Association endorsed the petitioner’s application. I voted for it. The architectural renderings that we were shown satisfied me that the installation would be unobtrusive.