Springfield subcommittee recommends formal pilot policy, says expanded agreements could yield up to $20 million

Councilor Victor Davila, chair of Springfield City’s pilot and new revenue subcommittee, and committee member Karen Lee presented the subcommittee’s final report during the Oct. 27 hearings meeting, recommending a formal pilot policy, technical assistance and a standing committee to pursue voluntary pilot payment agreements with tax‑exempt institutions.

The report says Springfield has about 14 pilot agreements that currently generate roughly $300,000 a year and that tax‑exempt parcels in the city have an assessed value the committee cited as about $4,800,000,000, representing approximately 26.42% of total land. “We believe we will be able to raise up to $20,000,000 in funding for the city if we can follow through in asking for pilot agreements,” Councilor Davila said during the presentation. The committee recommended hiring outside technical assistance — identified in the report as the Collins Center for Public Management and the Long Institute — at an estimated combined contract cost the subcommittee described as $40,000 to guide policy and analyses.

Why it matters: The subcommittee framed the recommendation as a response to rising budget pressures — including pension obligations, school transportation costs and increasing health‑care and energy expenses — and argued that larger nonprofits and hospitals that use city services can be approached for voluntary payments to offset tax burdens on homeowners and small businesses.

Key findings and recommendations from the report included: - Historical context: the committee reviewed prior work including a 2007 study by the Worcester Regional Research Bureau and noted limited use of pilot agreements since the 1990s; the trash fee adopted earlier generated about $3.7 million in its first year. Karen Lee summarized that Springfield currently has 14 executed pilot agreements dating back to 1994, with the most recent executed in 2018. - Revenue potential: the committee estimated a theoretical upper bound of roughly $20 million if the city successfully negotiates expanded pilot arrangements with larger tax‑exempt institutions. - Policy and administration: the committee recommended the city develop a written policy and procedures for pilot negotiations, arguing that prior practice relied heavily on informal arrangements and “handshakes,” which the subcommittee said has produced some overpayments and underpayments. - Technical assistance: the report recommended contracting the Collins Center for Public Management and the Long Institute (named in the presentation) to perform research and quantify a “fair share deficit” — described as the gap between tax exemptions and community‑benefit spending for nonprofit hospitals — and to support negotiations. - Governance and use of proceeds: the subcommittee recommended creating a permanent standing pilot and new revenue committee, establishing a pilot stabilization fund, and targeting portions of pilot revenue for uses such as a levy offset, the housing trust, a CPA surcharge, an ambulance trust, preservation funds, and an undesignated reserve.

Council discussion and next steps Councilor Kesha Whitfield asked how voluntary pilot payments could be enforced; Davila and Karen Lee replied that while pilot agreements are voluntary, once an agreement is signed it is enforceable and the city solicitor had been consulted about enforcement mechanisms. Whitfield also urged including hospital and nonprofit representatives in further discussions; Davila said it was his intent to bring nonprofits to the table and reiterated the need for an agreed policy and procedure before broader negotiations.

Council response and vote Councilor Edwards moved to accept the subcommittee report; Councilor Allen seconded. After brief remarks recognizing the time volunteers and committee members invested, the council voted to accept the report by roll call; the clerk recorded ayes from councilors present. Acceptance of the report was, by council practice, a reception of the document (the vote did not itself appropriate funds or direct a contract). Davila said the next steps would include deciding whether to pursue technical assistance internally or to contract the consultants the committee recommended.

What the report did not decide The council accepted the subcommittee’s report as a document for the record and did not, in the Oct. 27 meeting, appropriate funds or authorize contracts for the Collins Center or the Long Institute. The report’s recommended technical assistance, the formation of a standing committee and any target allocations from a stabilization fund would require separate council action in future meetings.

Speakers quoted or cited above appear in the meeting transcript; quotes are verbatim and attributed to the speaker’s name and role at first reference.