At one of the last Springfield City Council meetings of the year, officials debated the city’s residency requirement while shooting down a pay raise proposal involving elected leaders.
Among the agenda items were a series of multi-million-dollar grants ranging from $1.3 million from the Department of Justice to support the city's homeless outreach efforts to a nearly $20 million climate justice grant from the EPA.
The items were approved without issue, as was a new, reimbursable grant to fund major work at one of the city’s urban parks.
“It would be a complete renovation of the park to increase accessibility, inclusivity and climate resiliency, focused on the recreational amenities such as the playground, the splashpad, basketball [court], a softball diamond … picnic pavilion, tree plantings, landscaping and more,” explained Laura Walsh, a Department of Parks project manager.
Walsh said with the city matching the grant, putting forward $2 million with half to be reimbursed by it, the funds would support construction at the McKnight Neighborhood’s largest park, which is expected to begin in spring 2025.
Councilors enthusiastically approved the grant, including Ward 1 Councilor Maria Perez.
“Magazine is nearest to my heart - I call it the “Park of the City,” because everyone and anyone that's in the city: that was the part back [in] those days,” she said. “I just remember my kids, and now they’re adults, they still visit.”
Also on the agenda – a proposal to significantly alter how pay raises are decided for elected officials, including city councilors and the mayor.
The item, an amendment to chapter 61 of the city’s Code of Ordinances, would have effectively passed the task of adopting pay raises for the council, the mayor and school committee on to the city’s retirement board, which would oversee limited cost of living adjustments.
Ward 6 Councilor Victor Davila introduced the item.
“What this is seeking to do is to put an end to the discussion, by putting [in] a cost of living adjustment, or COLA, which is going to be attached, Mr. President, to the… Springfield Retirement Board,” Davila said, addressing Ward 3 Councilor and Council Vice President Melvin Edwards, standing in for Council President Mike Fenton. “… it’s capped at 2 percent - and that's going to be the same for the mayor, the city council and the school committee.”
The proposal could potentially mean fewer prolonged periods between raises, previously leading to large sums needing approval after years at a time, like a $40,000 raise for Mayor Domenic Sarno in 2022, bringing his salary to $175,000, effective January of this year.
Also approved at the time and effective this January – councilor annual pay increasing from $8,500 to $28,000.
Most of the councilors present approved of the matter, voting 6-5 in favor - but with two councilors absent, the effort fell short of the majority needed.
The agenda also featured a second ordinance looking to change city code – an amendment to chapter 73, altering the city’s residency requirement.
With some exceptions, a number of Springfield employees are required to live in the city and have a limited amount of time to move in. Across different committee meetings, Davila said officials believe it’s having a negative effect in attracting and keeping talent.
“… the department heads are having a little trouble, a lot of pressure, retaining people or their new employees, finding housing … in the city in a one-year term.,” Davila said, describing a previous Committee of the Whole meeting. “Given the new state of the housing market in Springfield, it is, in my opinion, wise to expand this to two years, which is what the ordinance amendment is looking for.”
However, time was also a factor during Monday’s deliberations. Councilor at Large Jose Delgado indicated the amendment could do with some adjusting at least, if not more information and discussion being needed. He also called attention to how the item arrived before the body.
“I appreciate your work, Councilor Davila, on trying to push us along, but I'm also not swayed easily when this is presented to us in December, right before the Christmas vacation break, and then you're trying to urge people because of that,” Delgado said. “Now, you're putting it on our back when it's something that should have been handled before. This should have come to us months ago, we talked about this in the summer, and we heard nothing.”
Delgado also referenced a Committee of the Whole meeting, stating how when he asked what positions the city was struggling with, the response amounted to a blanket claim that “nobody wants to work for the city,” which he disagreed with.
Davila, taking exception to the item’s timing being called into question, claimed it was a matter of scheduling.
Regardless, the discussion ran up against the wall of the meeting’s hard shutoff time of 10 p.m. Debate on the matter is likely to continue at the council's next meeting Monday.
