The city of Springfield took a hit when it lost substantial grant funding from the EPA. The federal funding covered about half the city and would target environmental efforts contributing to better health outcomes for residents.
At the end of May, oral augments were heard in a Washington, D.C. federal district court.
Stephen Buoniconti, Springfield’s city solicitor, attended the hearing virtually.
"The plaintiff side, including the city, argued that a termination letter alone does not make something unobligated because we have an appellate process of which we're going through now, so that the monies should still be, in theory, in play and be able to be redistributed to those plaintiffs if we win the lawsuit,” Buoniconti said.
Buoniconti said they’re awaiting a decision. The EPA said in a statement they "do not comment on pending litigation."
Tina Quagliato-Sullivan is the deputy development officer that oversees housing, community development and neighborhood services for Springfield.
“For years, the prevailing thought had been if you have an executed contract, the funds are obligated and you're good to move forward. And that has changed,” Quagliato-Sullivan said.
Springfield officials and other community organizations in the city started the application process for this grant back in April 2024, Quagliato-Sullivan said, using multiple resources to meet the terms of the contract they reached with the EPA.
Grants secured
It was big news to have received confirmation that they got the grant.
“When you think about all of the public time that was dedicated to doing this and the resources to securing and negotiating in good faith and beginning to carry it out…for it to be terminated because the EPA had a shift of priorities. I think it begs the question, was that actually a particularly good use of public time?” — Tina Quagliato-Sullivan, City of Springfield
But then, Quagliato-Sullivan said city officials and EPA staffers entered a back and forth where they weren’t exactly sure when the money would be dispersed. What followed was a termination letter.
“When you think about all of the public time that was dedicated to doing this and the resources to securing and negotiating in good faith and beginning to carry it out…for it to be terminated because the EPA had a shift of priorities. I think it begs the question, was that actually a particularly good use of public time?” Quagliato-Sullivan said.
That shift in priorities came from the Trump administration signing an executive order — in January of last year — directing federal agencies to withhold funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, the source of the city’s EPA grant.
She said some of the projects the money would’ve funded were HVAC workforce development training at Springfield Technical Community College, community solar, expanding bike shares, and making cooling and heating centers geothermal, which is a renewable energy resource used to heat and cool through underground heat pumps.
Non-profits pull together
Some of these projects would’ve been carried out by the Public Health Institute of Western Massachusetts, a non-profit based in Springfield that focuses on community health, research and policy advocacy. Sarita Hudson is the senior director of strategy and development at the Institute.
“It's tight at the federal level now with the federal money being pulled back. So it's really some of these larger changes that need to happen…those have been pushed down the road,” Hudson said.
She said they’re trying to pull money together to work on some of these projects, but can’t complete the full scope of what this grant could have accomplished for the city.
“It's not going to be the same as having two community resilience hubs with geothermal that could really, if there's a power outage, be there for community people or for a cooling center or for the crazy cold weather that we also have. So we're working in different ways trying to pull together as much funding as we can,” Hudson said.
Hudson recalls already starting on projects — one of which included installing more air quality monitors to combat the growing asthma rates in the city — when they got the initial green light.
She said getting word that the funding was pulled was a tough moment.
“It's not just Springfield. It's the other groups across the state. One of our partners in the healthy air network is the Hitchcock Center for the environment. And they had an EPA grant to work with us with the healthy air network. And that one was cut short as well through the EPA cut. And then other statewide funding that was cut. It's just wrong,” Hudson said.
Tina Quagliato-Sullivan from the city says officials are identifying projects that could be funded elsewhere. She said they did get a nearly $6 million federal grant to fund a lead remediation program for rental units in Springfield.
Both Quagliato-Sullivan and Hudson, from the Public Health Institute, said they’re moving forward the best way they can.
Hudson said she feels hopeful they can continue the partnerships they formed with other local non-profits like the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission on similar projects down the line.
“We know how to continue to work together. We work with the funding we have and we work creatively to find partnerships and we hope this will circle back in a more positive way in future,” Hudson said.
And staying hopeful may be the most resilient strategy during this time.