Left In Lowell

Well, the deadline for candidates to give me their answers is past, and I’ve got a significant number of responses to the questionnaires I sent out with your questions. I will be publishing them all tomorrow, probably in PDF format with an alphabetical list of links to them. I will also make a permanent link to them on the sidebar so you’ll know where to find them.

I had a chance to get Tuesday City Council blogging in this week, so no trying to catch a rerun on LTC on Wednesday and Thursday and not finding it.

There were some interesting things happening tonight, not the least of which was the appearance and impassioned (and long) speeches of former City Council and Mayor Armand LeMay on the subjects of the Stoklosa School, and on zoning codes which led, or weren’t supposed to lead but did, or something, to the cramped two-house development that has everyone up in arms in Pawtucketville. There was also the obligatory argument and accusations between Cox and Howe, of course.

Things were a little out of kilter (what, is it a full moon tonight?) as the Council forgot to accept the meeting minutes right off the bat and had to go back, and there were interruptions and suspended rules all over the place. OK, I exaggerate, but it was definitely an off night for our Mayor, that’s for sure. Oh, and Jim Milinazzo was absent due to some business matter.

Without further ado…

REPORTS (Sub/Committee if any)

Joint Subcomm on Public Safety/Finance
Elliot: We met on the Law Enforcement Trust fund issue [Lynne’s note: this is the fund being audited by the feds]. Report states there wasn’t accurate tracking of the Federal Marshal Office [I think that’s what I heard] to the police dept, and Lowell’s treasury. Originally there was a $35,000 discrepancy, this gap has been narrowed down to about $5,200. $46,744.00 listed as unsupported expenditures for overtime for police, there is some confusion as to what the “remedy” means in the report, or “unsupported expenditure.” Trying to get answers from Dept of Justice. The report also states that there were not adequate controls on fund’s transactions. Want people to know this is a special fund, not part of regular budget.
Donoghue: There was much discussion on this issue. It was telling that it was the city who had to go to the DoJ and find out what this trust money can be used for. Overall, I feel this is a good report for the city, there are always minor discrepancies for large amounts of money tracked over such a period of time.
Donoghue: Earlier back in Sept we said we’d have public safety subcomm. Meeting on the gang summit – we’ll meet next Tues at 5:30 and will take up gang summit report.
Caulfield: Excellent meeting, thanks to Donoghue and Elliot for chairing. As everyone knows the purpose of this law enforcement trust fund is for anti-drug programs. Can be used for drug investigations, I’d rather use $141,000 seized from drug dealers than $141,000 taxpayer money; this is a good thing for the city.
R. Mercier: In our packets is a request from teacher for ice removal under [article?] 268a, this is in our packet, not on agenda, referring this to law dept so it can be on agenda next week.
[A. Mercier calls for rules suspension to deal with this] RULES SUSPENDED
Referred to law dept unanimously

PETITIONS

Conduit Loc.-Mass. Electric Co. conduits in Church St.
Motion: send to public hearing
passed unanimously

Claims-1 Property Damage.
Motion: Referred to law dept
passed unanimously

Howe: One question: I had heard that the position of Chairmen of the Planning Board expired in Sept of this year. Is this position going to come forward [for nomination] before the next election?
Cox: really haven’t looked at it. I think there are a lot of people on holdover status.
Howe: For the people who have been adversely affected by development allowed by the planning or appeals board…
Cox: I would say very few of his decisions have been turned over by the courts
Howe: It’s failing to allow people due process, need to allow people to come before an impartial tribunal, seems to me with all the complaints I’ve received.
[More arguments here]

MOTIONS

C. Caulfield-Req. vote to name field in Bowers Complex for Robert Vigeant.
Caulfield: Every youth org in our city has a person who works in the background. I was involved with the Little League many years ago. Vigeant was the person who picked up all the bases after the game, etc etc etc, served 30 years with Highland Little League. Mr. Vigeant has come on hard times. I had calls from people to have this small field in the small complex to be named for him. To have his name on that backstop would mean a lot to the man and his family. Motion would have to go to board of parks.

Unanimously approved

C. Donoghue-Req. report on Animal Control hours & procedures for owner notification.
Donoghue: What’s behind this motion: there was a family whose dog left the family property, went onto a neighbor’s property, then died on their porch step. The homeowner called the city because they didn’t know who the dog belonged to, it was after 5pm so they couldn’t get the dog officer. Owner was never notified even though the dog had tags. But the neighbor saw missing-dog posters, and notified owner, by time the dog was tracked down, the dog had been cremated. Things happen but there was no reasonable explanation. Just want a report so that we know how these things work.
Unanimously approved

C. Donoghue-Req. report from Election Commission re: Polling Places, Training & Procedures.
Donoghue: Ask that the commission report to the council: each year if we can make sure that the polling places are well-publicized so people always know where to go. The next part is about the poll workers, are they trained? Years ago someone accidentally cleared the counter on a voting machine in one polling place, it was reset; we had issues with the vote in that precinct, want to make sure everyone is trained. And then finally, if there is an anomaly at any time want to be sure people know what the procedure is. Make certain that every vote counts; make sure we’re following the law.
Cox: Met with commissioner, filled me in what happened last time with provisional ballots. I know that this group is meeting sometime this group and the elections commissions and I know there is training.
R. Mercier: On that motion, it is important to alert people to voting, need to put out the sandwich signs again.
Caulfield: Usually we bring this up after elections; good we’re bringing this up now. Exceptionally discouraging when someone goes to vote and they are rejected and told to go elsewhere.
Broderick: Can we put this on the website, by street maybe?
Cox: Will be on website, on LTC, newspaper.
Unanimously approved

C. Howe-Req. Economic Development S/C meet w/Mass Mills Reps re: completion of Rehab to Picker Bldg & Boiler House etc.
Howe: The Mass Mills bldg is probably the first project we had in the downtown and most successful. First mills, 1 & 2, rehabbed, built into mostly market-rate housing, very successful.
[talks about project with buildings 3 & 4, I missed some because of an interruption]
Would like to see subcomm sit down and listen to his situation, to allow Mass Mills to expand and develop 2 new blgs. The plan for the trolleys, if we can get the state and fed government to come up with plan this is major component of development.
Cox: You implied lack of support for Mr. Mullins, it was myself who met with Mr. Mullins several times, etc, it was we who requested the state fire marshal came to evaluate. To suggest this administration was not supportive, its not something Mr. Mullins would say if he were here. If you would refute that, bring in Mr. Mullins.
Howe: I don’t need Mr. Mullins to tell me about this administration, I have reached the conclusion that is based on my observations.
Cox: [refers to Howe being legal representation for Mullins and not doing his job?]
Caulfield: Everyone on this council wants to see that project go forward. I’m kind of sick about the whole thing. This would be good for city, disappointed it hasn’t gone through. There’s not a week that the manager doesn’t get a call from this council on this.
Project being held up by historic board
Howe: not my understanding that that’s where the problem has been, want to make this clear to the public.
Unanimously approved

C. Howe-Prior to sustained completion of Stoklosa, Mayor convene meeting w/Council & School Committee to discuss condition of school.
Public speaker, Curtis LeMay Sr.: I was awestruck how anyone could have thought this building could have been done in Aug, Sept, etc. Went to see superintend., I said look, I’ve been through that school, you can’t open that school. Very disappointed, so much $ spent by school dept to do work contractor should have done.
No one listens. Dust everywhere, AC wasn’t tested. Support this motion. What needs to be done: I don’t know any building project that has been finished on time in this city; make the contractor do his job. Its clearly defined what the contractor is supposed to do. To just move in because it’ll make it easier – don’t do it. It’s wrong, we’re spending money you can’t imagine.

[On previous school build] I went through the whole list, kitchen: almost finished, but there was copper showing everywhere, I bet that wasn’t in the specifications; bet it’s still not fixed even now, years later.

Contractor says “I’m giving substantial completion” but they don’t finish all these things. You have to make the contractor do the job. So you don’t have to go back and do these things yourself, the city of Lowell, that cost doesn’t show up.

Howe: I’ll make you feel good, since April we’ve paid them [the contractor] $600,000
I feel that it’s certainly fair and reasonable to have the school comm. collaborate with the council on this issue.
Elliot: What are we still holding in abeyance?
[answer: $700,000]
Is that the balance of what remains?
[answer: haven’t seen any other bills since we last paid, about a month ago]
Caulfield: would not move into the school until the school is completed to our liking.
Martin: Don’t object to motion, but am concerned about timing; we waited all this time, I hear we’re very close to move-in date, don’t want to date to be postponed, would like to set meeting for very soon.
[discussion on making this subcomm instead of whole council/committee meeting, but inviting everyone on both governmental bodies to meeting]
Cox: Last Tues and Mr. Guthry toured building, appears work needing to be done was mostly exterior, I heard a date of next Monday (I thought I heard) for move in. Once exterior is done, looks like final touches are being done on the outside. A lot of the teachers are moved in, the caf is done, gym, library, school desks are in. I think it’s next Monday or the Monday after that.
LeMay: If this is going to happen fine, but has the contractor issued a substantial completion list of things not done.
Cox: the building commissioner will represent the city thanks.
Motion approved unanimously

C. Elliott-Req. Police Chief address traffic jams @ Bridge St. & VFW.
Elliot: I know this motion has been before, but every day there’s traffic jams, don’t know if we need to look at traffic lights. Short of writing tickets, cars can’t come through on Pawtuckette.
Cox: Used to live up there, if we could fix it we could. It’s a very impossible intersection.
Approved unanimously

C. Elliott-Req. Law Dept. clarify opinion re: Housing Development 5-7 Wright St.
Registered to speak: LeMay: I’d like to hear your [Elliot’s] comments before speaking.
[It’s mentioned that this is not procedure]
Elliot: This is a follow-up from a motion filed a week ago. [Shows picture]. [RE code, detached second housing] This permit is not allowed by law for two-family requirements, I’d like to have law dept look at requirements, whether side yard requirements were met, there’s’ also a 20ft clearance between two buildings that’s required. And how two parking spaces per unit will be available. [picture shown] These are the issues I hope get looked at. Also 3 ft requirement for parking space next to home, no way 1 parking space will fit never mind 4. Would like some answers, people in Pawtuckettville or anywhere else in Lowell should not have to put up with this sort of development. This definitely flies in the face of what we were trying to prevent [with recent code changes]. This neighborhood is so congested; this development plan should have been looked at much more carefully before being approved.

[missed some stuff, phone call]

[Solicitor: under new zoning law this wouldn’t happen again]
Caulfield: I have friends who live in that neighborhood, while I was gong about putting up signs, had coffee with neighbors, who were practically in tears. What this has done is ruin the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Can’t imagine anyone buying these homes, it makes no aesthetic sense; I sympathize with the people who live there. And I understand there’s another lot in the Acre being developed in a similar manner.
Donoghue: Looking at Elliot’s motion, I would like clarification by Atty Fenton, maybe he’s correct, but you have a two family zone, now you have unconnected structures, even under the old code it seems to violate spirit. Can’t figure out how two family can mean two separate houses. I think we’re stretching to come up with this meaning separate buildings.
[Solicitor: isn’t the case that when these things come across, they are trying to stretch the law to fit the development.]
Mr. LeMay: There are a lot of things not good in the city. There aren’t enough bad things to say about the project C. Elliot is talking about. Isn’t true that zoning code wasn’t’ changed in last 20-30 years, in mid80s we did.

I remember the people I had to buck to amend zoning code. People don’t feel they will get a change if they call their city government. There were people who were connected and kept on building, everything that they’ve done that is not legal, tear it down! Then you would never have a problem in this city. Traditional, 2 families, thousand acres of Traditional zoning, I’m convinced we’re at the beginning [of this problem] here, if nothing is done about this. Mr. Manager, I know you’re a manager but you’re not a councilor. But here’s what happened, when you advertise for the zoning changes, it was a small advert, no one spoke regarding the zoning changes.

We’re taking things from Cambridge zoning, and I see this new thing about shared parking, sounds good and useful. But don’t change the whole code. Cambridge is one of the most densely populated cities in the country, so are we going to bring these code changes into Lowell and lose the character of the neighborhoods.

[”Joe”?, City Something-or-other, I think]: As Mr. Elliot mentioned: Zone reads: one more than one residential structure on one lot, no more than 2 dwelling units may be constructed on one lot in TTF (traditional zoning).
Approved unanimously

Elliot: [asks suspension of the rules] A young lady wants to bring issue forward.
This is in regards to 10th St, which is a one-way off Bridge.
[Didn’t catch her name]:Thank you for letting me speak: I live on 10th street, the intersection I’m talking about is on 10th street headed towards Bridge. I was hired back in May by a client at that intersection to do some landscaping, during that day, many cars came up the wrong way. Client says this is regular occurrence. Happens in morning, afternoon, there are kids crossing for school, after school riding bikes. My family and I were driving on that road and someone zoomed by the wrong way. I noted there is signage on a pole. People seem to be doing it just for the sake of doing it. Maybe as Elliot says there needs to be a “wrong way” sign on that street. There is no stop sign there for someone flying up the wrong way.

Motion to send to traffic engineer, passed

Caulfield: Auditor: what is the free cash figure this week?
Auditor: went from $3.8M to $4M
Elliot: [Referring to auditor’s numbers] He gave me some of the answer, are all of those funds available funds, people will worry that there’s a budget shortfall.
Cox: That does not necessarily mean there’s not enough for year’s budget. Rigth now, the legislature has a bill for 70M for snow removal, currently we have a budget deficit in that account; that would go a long way towards helping.
Elliot: people want to know before election
Cox: To be honest I don’t think we’ll know by then.
Elliot: know what our budget is, people want to know what their tax bill will be.
Martin: when will we be in a position to know it? We talked about the Schedule A that goes to the state, when will that go on [answer: will be sent out by Friday]
R. Mercier: These were my questions as well, but another issue I want to say as well. This week is Hunger Homeless week, there’s a supper 4:30 – 7 at East End club [?], and a Walk for Hunger from 1-3pm on Pawtuckette Blvd, Sunday afternoon.