Left In Lowell

Tuesday’s City Council Blogging is being brought to you on Wednesday night. It would have been this morning but Wednesdays are turning out to be very busy days for me…

So man, last night was interesting to watch. I couldn’t make the meeting in person, which is fine, you can see the fireworks on TV just great plus I don’ t have to try and steal the laptop for out-of-house use.

The explosive issue was, as noted two posts below, the $50,000 the City Manager decided to ask for to pay for appraisals on four properties. This would start the process of taking eminent domain on the historic buildings which are headed for destruction under a new proposed University Ave-Merrimack St bridge connection project. I don’t know what the hell Cox was thinking; it was evident tonight that no actual vote to go ahead with one proposal or another ever took place in the city council. Cox claimed to be “under the impression” that everyone was on board, despite the fact I could see that those who were part of the subcommittee that discussed the issue knew what the hell Cox was talking about (though they seemed to indicate they never voted to recommend it officially), but the rest of the council had never seen or voted on the subcommittee’s non-existent recommendations as far as I could discern.

Maybe Cox only talked to Caulfield and Armand Mercier to get his “feeling” that the council wanted this to happen without further debate, because they were the only ones who were for voting to give the CM $50K. I note that Armand managed to take a voice vote instead of a roll call on the final motion to send this to subcommittee for further discussion, was that a tactic to prevent having to be only one of two to vote no?

[Update: I meant to ask this rhetorical question in my rant and forgot: In every council meeting almost, there’s a Public Hearing on items. Mostly it’s about putting telephone poles in. If we can hold frequent public hearings on telephone poles, then why can’t we hold at least one public hearing on a major proposed construction project that will affect a lot of residents for better or for worse? The fact remains, that Cox seems to think that he owns the city and can run it like a company. I got news for you.]

Almost as interesting to me, or would have been if the dynamite hadn’t gone off, was the “informational” motion by Councilor Donoghue to explore the possibility in the Community Preservation Act, which has been a hot topic in the progressive blogosphere previously (especially at sco’s place writing about CPA exploration in Watertown).

Anyway, click the linky for the rest of my notes and occasional commentary [in brackets].

LOWELL CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAT DECEMBER 6, 2005
TIME 6:30 PM

Previous to any business, rules were suspended for a conversation with Scanlan, administrator for the LRTA.

Scanlan: I know there were concerns with not having the bus hub downtown, a hub isn’t appropriate for downtown, but is important for routes to interrelate with downtown.
I have talked to manager, inquiries made.
We have Express route, 8-10 min, Kennedy Center to Merrimack
Another trolley, circulator route, throughout downtown, cultural venues.
We thought we did the best we could on those routes but open to working with council on this.
A. Mercier: Questions?
R. Mercier: Concerned about transfer passes, how much does it cost?
Scanlan: tried to keep same value throughout same system.
R. Mercier: transfer pass?
Scanlan: I believe it’s a quarter.
R. Mercier: Survey went out, quite a few biz expressing concern about people not being downtown because of the hub switch [what about the police treating the high school kids like vagabonds after school???]
Howe: Has LRTA lost any income as a result of changes?
Scanlan: Ridership stayed the same, only thing we lost, we offer a free ride when you’re at the Kennedy, because people have to transfer at the Kennedy. Bottom line is we haven’t lost any money, ridership stayed the same, maybe increased.
Howe: I had a conversation with owner of an acre store, he lost $3000 a week when the bus situation changed, was a significant amount to lose. If that store closed because of the bus change this will signal the demise of the downtown. Another biz down 20%. Letter to the editor in paper alluded to fact that once you hit the Kennedy center, you can wait up to an hour for a transfer, heard any of those complaints?
Scanlan: Could be an issue, question of reorienting people to new schedule, etc. Will be looking to address middle Merrimack St etc for those businesses. Express intended to be between Kennedy and downtown. Middle Merrimack perhaps has been left out, will work on that making sure it’s still an express route.
Howe: Since the inception of this, how many surveys and is that completed?
Cox: It’s in your packet, only 23% of biz responded. Only 35% reported decrease in sales. I know that Scanlan will continue to work with city, but as we all know, the complaints people had were people loitering on the street, we’ve tried to alleviate it, we have alleviated it. He’s got some very good ideas already as what might help those parts that feel left out.
Howe: Just want to say, I’m downtown every day of the week, and it’s been that way for 40 years, the # of times I’ve been approached for the loitering I can count on one hand, but the # of complaints about the current bus policy are numerous.
Elliot: About the survey: it seems inconclusive, I was hoping when we did the survey that we’d find people were exceptionally pleased, I understand the CM’s point there are growing pains, but people are accustomed to habits. People have to be able to access it, convenience. I’ve heard this complaints about waiting for a new bus, people don’t want to wait, there’s a noticeable difference downtown, drop in clientele or foot traffic.
Scanlan: Challenge in putting new routes together was enormous, have to make sure you get kids to high school in the morning and afternoon. To be specific, the key is the routes that go to downtown, north-south express route. Going to continue to make circular route better, as far as express routes, they were to get people from Kennedy to downtown as quick as possible. I think the manager and I can work with you and make the downtown work.
Martin: Do you track the people that use the express route from terminal to downtown? [asks about if there was a drop in ridership to the downtown, after accounting for all the people who used the downtown hub to go elsewhere]
Scanlan: haven’t seen any decrease in ridership
Martin: What total of people go on shuttle to go downtown
Scan: probably 25%.
Martin: That would be a significant decrease in foot traffic.
Caulfield: At dedication, speaker indicated new bus route was taking 100s of lbs of caustic pollution out of the air. New busses run on compressed natural gas, you have to look at the positive side as well.
Milinazzo: wondering if you would be able to attend meeting of group of downtown biz’s?
Scanlan: [agrees to do this]
Milinazzo: if you could look into bus at Bishop Martin, people complaining.
A. Mercier: if no other questions, thank you for coming.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Order-Vacate, discontinue, abandon portion Jefferson St.
Roll call: Accepted unanimous

Pole Loc. Hearing-Mass. Electric Co place pole & conduit @525 Pawtucket Blvd.
Mass Electric Rep: hearing is just for conduit?
A. Mercier: to place a pole and conduit.
Motion to refer to wire inspector:
Caulfield: [mentions problem with hookups for water tank, MassElec needs to get it done]
Motion Approved [voice vote]

CITY MANAGER
Communication-(3) Out of State Travel Approvals.
Roll call: approved unanimous

$12,604 Fire S&W Perm. from Manager Contingency.
Roll call: approved unanimous

$50,000 Manager Appraisals new proposed bridge from Manager Contingency.
A. Mercier: 3 people registered to speak, come to podium

Paul Johnson: I come as resident, member of CBA but this issue came about before.
I’ll give you a timeline: Dec 17 2003, there was a then-unknown-about Memorandum of Understanding (Parks and Rec, UML, city), then the Sun wrote about it and the community, residents of the Acre held meetings; Sept 2004 invited CM to meeting, Secretary told us he would be tied up rest of the year. Held meeting at Mission Church in Jan 2004 with Mass Highway, they answered quite a few questions. Oct 2004 learned of Memorandum; at our meeting in Jan, residents did not want the bridge to go through that area, community leaders met with CM, state legislators. Meeting this weekend, we heard about this $50,000 proposal, seems to me that the residents of the Acre have never been kept in the loop; still willing to work with the city to come up with good plan, so please call and arrange to meet with us?

And didn’t we just spend a whole lot of money to find out what the buildings were worth? I would like an answer as to why the money is necessary when we’ve already gone through it, we would like you to come to meeting that we will like to have about the bridge proposal, would like to ask we disallow this money; we did the big eval of the city.

Tyler Jones: I am the new president of the CBA, and I would like to work with the city and the manager. In Jan I went to a meeting; residents did not know about the bridge issue, we invited the city many times to come and listen, we need the city to listen to us. This 50K, the engineers said they already did an appraisal. The bridge issue is very touchy, we had a vote when the engineers and DPD left, 100 residents or more, unanimously voted for asking for alternate proposal, the city wanted only one proposal, to knock down the church. We want to see the other plans, could we come as a community to look at them and work together, instead of butting heads with each other. The point is, we don’t want this to fall on deaf ears; would like meeting with city council, state reps, we want to have meetings with city manager. In Oct if you look, there was a ribbon cutting ceremony, and the city manager attended there [despite the aforementioned “busy schedule”], because he was asked, we’re human beings too Mr. Manager.

I just want to make sure this 50K is spent right, the engineers said they already did this, look into what was done first, before you approve for the CM to spend it.

Ken Gordon: I am the pastor of Lowell Mission Church, one of the buildings that the money is being appropriated to appraise [for eminent domain]. I woke up [last year] to the Lowell Sun article that the plan was to destroy the church for the bridge. Since then I have been on an emotional roller coaster ride. I contacted city councilors, many of you said you knew little [Lynne’s note: !!!!!?????] about the plans for the bridge. I’m not totally against the new alignment of the bridge, as long as it’s God’s will. The building belongs to God…I am responsible for the building. I am willing to cooperate and have appraisal done. I have a question: Does the approved money tonight mean the councilors approve this proposed bridge? If so, I would like you to postpone this vote until you have had time to learn more about this project. Even if it means you approve the project [and want it to go forward], I would want you to still consider postponing.

This summer you voted to create historic districts, Mission Church is listed at level A, consider votes you have made, I am willing to work with you, understanding it’s your decision whether to decide on this project.

Cox: haven’t yet met new president of CBA, have they reached out to us, their meeting took place before I knew about it. [OMG OMG OMG is this a LIE!]

Thought the Reverend knew what the city’s position was on this. He was told we looked at many different options, explained why we picked this option. Someone talked about engineers earlier, I don’t know what they were talking about, unless it was about safety or something, this money is for the appraisals. [Lynne’s Note: From what I heard, the state engineers will do whatever the city decides - in other words, if the city decided on another plan, or to postpone this one, it’s not the end of the world.] When University Ave bridge was considered unsafe, we spent 90K to make it safe, clearly at that time that was a temp solution. I know that we met with at least one subcomm meeting, where people from the CBA were there, Mission Church, CBA has made their position clear they are against this proposal, but when we have something like this, we can’t make everyone happy. This money is to let DPD [did I get that acronym right?] appraise the properties. Once they get the alignment plan done, city responsible for taking it. Trying to get ahead of curve to get this money for appraisals. Clearly if appraisals are not done, this won’t go forward.
Milinazzo: I feel there was no information in the packet, and there were meetings, not prepared to vote for this. There have been meetings here with Mass Highway, I guess Option #5 has been approved, I haven’t seen it, I would like to see the other options. I think this vote does not need to happen tonight. I don’t think there’s been enough information.
Cox: Council members were made aware of all proposals, maybe it was before you came here. Obviously this is complicated, I was under impression council was for this alignment, I still think they are.
Caulfield: Univ Ave bridge is 103 years old, has life expectancy of 5-6 years. Some people have indicated demolish it and rebuild in same place, which would mean no bridge for 5 years. Everyone, reps, senators, all on board with new bridge realignment. To have this bridge put where the old one is, is ludicrous. It’s common sense. I have been on board with this for ages. The clock is ticking. We have to do our part. I’m going to support this.
Donoghue: How many properties does this appraisal entail?
Cox: 3, maybe—yes 4.
Donoghue: Doesn’t the work have to be done in a specific time period after appraisal to start imminent domain, city takes care of that? They want us to have that done before they go forward? Do we have any estimate as to when construction from state?
Cox: [no]
Donoghue: Is there money there from state?
Cox: they’ve promised it
Donoghue: It might be worthwhile for council to revisit the issue, just trying to get hands on where we are in the process.
A. Mercier: Revisiting might not mean not appropriating this meeting [I think that’s what she said].
Donoghue: But it might make sense to wait until we hear again from MassHighway.
Cox: be happy to, but have to get the appraisals done ASAP.
Elliot: No one will dispute we need another bridge, back when Uni bridge was closed there was discussion, I think Jim was here, were there options brought to us? I remember realignments but I don’t remember specific votes to proceed with this option. [Emphasis mine]
Cox: I remember where all proposals were explained and submitted and I remember the council supported this option.
Elliot: I think we might have given that impression but didn’t officially vote. And do we have funding promise in writing a letter from MassHighway?
Cox: I assume Steve Curry [?] does I have talked to him many times.
Elliot: I would like to see that, before we spend a nickel.
Cox: “it’s all been discussed”
Elliot: with all due respect you’re asking us to spend money on something that will affect these residents…
Cox: We’ve discussed this before
Elliot: there is full agreement that we need a new bridge, we have to move forward to building a new one, yes, but if subcomm heard the options, I don’t recall them bringing it forward to the council. This council did not vote on the option that’s being discussed.
Howe: Strongly urge to refer this to econ subcomm, I don’t know of any clock that’s ticking other than…what we ought to be doing is to commit the city and state to the minimum cost [spend the least amount we need to, he means], to do anything else would be a mistake. Look at the O’Donnell bridge, we made a career out of that [I think this is how he put it, he talked about how bad that project was]. This bridge would be longer and wider and much more expensive. It should be there for the purpose of transportation, but also for the purpose of spending the least amount of money. And to start talking about dumping all the traffic onto Merrimack St, Two lane to 4 lane bridge to 2 lane University Ave. – [if that’s a good idea].

Motion by Howe: transfer request be referred to Economic Dev Subcomm:
Martin: There is a subcomm on bridge construction formed when this issue arose, may be more appropriate –
Howe: [suggests joint subcomm]
Martin: My memory of events: haven’t disagreed about a lot of what was said, Caulfield and I attended meeting with members of UML, Parks, Mass Highway, there was as I felt a strong sense about this proposed alignment with Merrimack, but I don’t recall the council ever going on record saying this was the proposal, we’ve been hearing from these people [I think he means the CBA?] and I think we’ve been telling them all along that no decision was made, I don’t think we’ve made the decision to say “yes, we’ll do this.” It’s a longer bridge with curve, more expensive, state seems willing to do this, but this wasn’t always the case. In the end, I think I’ll conclude this will be best option, other alternatives mean taking bridge out of service [Lynne’s Note: I’d like to hear the state engineers on this, because it might or might not be true - they might be able to engineer around the current bridge and keep the old one open meanwhile]. Manager did get a sense we wanted this, but there was no vote.
R. Mercier: when I saw the question was before us tonight, I was not going to support it, didn’t have enough info, I didn’t vote whether or not, not saying this isn’t the best choice, but is there another alternative site. I wouldn’t want to pull down the bridge [while building the new one], for sure, but let’s take another look at it and work together for the goodness of the city
Broderick: Is there a time crunch?
Cox: I don’t think so [WOW, before he said THERE WAS, what a liar], we felt in dealing with Mass Highway we should get it done, don’t want Mass Highway waiting.

Motion to be referred to subcomm: Approved voice vote

Vote-Auth. Mgr. execute Parking Easement w/Cambodian Mutual Assistance Assoc. of Greater Lowell, Inc.
Elliot: Curious why we’re executing the lease when property hasn’t been built?
Cox: I believe it’s part of the agreement with CMAA
Another city person (assistant CM?): next stage is scheduled for within 2 weeks, to remove the 5 underground storage tanks, CMAA asked us to execute the easement as agreed by council, this is somewhat just paper pushing; this is under same terms of agreement as before. [discussion on terms, property taking, what they needed was the parking spaces, etc]
Donoghue: they are getting half the spaces they had on the land in exchange for giving us the land for cheap to build garage.
R. Mercier: People are under impression through radio we’re giving the store away here [on the garage space allotments], I don’t think the city is giving anything away; want to thank CMAA for negotiating with us for this.
Roll call: approved unanimous

Vote-auth. Mgr. accept Easement Riverfront Development LLC.
[missed some discussion, another phone call]
Roll call: approved unanimous

Revocation of Order-411 Bridge Street Lowell, MA
Roll call: approved unanimous

REPORTS (sub/Committee if any)
Martin: Joint subcomm with school on new school construction, discuss future new proposed schools that are in the school building program, planned some 10-15 years ago. Subcomm that full council take necessary steps to proceed to continue school building project. First, to allow the architect to go out and see what costs would be. We have some reports from school comm., to give to the council. The sooner the better, we are locked in with school building assistant program, construction costs continue to escalate, state’s 90% reimbursement becomes 85% if we wait too long.
Motion: approve taking necessary step: voice vote approved
Motion that report be Report of Progress: approved

Elliot: Stoklosa school: regarding two motions from Howe, sort of continuation about construction issues at school. Work is ongoing. Approx 250K left in punch list items, yet to be completed. Issues are # if items, request for payment, where we are financially, there was some concern how much money is left over, some outstanding payments that are still remaining on the school, there was some confusion as to what is left in the construction loan, and does that include the retainers that the city would hold back after the project.
Auditor: don’t have that, can get that for you
Elliot: my memory is that we don’t have much left in the account. Christine is saying no [indicating the solicitor presumably shaking her head]. We did pay the last bill rendered for services 210K, you were holding that payment in abeyance. There is confusion as to how much we’ve paid, the contract price of the school, what is left to be paid, and what is left in the account.
Auditor: About 800K set aside as retainer, my best thing is to come up with a report of actuals
Elliot: Can we get that report sooner than later? It’s been weeks since the exec session, we need to get our hands on this. There’s been no formal litigation, the solicitor said that we have filed a note of claim, we are putting the contractor on notice.
[Lynne’s Note: took a phone call, missed some, they were still talking about subcomm report, change orders, litigation, etc, very specific]
Howe: I was at the subcomm meeting also, what was that retainer: [answer from solicitor: $777K]
I suggested to this council that that money should be frozen. I think there should be some action taken to get this information we need to resolve the 290K as a result of the three classroom disaster.
Donoghue: One of the things we did request was the backup data, proof. [missed some stuff]
If the claim is not built on a strong foundation then we have to go back to the drawing board.
Elliot: followup: request made for info on all payments that were submitted, I did ask the auditor; an application has to be submitted to you, correct? We need to look at those payments and see what the line items were, etc.
[more discussion on specifics with applications for payment]
Elliot: My motion: don’t give out any more payments until we get all this aligned, if all this is correct we have 1.2M in outstanding
Solictor: no, not for more than ~700K
[they clear up confusion Elliot has about the 1.2M which is really 700K]
Broderick: Just want to ask, is this motion appropriate now, solicitor says they already aren’t paying any more money out until further notice? Will this jeopardize litigation?
Solicitor: no, pretty much what we’re doing anymore.
Seconded by Howe
Caulfield: would that affect the punch list that’s presently going on?
Solicitor: possible, that was final rational for releasing the previous 290K, hopefully money loosed previously will take care of punch list.
Caulfield: one thing has to get done: the flashing over the windows on School St, Mass Elec is coming in to kill power for that, if this motion makes that a problem…
Donoghue: I’m not against holding back $$, but we need to make sure things are completed, heat gets balanced, etc.
Elliot: I think this city has been more than reasonable in getting this building for city, they [Jackson] seem to push us to the point where we have to go the litigation, we just want to pay for it, get what we paid for, I would hope the emergency things would be done.
Motion approved.

PETITIONS
Claims-(1) Property Damage.
Refer to Law Dept
Voice vote approved

Misc.-Arelis Encancion-Req. a handicap parking sign.
Refer to traffic engineer
Voice vote approved

MOTIONS
C. Milinazzo-Req. Mgr. look into placing Evergreen Screening along Lowell Connector.
Milinazzo: Last Thurs was bimonthly Lowell Plan meeting, we were asked to bring in long and short term goals, this was brought up. The idea of doing additional work in inbound lane on Tanner St side.
Caulfield: Let’s see if we can get the state to do it, it’s their highway, if they don’t want to do it we can look at it.
Martin: There may be source of funding in Tanner St development grant.
Motion approved: voice vote

C. Donoghue-Req. report on Community Preservation Act and potential for Lowell.
Donoghue: This is info that rose out of the Mayor’s cultural task force, the intent of this motion is to get some info for the council and begin edification process, the CPA (Community Preservation Act) under Mass General Law allows cities and towns to raise funds through a surcharge, if city or town elects to do this, where the state matches money. The max surcharge is up to 3%, about 100 cities and towns in MA have enacted CPA, many towns around us, Chelmsford, Tyngsboro, Dracut. The intent of talking about this isn’t about buying into it wholesale. There are three things it can be used for: Open Space (and recreational space), Historic buildings (preserving them), and Affordable Housing. These are three purposes under this act to use this money for. The reason that it came up is because we’re looking for new revenue streams for cultural development. CPA has to be approved by council and by voters.

At first blush, it’s an added tax; numbers that were run if Lowell did the full 3%, is it would add an additional $38 per year for average 4-person family. You get double the money, though, than just our tax dollars, from the state. If you could get that information…
Cox: hopefully have a report for you next week
Motion approved voice vote

C. Elliott-Req. vote to have DPW remove Spaghettiville Signs.
Elliot: I know that I have filed this and Caulfield too, when Prince [the company] left Lowell. During campaign this question came up. The bridge these signs hang on are owned by Gillford Industries; is there some provision, do we have a sign ordinance still, to have DPW take them down? Just following up on motions already filed.
Caulfield: I can remember bringing this motion 4 years ago, I have a problem with way motion is worded though. Gillford Industries owns the bridge, we called them repeatedly to remove it, no response.
Martin: I do remember some people in the neighborhood spoke in opposition to removing these signs, that they felt they were historic, but I grew up there, don’t remember it being a point of pride, don’t see why we can remove them.
Motion passed voice voice

C. Elliott-Req. City Auditor work w/Treas. Office to address backlog of reconciliation of certain funds and City Manager address staff shortage.
Elliot: Several weeks ago, firefighters union met with treasurer, checks were missing, checks taken from out of their salary which were supposed to be sent to a 457 (like 401K), problem dates back 25 months by the way. Treasurer doesn’t have the bodies to deal with outstanding checks, revenue accounts. I don’t know how to do this but we do want to provide the service to these employees, amount was over 14K, checks didn’t make it to this institution, institution didn’t call city looking for money, but we need to figure out how to prevent this in the future, this will clearly come up in the audit next year.
Auditor: [explains details on current and future system for administering these checks] For us to get this system to Nationwide (the company) it would cost $1500, is something we have to get going, they said they won’t have it done until February, then we will have EFT for this account as we have for other accounts.
Elliot: I know that money is short, but we have to make sure our books are being balanced. I called asking about this, and treasurer said he needs some help to make sure all this gets done.

C. Elliott-Req. City Mgr. provide report on policy relating to use of City Vehicles.
Elliot: We’ve been waiting for this for weeks, can we get this soon,
Cox: I thought this policy had been done, sorry, we were talking about it today, you will have it soon.
Solicitor: It is nearly done, just has section to be finished. There are 22 items on list, including a section where city manager retains right with respect to giving out city vehicles.
Elliot: Is there criteria that you sign off on to say this or that employee can take a vehicle home?
Cox: I don’t remember signing anything saying this that or the other.

[Adjourned]

A. Mercier: Holiday: Next meeting on 13th would last meeting of the year. Christmas party here, sponsored by mayor council and school comm.
We will have plaque unveiled for the City Clerk
(they vote to cancel city council meeting on the 27th)
[Gee must be nice - most of the people I know are working right up to Friday before and are back to work on Monday. Tsk tsk tsk.]