Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
To those readers of LiL who do not watch the City Council meetings or who did not have an opportunity to watch the proceedings last night, please watch one of the 5 replays (the first one is at 3:00 p.m. today) on Lowell Comcast Cable Channel 10 or catch the streamline broadcast on LTC (it should be posted by tomorrow).
Last night’s discussion on the “towing contract” was a reflection of what is good about Lowell politics and what is not so good. Rather than give you my opinion on the various comments made by the City Councilors, the City Manager and City Solicitor, please spend an hour watching and listening to that portion of the broadcast. Consider it your civic duty. You will see a microcosm of City politics and get a good understanding of the players and their motivation.
Again, please watch it and get a friend to watch it too. It is not good enough to be aware of international, national and regional issues, we need to know what is going on in our back yard and how that impacts us. We cannot let this City be ruled by a few, we all have a stake in it.
For those of you who are relatively new to the City, the towing contract has always been a political football. Two years ago, the City Council by a unanimous vote forced some changes to level the playing field and to increase the revenue to the City. By the way, we have been sued with the issuance of the last four contract and furthermore, the Inspector General last year stated that there was collusion among those who were awarded the contract.
Now, some towing companies who for decades were awarded lucrative contracts did not get it. It is o.k. if we put money in their pockets but they cannot put money in ours. Does the new system have minor flaws; yes. Can it be improved, yes, of course. But it is better than what we had in place.
If you have time, you may want to surf the Lowell Sun’s web site for the past few weeks before the articles are archived and you have to pay about $3.00 to read each article. Search word: Tow. In my opinion through editorials, commentary and radio appearances, our local newspaper has waged a campaign against the City Manager’s character, judgment and integrity. I guess everyone wants to be the Alpha Dog.
But CM Lynch is a big boy and he can take the slings and arrows. By the way today, CM Lynch has an op-ed piece in the paper today as a response to some of the questions, or should I say accusations.
This City deserves to have individuals in position of responsibility elevate public policy discussions to a higher level and not drag every issue through the political mud. This is 2007 and we, through the majority of our elected officials, have decided to move forward.
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.448 seconds
January 10th, 2007 at 11:00 am
It is telling that the complaints are coming from the usual suspects. I read that one Councilor (not one of the usual three) agreed with the three in wanting the CM to explain his reasoning to the Council (probably a good thing) and then, after having been briefed, saw no reason to act against any of the CM’s actions. I must confess I like the idea of transparency followed by consideration rather than wind-checking and back-watching as a way of looking at issues.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I was pretty surprised to hear one councilor publicly advocate awarding of competitive contracts based on factors well outside the parameters of the request for bid.
I was also surprised by another councilor’s opinion that 8 contracts at $11 per tow would generate the same revenue as 4 contracts at $22 per tow! Good arithmetic, wrong equation.
On another subject, I think I heard (from Mr. Sullivan) that the garage bonds have been split in two, one which is non-taxable (at a 4% interest rate) and the other taxable (at a 5.5% interest rate), and the latter is an interest only loan until the year 2020. This project, which has already been started with a $4.5M funding shortfall, looks like it will end up costing the city about $46M, not counting any of the operation and maintenance costs. There will have to be full use at non-discounted prices if it is ever to pay for itself.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Wait… The issues raised by former CM Sullivan are disturbing. I do not remember hearing from the DPD the figures Mr. Sullivan has brought out publicly. Did the City Council know that the garage will cost $46M before they voted on the garage bonds?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Normally interest only deals are things I’m skeptical of. However, with the price of steel likely to keep rising at unprecidented rates, this may indeed be one of the cases where the delay of payment of principal might actually still be worth it. Would still want someone to run the numbers though. It is true though that the increase in the price of steel over time makes some projects very expensive to wait for.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I do believe CC Donoghue or CC Elliott had thrown out the 46 mill. figure back when it was approved.
And yes, my husband & I were particularly interested to hear that tow contracts should be awarded because of philanthropic contributions.
While contributions to worthy causes is admirable and most appreciated, contracts with the City of Lowell should not be determined using thte charitable contribution factor.
The tow contracts are a process in evolution. It is an imperfect process. I do agree that the process of qualifying bidders before they bid is a viable option and may eliminate much of the confusion.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
We finally get a city manager that isn’t beholden and/or related to half the population of the city… decisions will be made and contracts awarded in a professional manner to the appropriate party.
NOW, the councilors (not to mention the SUN staff whose family members are well provider for by the city payroll)question the process???
I hope everyone remembers… you get what you vote for!
January 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
After reading Campanini’s editorial in yesterday’s paper I wondered, who is his horse in this race? Mr. Campanini if you are reading this, lose the Howie Carr-like insults and just deal with facts. How much value did suggesting a Tow Contractors Smash-off, even presented tongue in cheek, add to your argument…to me it removed most of your credibility! As did your slap in the face to the five councilors who live in Belvidere…I could almost hear you spitting when you wrote the word Belvidere!
Why would the city conduct a CORI search on tow drivers before awarding contracts? Obviously you do it after the companies have been selected and if there is a problem deal with it.
Why call it a process when it is nothing more than a auction for high bidders….duh….what did you think it was?
But the most disturbing item in your editiorial Mr Campanini was the disclosure that Gulbicki’s had destroyed a car to be used as evidence in a criminal investigation. WHY DIDN’T YOUR CRACK NEWSPAPER HAVE THIS STORY BEFORE NOW? I don’t recall reading about that before now and I know if the Sun had broken that story there would have been all kinds of TV crews on First Street!
My suggestion to you Mr. Capanini, focus on getting your newspaper in order, hire reporters how know how to dig for stories so that when critical evidence in a homicide investigation is destroyed we don’t read about it because of a made up controversy over towing contracts!
If you have a horse in the race for the tow contracts, disclose it!
January 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Just a follow up. My spouse said he did remember reading about the Gulbicki’s incident so I did a search of the Sun site.
I found it, It was in Sunday’s paper;
IN THE 22ND PARAGRAPH OF A STORY ABOUT THE TOW CONTRACTS!
No seperate article, no investigation, no headline. Buried in an article about the Tow Contracts!
Nice job Campanini!
http://www.lowellsun.com/fastsearchresults/ci_4967133
January 10th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Good find, Eleanor!
January 10th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I believe th $46M for the garage includes interest over 20 years. I think the original building cost was $19M (when initially bid) and with current increases the cost is $24M I haven’t had time to search, but it should be in the CC meeting minutes from May and/or June 2006.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Yes, the $46M includes the interest. But the way the bonds are structured increase the interest costs.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
No video posted yet.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I’ve been looking for the latest mtg on LTC as well! Glad to find it’s not me!
January 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
You know… civic duty and all.