Aw, rats.
On paper, I thought this would be an entertaining meeting. As usual, I was mostly wrong. The agenda promised hot topics such as a report on the Community Preservation Committee’s 2025 funding recommendations, an update on the status of issues at the Lowell High Project, and a motion response on the establishment of a Downtown Business Improvement District (ie: Greek businessperson/anti-government MAGA nut finally embraces socialism).
Rather than a deep dive into these juicy topics, we got rat poison. Lots and lots of rat poison. There was a General Public Hearing relative to a proposed ordinance aimed at banning certain rodenticides on public property. As per the letter attached to the ordinance:
Certain rodenticide products, widely known as Second-Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides, or SGARs, are used to control rats and/or mice but have been clearly demonstrated to be harmful to nontarget predator species. The City of Lowell is committed to reducing unnecessary wildlife poisonings and potential harm to pets and children.
More than a half dozen citizens spoke in favor of the ordinance. The info shared on the “downstream” negative effects of these products was eye opening. I haven’t been this traumatized by our treatment of rodents (and by extension better animals) since I saw The Secret of Nimh as a kid.
[Have you seen this movie? What in the actual hell was going on in 1982 where this was an acceptable children’s film?]
The discussions on the CPA Funds and the Business Improvement District got kicked down the road as both of those matters were referred sub-committees. Thus, the only remaining “big ticket” item was the update on issues with the Lowell High project.
At the meeting of January 7, councilors and Athletic Director Scott Ouellette read a laundry-list of almost two dozen issues with the project. Jim Dowd, the city’s main point of contact for Skanska (the City’s “Project Manager”) took to the podium to receive a verbal ass-kicking. If you watch or re-watch that January 7 meeting, Mr. Dowd didn’t appear prepared to defend his oversight. As such, a cynical viewer could come away with the sense that there is some combination of shoddy workmanship and lax management over on Arcand Drive.
Last night, Mr. Dowd unveiled an update on what’s been taking place since. In sum, it’s all good news as the issues have been corrected or there is a plan in place to get them corrected:
This list naturally gives rise to the following question: if all of these issues could have been resolved in fewer than three weeks, why did the council have to prod the construction team to address them in the first place? Given the cost as well as the battle it took to get this project off the ground, the public was never going to allow for much of a margin for error. Allowing relatively minor issues to fester until they exploded is an unforced error that taints a project that is otherwise a cause for celebration.
Last night, councilors took a much softer tone with Mr. Dowd. Councilors Descoteaux, Belanger, Gitschier and Jenness each thanked Mr. Dowd for the prompt response as well as the other hard work performed to date.
Opting to give Mr. Dowd a break, councilors shifted their ire at the the oft-discussed “Contingency Fund.” As part of the report, we were notified that we’re down to about $3.5M of the budgeted $21.2M continency fund. Mr. Dowd reported that “the burn rate” has accelerated. In other words, we are using these funds faster now than we were on earlier stages of the project.
I’m going to put a pin in that issue for now. However, Councilor Gitschier brought up a related issue of interest: are we burning construction funds on what should be routine maintenance that should otherwise be funded by the city’s operating budget? For example, Councilor Gitschier noted that the gym was turned over to the city in August 2022, yet thereafter we may have paid $9,300 for a bleacher inspection and $800 for a urinal screen. If the building was “turned over” should we have addressed these issues ourselves for a much cheaper price? Are we using a portion of our contingency fund as a de facto maintenance fund?
This question brings the larger question of building’s maintenance into sharper focus. Currently, there are no dedicated maintenance personnel stationed at LHS. Rather, the city relies on it’s Lands and Buildings Department to address maintenance issues at the high school (as well as every other city building). It follows that once Suffolk and Skanska pack up and go home, we’re not going to have personnel on the city payroll that were present when the building systems were installed, thus it may end up costing more to inspect/maintain/repair such systems in the future.
The good news is that council and management seem to be on the same page in voicing a recognition that changes are needed. The questions is whether everyone will have the appetite to pay for it in the form of new positions, salaries and benefits. I should hope $800 urinal screens and $9300 bleacher inspections would open the eyes of any non-believers.
Stay tuned.