by Ryan Gilday, The Lowell Citizen

1. Fire Department Overtime Budget

Most of last night’s calories were burned on a vote relative to the Fire Department overtime budget: That the amount of Nine Hundred Thousand and 00/100 ($900,000) Dollars be hereby further appropriated by raising from the FY2023 tax levy, additional local receipts, and offset receipts and appropriating to the Lowell Fire Department Account for Personal Services (Overtime) in FY2023.

and

That the amount of Six Hundred Thousand and 00/100 ($600,000) Dollars is hereby transferred as follows:

FROM: Salary Stabilization Fund #8396
TO: Lowell Fire Department Account for Personal Services (Overtime) in FY2023.

The fire department overtime budget has received considerable attention over the past couple of years. I’m not sure when the (kinda gross) term “brown-out” entered my life, but here we are. A brown-out is when fire companies are shut down to save money and stretch resources.

Due to staffing shortages, the city must rely on its overtime budget in order to keep firehouses operational so as to avoid brown-outs. This council has made clear that they were willing to commit necessary funds to mitigate or eliminate these brown outs.

So, what’s this vote all about?

For Fiscal Year 2023 the city administration proposed a fire department overtime budget of $1.5 million. Though this sum was $400K higher than the Fiscal Year 2022 proposed budget of $1.1 million, the FY22 sum wasn’t even close to what was needed. A supplemental appropriation of $1.5 million was approved by the council in December of 2021. In fact, we also took an additional $451,541 from the state and federal governments for a total of $3,020,06 spent on fire department OT for FY 22.

It’s FY22 all over again as we once again missed the mark on allocation of funds. Philip Charron, the Fire Chief, presented a long and detailed Power Point presentation that helped explain why the department is so reliant of late on the overtime budget to keep fire houses open. In sum, Covid was largely blamed as the culprit as it has caused disruptions to the on-boarding process for new personnel as well as spike in sick days.

While this presentation may have scored a point in favor of the increase in the budget, it was also a damning point against the budget that was proposed last spring. It was clear, or should have been clear, that the FY23 $1.5 million proposal would fall far short of what was needed to keep firehouses staffed and open. In June of 22, when the proposed budget was debated, everyone knew that the department was under-staffed and that the pipeline of new personnel was insufficient. At that time, Councilor Gitschier pressed the Fire Chief and administration as to why they were only asking for $1.5 million when it was a foregone conclusion that it would not last the year. The Chief conceded that it was not a number that he was comfortable with. However, we never got an answer as to why we adopted it. If you’re curious, you can check the video of the meeting (Skip to 4:40:40).

Six months later, I still have no clear sense as to why the $1.5 million number was asked for and subsequently adopted. In any event, it’s not yet December and the account is about to run out of money. In the end the vote easily passed 8-1 with Councilor Gitschier the lone voice in opposition (Councilors Nuon and Scott were absent).

I don’t question the value of the fire department, nor do I question the use of sick/vacation/personal days that have been bargained for. I think that councilors that focused on these issues somewhat missed the mark. Rather, I question the quality of the budget process that lead us to last night’s vote. Unless we get real with the numbers that are being presented to the public, we will continue to follow the patterns of “the way we’ve always done things.”

2. Monthly Munis Reports Now Available

In light of the Fire Dept overtime situation, perhaps some more transparency with the city budget is called for? Currently, the City uses software known as the “Munis.” As a new matter of course (and at the request of the council), the City will be posting monthly Munis reports for your review. Our first peek can be found in this week’s packet:

Great news for the crazies that look at this type of stuff. However, in this week’s newsletter, Richard Howe noted the recent trend in relative council meeting efficiency – as opposed to the marathon sessions that were the norm in the first 3/4 of the year:

A contributing factor in those long meetings was a tendency of some councilors to micromanage city operations. That persists, but to a lesser extent. Dictating the minutia of city operations is not the job of councilors. The job of councilors is to hire someone who manages operations (i.e., the city MANAGER). If parts of city government are not functioning properly, then the council’s role is to bring that to the attention of the city manager and ensure the city manager takes corrective action. If the manager fails to do that to the council’s satisfaction, the council’s recourse is to replace the city manager.

If you agree with this view, I’d be concerned as to whether these reports will give rise to more attempts to “dictate the minutia of city operations.” However, I’d be willing to make that trade in favor of a more open government.

3. New DPW Position

No discussion on a proposed ordinance to create a new part-time DPW position known as a “Facilities & Infrastructure Project Manager.” This individual will “act as an owner’s project manager (“OPM”) for many of the ongoing capital projects in the city.” If this position leads to better maintenance of city buildings, I’m all for it. I would hate to see Lowell High start falling about after construction because we failed to invest in preventative maintenance.
It’s unclear to me how this will work in practice. For example, on the LHS project, the City (and state) already pays Skanska USA Building, Inc. to act as OPM on the project. Is the city unsatisfied with the work they are paying for? Will it be the city-employed OPM’s job to crack the whip on Skanska?

There will be a public hearing at the December 6 meeting, at which time I would assume we get more details.

4. Misc.

• Recognition to the great Greg Pappas and the Elections Department for the outstanding work that went into this month’s election.
• Expect to see more enforcement of fees and penalties levied against commercial vehicles parked on city streets. Look forward to a proposal from the law department that is likely to mirror Revere’s ordinance.
• The most reliable motion in the game made its 2022 debut:
C. Leahy/C. Scott – Req. City Mgr. Have Proper Department Provide A Status Report Regarding “Double” Poles In South Lowell And Throughout The City.

Someday we’re going to win this war.

Happy Thanksgiving!