This Must Be That “Ask Questions Later” Part

At the January 14 Council Meeting, there was a Motion Response regarding a structural assessment report on the Smith Baker Center. Given that the building had been left to rot by the city for over two decades, the report was unsurprising in that the building is in rough shape. What was surprising was a motion filed on the fly by Councilor Descoteaux to tear the building down. 

One would think that with the numerous Smith Baker motions and reports filed over the years, the vote to tear it down would proceed with caution. At a minimum, it should have been placed on the agenda so that the public could have notice and an opportunity to be heard. Indeed, Councilors Scott and Chau were not even present. At the time, I noted that this type of governance evidenced an off the cuff “shoot now and ask questions later” approach. 

In any event, the motion passed by a vote of 6-2 with Councilors Belanger, Descoteaux, Gitschier, Jenness, Nuon, and Mayor Rourke in favor, and only Councilors Robinson and Mercier opposed. Again, Councilors Chau and Scott were absent. Councilor Yem recused himself due to an ethically sticky situation. Of note, the councilors voting to tear the building down refused to entertain a request by Councilors Mercier and Robinson to make one final attempt at a request for proposal (RFP) to save the building.

On January 14, Councilor Descoteaux reasoned that the structure had “done its job” and that it was “now time to retire it.” Further, Councilor Descoteaux noted that the need for housing outweighed any alternative use, and that the cost of repair would be prohibitive for any group seeking to renovate. He concluded his remarks with “sorry, but it’s time.”

So what changed? I was again surprised when Councilor Descoteaux filed the following motion for last night’s meeting:

C. Descoteaux – Req. City Mgr. allow two representatives of the Save the Smith Baker Center group to enter the building for the specific purpose of City guided inspection of the interior, contingent upon proof of a one day insurance policy covering property.

If the building has served its purpose and “it’s time” to tear it down, why are we dicking around with inspections by a group looking to save the building? Further, the group you’re looking to grant access to does not have housing creation in its mission statement:

If councilors are hoping for a last-minute “Hail Mary” to save the building, why didn’t they support the RFP idea back in January?

Indeed, because the council took the vote to demolish, the city has been working on another RFP for the demolition of the building. As such, efforts in support of preservation on March 4 are clearly at odds with actions taken to demolish on January 14th. 

Offering a legal opinion on the matter, City Solicitor Williams opined that if it were the will of the Council, a vote to rescind the January 14th vote to demolish would create more flexibility to explore preservation efforts. As such, Councilor Descoteaux agreed to table or withdraw last night’s motion and the council will presumably debate a motion to rescind the vote to demolish at a later date.

What are we doing?

Who Can We Sue?

One of my favorite questions! Last week,  city officials were informed that a “newly discovered structural issue” at the Lowell High Project will delay completion of Phase 3, which in turn will delay the entire four-phase project by three months, leading to the new target date at the end of 2026. Further, it is all but a lock that the cost of the project will exceed what we have saved in “contingency funds.”

As to that structural issue, apparently, the entire floor of the 1922 building will need to be replaced. As the 1922 portion of the project is a renovation, we were of course aware that issues would arise. However, the scope of the issues currently popping up seem to be falling into the “how the hell did you not know this?” category.

Last night, the council discussed the following motion:

C. Gitschier/M. Rourke – Req. City Mgr. have Skanska (OPM) and Perkins Eastman of the LHS renovation project come before the City Council and explain the projected delays in phase three of the project (1922 building), the resolution to the issue, the work outside the scope needed and the costs.

Though many councilors had comments on the motion, I thought Councilor Scott got to the heart of the matter when she asked whether there was any “recourse for some of these design issues.” Specifically, Councilor Scott noted that flooding under the 1922 building was well known and it’s hard to believe that there would not have been a close look to see what was happening with the floor until this late in the project. Councilor Scott noted that there could be some liability there.

Indeed, the MSBA process is designed to protect municipalities from this exact type of scenario. It seems profoundly unfair that Lowell should be on the hook when the design team either knew or should have known about some of these issues.

The project team will be back before the council in the the near future to discuss. I promise you this will be appointment T.V.