With the continued controversy and social media chatter surrounding the Lowell Senior Center, I’m presenting a special Nutter’s Notes comprised of the recently released City Council Executive Session minutes, word for word, for your review.
If you prefer to view them directly from the City of Lowell website, here is the link to find them yourself; Agenda Center • Lowell, MA • CivicEngage
IN CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR’S RECEPTION ROOM TUESDAY OCTOBER 7, 2025 TIME 9:25 PM
The Manager raised the second item of the Senior Center for discussion. Manager outlined the issues and challenges with the site and that matters were not resolved many years ago that continued for many years and that this administration has resolved. Manager noted that condominium documents have been drafted and recorded and that the City is in arrears for rent in the amount of about $900,000. Manager noted that funding for this site is by way of CDBG funding and that cannot be applied to back rent. Manager outlined two options available; one would be a lease for term with arrears tied in moving forward and covered by current funding source; second would be outright ownership which would be by way of loan and yearly carrying costs of $200,000. Manager noted that his recommendation would be to establish a lease for the site. C. Robinson questioned why the City is not the owner of the site. Atty. Williams commented that the City does not own it and that there was no reversion to the City. Atty. Williams noted that new lease would establish more clarity between the parties. C. Gitschier noted current landlord is not acceptable. Ms. Baez-Rose indicated that CDBG money is not available for shorter lease terms. C. Gitschier requested better lease terms if moving forward. C. Scott noted preference to use CDBG funds. Motion by C. Descoteaux, seconded by C. Jenness to have City Manager enter into negotiations to establish lease regarding the Senior Center. Failed per Roll Call vote 5 yeas (C. Belanger, C. Chau, C. Descoteaux, C. Jenness, M. Rourke), 4 nays (C. Gitschier, C. Nuon, C. Robinson, C. Scott), 1 abstain (C. Mercier), 1 absent (C. Yem). So voted.
IN CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR’S RECEPTION ROOM TUESDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2025 TIME 8:40 PM
The second issue was brought forward regarding the Senior Center and C. Mercier recused self from discussion and vote. Manager Golden, Jr. noted that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) would allow the funding of a 15-year lease for site with option to purchase at end. C. Nuon noted grants could only be used to lease the property. Ms. Baez-Rose noted that these grants are more protected because they are for the benefit of seniors. Atty. Williams noted that lease was subject to appropriations. C. Chau noted the federal grant protection for seniors. C. Yem indicated preference for ownership of the site. C. Gitschier requested to review the document. M. Rourke highlighted the responsibility of owners. Motion by C. Nuon, seconded by C. Yem to allow City Manager to enter into a 15-year lease agreement with option to own for the Senior Center. Adopted per Roll Call vote 7 yeas (C. Belanger, C. Chau, C.Descoteaux, C. Jenness, C. Nuon, M. Rourke, C. Yem), 2 nays (C. Gitschier, C. Robinson), 1 abstain (C. Mercier), 1 absent (C. Scott).
IN CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR’S RECEPTION ROOM TUESDAY JANUARY 13, 2026 TIME 7:58 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION Manager Golden, Jr. opened discussion of the Senior Center and brought new members up to speed regarding lease agreement with the owner. Manager went into detailed discussion regarding past dealing on the Senior Center and the many prevalent issues that existed at the site. C. Mercier recused herself from discussion and vote regarding the Senior Center due to her membership on the board. Atty. Williams began presentation by outlining elements of the lease. C. Juran questioned why the property was not gifted back to the City as per agreement. Atty. Williams offered explanation regarding that issue and the liability position of the City and further indicated that there was a large amount of money owed in back rent to the landlord. C. Liang questioned bonding possibility. Atty. Williams noted that rent would be fully funded by Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and not taxpayer money. Manager noted the benefit of keeping it off of the taxpayers especially for this budget. C. McDonough questioned if there were any negotiations for return of property. Atty. Williams noted the issue with the lack of condo documentation. C. McDonough questioned if grant money would be available. Atty. Williams indicated that grants to benefit seniors would have the most protection. C. Scott questioned operating costs if City owned the building. M. Gitschier noted prior budget indicated that the City does own the property and questioned the procurement process on this piece. M. Gitschier commented that the Inspector General should have been informed. C. Rourke commented that the prior deal but City in a bad position and that this a reasonable and proper solution. M. Gitschier questioned interest payment numbers if they were to bond for back rent portion. Mr. Baldwin noted the numbers but indicated that there may be an issue to bond on this particular piece. C. Chau requested further information on the presentation. C. Juran noted the lack of condo documentation would be the other parties’ fault and that they should not benefit from that as there is an indication that the property should have been returned. Atty. Williams provided basic tenants of the proposed lease; i.e., rent and use of building. C. McDonough noted the bad deal at outset but commented that this was just kicking can down the road. Atty. Williams indicated that this lease rights all of the wrongs of prior deal. C. Scott noted other party is not willing to revert property back to City and further noted that they could easily get an opinion regarding procurement issue. M. Gitschier questioned responsibility of specific areas on the site. Manager noted that lease terms proposed is the best approach to address the issues. C. Juran questioned if the work would be done on the site. Manager commented that the purpose of the session is to inform all the members of the issues. Atty. Williams noted that discussion beyond lease alternative would be a total change of direction and that the new lease is the best protection for the City. C. Juran questioned status of the Walgreen piece of the site. C. Liang wished to seek ownership. C. Robinson noted the benefits of the Walgreen site. Motion by C. Descoteaux, seconded by C. to move forward with lease with additional language regarding rights associated with the Walgreen site. Failed per Roll Call vote 5 yeas (C. Chau, C. Descoteaux, C. Nuon, C. Rourke, C. Scott), 5 nays (M. Gitschier, C. Juran, C. Liang, C. McDonough, C. Robinson), 1 recuse (C. Mercier). So voted. C. Juran questioned status of the lease. C. Scott questioned what path is to be followed. Motion by M. Gitschier, seconded by C. McDonough for City Solicitor to negotiate terms regarding return of property to the City. Motion withdrawn by M. Gitschier with no objections.
IN CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR’S RECEPTION ROOM TUESDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2026 TIME 8:50 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION C. Mercier recused herself from discussion and vote regarding the Senior Center due to her membership on the board. Manager opened discussion regarding Senior Center by providing brief history and that the legal position at this point is that the City does not have ownership of the site. Manager noted possible paths from this point being litigation or negotiation of a new lease regarding the site with agreements to back rents and first refusal for the Walgreens portion as well as ownership at end of the agreement. City Solicitor Williams noted the other side had no interest in selling the property to the City and that they received a demand letter laying out claims previously discussed as well as a claim for triple damages. City Solicitor noted receipt of a Notice to Quit from them held in abeyance until after this session and will be filed with Court the following day if not resolved. City Solicitor outlined responses to that action which would include a request for an injunction. City Solicitor noted it was a difficult to predict outcome of this matter as noble arguments could be made from both sides to support their positions. C. Scott noted the risks to each side and questioned fairness of their offer. Manager noted new agreement resolves all issues and that HUD would cover those costs to the City. C. Scott questioned the funding. Manager noticed recent discussion with HUD and that this type of expenditure would be allowed and was comfortable with that discussion. Ms. Baez-Rose noted if there is no compliance then funds can be recaptured. C. Juran commented on the litigation option to push back. Manager noted the parameters of HUD funding. City Solicitor noted proposed language regarding defaults. C. Nuon commented on the chance of litigation success in terms of funding and time involved. Motion by C. Nuon, seconded by C. Rourke to continue negotiation of lease terms Senior Center, as well as, right of first refusal for Walgreens site. Adopted per Roll Call vote 6 yeas (C. Chau, C. Descoteaux, C. Juran, C. Nuon, C. Rourk, C. Scott), 4 nays (M. Gitschier, C. Liang, C. McDonough, C. Robinson), 1 recusal (C. Mercier). So voted.
- Gitschier noted the vote was playing right into their hands as they get more money and give up less land. City Solicitor commented on right of first refusal procedure. C. Chau spoke of right of first refusal. C. Juran noted that there were still issues to negotiate regarding lease. City Solicitor commented on default language in the lease to protect the City interest. C. Scott commented on public bid process. City Solicitor noted this was exempt due to being in a revitalization area and the unique nature of the property. Mr. Baldwin and the Manager outlined the conversation with HUD and the funding is from CDBG money and not taxpayers. C. Liang noted must move forward with best interest of the City. C. Scott noted possible other sites for the Senior Center; Freshman Academy and new site on Market Street.
Motion to release minutes once finished and approved by M. Gitschier, seconded by C. Rourke. So voted.
One response to “Nutter’s Notes: Executive Session Minutes Special Edition”
This sounds like a Trump cabinet meeting. It seems like having CDBG funds pay the bills is the #1 priority. No apparently follow-up questions about the $200K annual cost for ownership – what is the basis for that option? On the surface, that would be $3 million over 15 years. But what is it paying for?
Minutes are just a summary of what a person thought he heard, there has to be more discussion than that, else the council and management staff are not doing their due diligence.