In last week’s newsletter, I reported on two items from the August 12, 2025, Lowell City Council meeting. These were the upcoming trip to Switzerland by a city delegation and the Lowell Housing Authority versus vagrants discussion. Today, I’ll cover some other topics from that same meeting.

The August 12 meeting featured a public hearing on an ordinance creating a new position in the Parks Department, “Athletic Field Coordinator/Trainer – Part Time” with a salary of $70 per hour. It’s a “seasonal position” with hours that vary based on the time of year.

The job posting seems straightforward, but the key requirement is to hold two state licenses: (1) a Massachusetts Applicator License (with a Commercial Application with Turf Certification preferred); and (2) a Certified Fertilizer Applicator License (with Certified Sports Field Manager License preferred.)

As I understand it, both licenses are issued by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) and are awarded to individuals who pass the applicable MDAR exams and pay the designated fees. The first license deals with the safe application of pesticides while the second involves both pesticides and fertilizers and is intended to prevent runoff and environmental pollution.

The Certified Sports Field Manager is not a state license but is a certificate awarded by a private national organization, the Sports Field Management Association (SFMA). This certification deals with fertilizer and turf maintenance but also involves budgeting, safety, field design and marking, and maintenance.

No one currently employed by the Parks Department has any of these licenses. When asked why the city cannot get an existing employee to obtain these licenses, City Manager Tom Golden said he has tried to do that for several years, even offering financial incentives, but that none of the existing employees are willing to pursue the necessary licenses. He said this was mostly a function of the employees not being confident they could pass the tests.

Golden also explained that the city has invested millions of dollars in park upgrades and that if the parks are not properly and consistently maintained, much of that money will have been wasted. Thus far, the city has hired outside contractors to do the necessary work, but that is prohibitively expensive and would be more affordable if done in house. The city manager hoped that by having this new employee with the proper licenses as part of the department, they could also act as a trainer and coach to the other employees who then might be inspired to apply for the licenses themselves.

After considerable discussion, the council voted to create this new position with nine councilors voting in favor and two, Erik Gitschier and Corey Robinson, voting against. Both criticized the city’s management team for its inability to get employees to perform tasks that would seem essential to the jobs they have been hired to perform.

Gitschier raised a related concern several months ago with the city’s Water Department. In that situation, the city has paid large amounts to outside contractors to respond to afterhours water main breaks when city employees were capable of doing the work. Contractually, at least three city employees must be available for them to do the work, and Gitschier noted a pattern of only two employees at a time answering after-hours calls. Without a third employee available, the two employees call in an expensive contractor to do the work and then linger at the worksite as passive observers while earning premium overtime and emergency response salaries.

Gitschier further criticized this new position as another instance of increasing the size of the city workforce at a time when every indicator is that tough financial times are ahead for the city. To me, that’s a valid sentiment. I won’t take the time to cite specific examples but will say that the general response to various challenges by this city administration has been to create and fill new positions.

All city employees should be paid a competitive wage with appropriate benefits, but between cost of living raises, contractual step increases, and the rising cost of health insurance and retirement benefits, the percentage by which personnel costs increase   usually exceeds the percentage of new revenue. Consequently, growing the number of city employees rather than reducing that number through attrition sets the city up for drastic and disruptive cuts when the inevitable fiscal downturn occurs.

Still, the parks must be properly maintained, and collective bargaining agreements and related case law prevent management from controlling the workforce with the same flexibility that exists in the private sector. Hopefully, the city manager’s “train the trainer” strategy will work, and the needed maintenance tasks will eventually be done by existing employees, with this new position then being eliminated.

****

Speaking of city of Lowell parks, I had a wonderful experience at one of them this past Thursday night when I attended a free concert at Tyler Park that was organized and hosted by the Friends of Tyler Park. The singer was Neely Luna, who was fantastic. She’s a Lowell resident who attends Berklee College of Music and has an active YouTube channel which I urge you to visit and subscribe. My estimation is that 200 people brought their lawn chairs and blankets to enjoy the great music, the wonderful weather, and the beautiful city park.

The Friends of Tyler Park is an all-volunteer organization that each summer hosts three concerts at the park plus a movie night (Saturday, September 6, at 6pm featuring Moana 2), and sponsors an “Autumn Market in the Park” on Sunday, September 7, from 11am until 2pm, which will feature more than 20 vendors set up in the park. (As part of the September 7th event, I’ll lead a free walking tour of the Tyler Park Historic District beginning at the park at 10am.)

****

Coincidentally, while at Tyler Park on Thursday night, someone asked me if I was aware of the city’s plans for Callery Park. I was not, although I had a vague recollection that Callery Park was discussed at the August 12, 2025, council meeting although I didn’t follow what was going on when I first watched it.

But my neighbor’s question prompted me to go back to the YouTube recording of the August 12 meeting and find the Callery Park discussion. About 2 hours and 30 minutes into the meeting, a motion by Councilor John Descoteaux requesting the City Manager “work with DPD to re-purpose Callery Park” was called. Descoteaux, who represents the upper Highlands District that borders one side of Callery Park  – Sokhary Chau represents the Lower Highland District on the other side of the park – explained that several times when he has driven by Callery Park, some of the baseball fields are not being used for baseball. Instead, young people from the neighborhood have erected volleyball nets and were playing that sport. Descoteaux finished by asking for a report from DPD about how the park might be used, specifying soccer and volleyball as possibilities.

Councilor Erik Gitschier spoke next. He took the conversation in a new and very enlightening direction. I’ve transcribed the ensuing discussion in full and have provided it at the end of this newsletter, but for now, I’ll offer a synopsis of what was said.

This was one of those occasional council discussions during which councilors and the city manager seem to know a lot more about the issue being discussed than they are willing to state in public. Their cryptic comments and dancing around issues leave an observer wondering what is going on. That’s how I felt watching this exchange.

Here is what I do know after rewatching this segment: Earlier this month, the city issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for “Callery Park Sponsorship Opportunities” which sounds like the winning bidder would be allowed to erect a sign promoting its business in exchange for paying a sponsorship fee. But that is not what this RFP is about. Instead, it says “the sponsor will be allowed to use the existing field and construct additional recreational opportunities.” Notably, the term of this agreement would be 99 years.

The thing that no one wanted to expressly state on Tuesday night, but which became clear from the discussion, was that this “sponsorship opportunity” is essentially a vehicle for Lowell Catholic, a parochial school covering grades kindergarten through 12 with a multi-building campus just across Parker Street from Callery Park, to utilize Callery Park as its athletic complex. In real estate law, a lease of 99 years is the equivalent of outright transfer of ownership. While this RFP is a “sponsorship opportunity” rather than a lease, they are conceptually alike.

The Sponsorship RFP does say “there must be time allotted for residential use each week” but it does not specify how much time, who sets that time, or what portion of the park the public might be entitled to use. Nor does the RFP mention any money flowing from the successful bidder to the city.

I hesitate to jump to conclusions, but this sure seems like the city was on a trajectory to turn over one of its public parks to a private entity for use primarily by that private entity with some limited but undefined usage rights retained for the public. Manager Golden repeatedly urged the council to allow the RFP to take its course, saying that the council could always reject the proposal. While technically true, it ignores the politics of such a vote. Imagine the council chamber packed with Lowell Catholic students and boosters urging councilors to adopt their proposal with a mere handful of residents speaking meekly in opposition. How do you think the council would vote in those circumstances?

Fortunately, because of Councilor Gitschier’s persistence in questioning this on Tuesday night, the council instead instructed the city manager to “pull” the RFP and send the entire matter to the council’s Neighborhood Subcommittee for a hearing and discussion.

Hopefully at that meeting, councilors and members of the public will debate not only the particulars of this case, but also the role of parks in the life of the city and to what extent portions of a public park may be excluded from use by the public. That’s an issue that transcends this “sponsorship opportunity.” For several decades I’ve noted that in many city parks, the best maintained spaces, usually baseball fields, are fenced in and often padlocked, available only to organized sports leagues and not to members of the public. That’s great for those involved in that league, but not great for anyone else who wants to use the park.

As for the details of the RFP, when you Google “City of Lowell RFP Callery Park,” the first result says “Bid Postings: Callery Park Sponsorship” but when you click the link, you’re taken to a City of Lowell page that says, “We’re sorry, but there is not a web page matching your entry” which perhaps indicates that the bid has already been “pulled.”

However, the second Google result says “26-14 Callery Park Sponsorship RFP.” If you click on that link, it doesn’t take you to a webpage. Instead, it downloads a Word document containing the RFP. (If you want to download the Word doc, here’s the link.)

As of yesterday, the city’s Agenda Center did not show a Neighborhood Subcommittee meeting having been scheduled yet. That subcommittee is chaired by Councilor Gitschier with Councilors Descoteaux and Wayne Jenness as members. I’ll keep an eye on upcoming subcommittee agendas and will let readers know the date, time and place, so that they can attend and participate in this important philosophic debate about the role of public parks in this city.

****

For those especially interested in the Callery Park RFP issue, here’s my transcript of that portion of the August 12, 2025, council meeting:

Motion by Councilor Descoteaux requesting the City Manager “work with DPD to re-purpose Callery Park.”

Councilor Descoteaux: In the last two weeks in driving by Callery Park, and I believe Zabbo Field and Conway Field, all I’ve seen is volleyball nets being put up by children over there. Obviously, we’ve seen a decline in baseball participation and right now in speaking with the Highland officials in their league, Mr. Rourke and Mr. Lelacheur, they feel that the Bailey School, Loucraft and those fields can adequately handle the baseball and softball needs of the children of the Highlands. So, I would look at, Ms. Baez-Rose, maybe repurposing that, and maybe taking Conroy Field, which is on the B Street side as maybe a volleyball center, volleyball type of play or soccer field, but right now, I believe there have been no permits for either one of those for the Highlands softball or baseball league. So, can we come up with a report on that?

Council Gitschier: Was it last week, Mr. Manager, they went out with an RFP for the use of Callery Park, which I wish we would pull that RFP and then talk to the neighbors because before we get into these back and forths on maybe an outside agency taking control of this park and I understand the city has rights within that request for proposal to designate what uses it can be at, I think that we need to step back because loud use from, say Lowell Catholic, coming over and using that will create a nightmare. I remember when I was on the board over there and we went to put lights over there, the neighborhood pushed back. I think we really need to dial this down, pull that RFP, and then go to the neighbors first before we just try to say, “Hey, we did this to the neighborhood, 99-year lease or agreement. Through you Mr. Mayor to the Manager.

Manager Golden: The RFP will absolutely have to be ratified by this board, so we would have an idea of any potential partners that would come in. They would have to tell us what they want to do, how they’d want to accomplish. So just, in my opinion, maybe somebody would come back, maybe somebody wouldn’t, but if somebody does, they’re going to have to ask permission by this council. And at that point in time, I think we could engage our local families on B Street, etc., our local residents to make sure that this is something that they would want the council to do. That’s just my opinion.

Councilor Gitschier: I think that we’re putting the cart before the horse and we all know that someone wants this. I have spoken to people.

Manager Golden: But they still have to come to us.

Councilor Gitschier: No, I understand that. But before even getting to that stage, we should talk to the neighbors. We all know what wants to happen there is that Lowell Catholic needs a space, Manning Field wasn’t really suitable for what they wanted to use it for, and now Callery seems to be the spot. The problem is that we really have to get engagement from neighborhood, or Councilor Chou and Councilor Descoteaux, we’re going to have major issues up there. I don’t know that we want to rely on eight other people when we can just sit here and say, here we are and this is what we want to see. I don’t even know if the other councilors have had a chance to review that RFP yet, but a 99 year agreement is a long time and I just want to make sure . . .

Manager Golden (interrupting): Councilor, I agree wholeheartedly with you, but we don’t know what the plan could be.

Councilor Gitschier: There would be a major investment into that field, and the neighborhood, and disrupting the neighborhood could be a major issue.

Manager Golden: Right, but his council, if we were to move forward, the only reason I think we continue with the RFP, and I’m glad to do whatever the council wants, they need to come forward with an RFP to tell us what they want. And then, at that point, we can say, you know, yes, no, no, yes, whichever . . .

Councilor Gitschier: Neighbors have seen the RFP and are very upset. That’s what I’m getting at. And I see where it has the city’s rights to determine where it’s going, but I just think that we should have a conversation long before that RFP goes out, that’s all. Before it – I understand it is out right now, but we should have been made aware.

Manager Golden: Once again, we were operating off another motion, trying to work with . .

Councilor Gitschier: No, I understand that. And it that motion, if that council wants it up there, we can put it up there.

Manager Golden: If we want to pull it back, I’m glad to do that. I just thing the RFP itself, if someone were to answer it, and I believe somebody may answer it, they would move. They would come forward with a plan which this council could reject. But if you would like to bring it back at the neighborhood subcommittee, I’m fine with that, as well.

Councilor Gitschier: That would be the best thing because I don’t want the entity also to waste their time and not understand what the neighborhood wants and how they both can coexist in the same area, and they go out and spend money that is unnecessary and then the neighborhood goes, “See ya.” I’d like to make a motion to send it . . .

Councilor Descoteaux: I would send it to a subcommittee as well. I would make that motion to send it to the neighborhood subcommittee.

Councilor Gitschier: And pull the RFP that’s out there currently and send it to the neighborhood subcommittee.

Manager Golden: So, we’ll put that into the Neighborhood Subcommittee. If there’s anybody that’s applied, or thinking about applying, we’ll have them come in and discuss it, and we’ll pull the RFP, if that’s OK with the council.

Councilor Descoteaux: Do we need a vote on that?

Manager Golden: No, I don’t believe so.

Mayor Dan Rourke then took up the next item on the council agenda.