The Lowell City Council met on June 30, 2026. Today I’ll comment on several issues they covered.

A joint motion by Mayor Erik Gitschier and Councilors Corey Robinson and Sean McDonough to “place the Lowell Fire Chief position back into civil service prior to filling this anticipated vacancy” was discussed at length before being defeated with four councilors in favor and seven against.

Two quick observations before getting into the substance of this issue: (1) several councilors spoke cryptically, as if they knew more than they were saying but withheld that information for some reason; and (2) this was another of the council’s recurring proxy fights about supporting or not supporting City Manager Tom Golden.

Back in 2015, the city council, at the request of then City Manager Kevin Murphy, voted to remove the position of fire chief from the civil service system. In its place, the city created a human resources application and selection process that, while fair and equitable, also gave the city manager more say in the selection of the next fire chief.

On Tuesday, the four councilors who voted for the motion – Robinson, McDonough, Sidney Liang, and Mayor Gitschier – argued that the civil service test and related criteria were appropriate measures of skill and suitability, that the city manager would still have some say in the selection, and the protections for the employee afforded by the civil service system were desirable.

At first, councilors who opposed the motion raised procedural issues: The annual civil service test had just been held last month before it was clear there would be an opening in Lowell so local candidates may not have competed. Would the city be forced to take someone from the list who was not from Lowell? If the person hired did not work out, wouldn’t the current system make it easier for the city manager to replace them if necessary? Changing the system would require the legislature to pass home rule legislation which, with the legislature out of session until January, might not be feasible or timely.

Councilor Dan Rourke then got to the heart of the matter by explaining why the system was changed back in 2015. As I understand the civil service process, to fill the office of fire chief, only those who hold the next lowest rank – deputy chief – are eligible to take the test, provided there is more than one deputy chief who signs up for the test. (I assume that if no deputy chiefs or if only one of them signed up for the test, those holding the next lowest rank – captain – would also be eligible.)

As Rourke explained it, the practice in Lowell prior to 2015 was that the deputy chiefs would discretely decide among themselves who would be chief, but then all would sign up to take the test, thereby blocking anyone else from competing. Then on the day of the test, only the deputy designated by their colleagues to be chief would appear for the test while the others did not show up. Since the civil service “multiple candidate” rule applied to registering to take the test, not actually taking it, the one deputy who did appear would get the highest score since theirs was the only score and the choice for the city’s next fire chief would already be made by the time it reached the city manger. Rourke added that this had happened “many times previously in Lowell” and that it allowed “a small group to decide who would be the next fire chief.”

When the roll call on the motion was taken, those who voted against moving the fire chief position into civil service were Councilors Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Belinda Juran, Rita Mercier, Vesna Nuon, Dan Rourke and Kim Scott. As noted above, those voting for the motion were Mayor Gitschier and Councilors Liang, McDonough and Robinson.

****

A motion by Councilor John Descoteaux to take the steps necessary to increase the number of “all alcohol” package store licenses in the city generated an interesting discussion. Descoteaux explained he was recently in a convenience store where another patron was buying a six-pack of beer. The patron told Descoteaux he would have preferred hard liquor, but this store could only sell beer. Descoteaux framed his motion as a way to increase convenience for residents like the one he encountered as well as something that would boost the economy since selling liquor is more lucrative for merchants.

Some councilors spoke approvingly of this as a way of helping small businesses, but others asked how you could ensure that the new licenses went to first time holders and not to entities that already held a dozen or more liquor licenses. Councilor McDonough raised the issue of the geographic distribution of the licenses. In his neighborhood – downtown – there are no liquor stores within reasonable walking distance of most residences. Others echoed that concern, saying many Lowell package stores might be clustered together with the rest spread widely across the city.

Mayor Gitschier was firm in his opposition to any increase citing two reasons: He said every time he visits a school, there seems to be a package store across the street which he said was not a good mix. He also said that in a city plagued by substance abuse, making it easier to buy liquor will not help the social pathologies accompanying that issue.

In the end, the council voted unanimously to refer the motion to the council’s economic development subcommittee to more deeply explore all these concerns and perhaps craft strategies for addressing them. I believe the motion was also referred to the city’s License Commission for a report.

One thing nobody seemed to mention is the seismic shift that’s occurring in America with alcohol consumption. The overarching trend is towards drinking less, particularly among younger people. Some of the reasons for that are prioritizing health and wellness, economic pressures, and changing generational attitudes.

I saw evidence of this firsthand last weekend. A friend from out of town was visiting Boston so we met up at Legal Sea Food for lunch. When I flipped over the menu, I immediately noticed that there were as many choices in the NA (non-alcoholic) beer section as there were in the traditional beer area. (For the record, I ordered an iced tea but really do enjoy Guiness NA).

****

A motion by Councilor McDonough to modify the city ordinance that controls the cost of parking raised some interesting issues. Two years ago, after much study and deliberation, the council amended the parking rate ordinance to automatically increase fees by an amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index. Because the cost of the garages continuously increases, so must the revenue coming into the system. By making the increases automatic and tied to an external measure (the CPI) councilors sought to avoid having to vote on increases each year.  McDonough’s Tuesday motion sought to undo that and require that “all parking rates . . . shall only increase by a majority vote of the city council.”

McDonough’s district includes downtown where many residents must pay for monthly parking in city garages either directly or through their condominium associations. He is the prime recipient of their ire at rate increases, but also for their distress at being deprived of the chance to have their opposition heard in an official setting. Perhaps the main reason the council made this change was to avoid the discomfort of voting for a fee increase at a council meeting packed with people pleading with you not to increase the fee. McDonough countered that by saying that even if the increase was ultimately imposed, if opponents at least had the chance to have their opposition heard they might be less upset than they are about automatic fees.

While McDonough’s point about preserving due process for residents when it comes to fee increases is valid, the unending need for new revenue for the parking fund is a reality. Another reality is that councilors want to stay as councilors and having to vote for repeated fee increases lessens the chance of that happening. Consequently, there could come a time when enough councilors abandoned their fiduciary duty to adequately fund the system in the face of short-term political pressure which would jeopardize city finances.

Which is not to say downtown residents have nothing to complain about. I’ve long thought they are being treated unfairly when it comes to the cost of parking. The city makes huge capital investments to construct parking garages downtown as an important component for economic development. Without the Hamilton Canal Parking Garage, it is doubtful that Draper would be locating its new facility in that district. Because the payoff of new downtown development benefits everyone in the city through higher tax revenues and more jobs, everyone in the city should contribute to the investments the city must make – like new parking garages – to yield that new growth.

However, repaying the bonds that financed the construction of the garages is solely the responsibility of the city’s relatively new parking enterprise fund which is funded solely by parking receipts. Additionally, while downtown residents are likely paying the full fee for their parking passes, others like businesses, students, and city employees often have discounted fees which shift more of the burden to residents.

Over the course of this 30-minute discussion it also became clear there is a disconnect between the parking department and the finance department on implementing the fee increase. This confusion was distressing to some councilors who openly wondered how the council can be sure that ordinances it passes to adjust fees are being consistently implemented. Consequently, the council referred this motion to its finance subcommittee for further investigation.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard Column, a wrote about the “Three Franco Poets from Lowell” event at UMass Lowell last week; reviewed a couple of exhibits I saw at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (“Framing Nature: Gardens and Imagination” and “Art of the Americas, 1700-1800”); and commented on an Op-Ed about the Biden Family’s reentry into the public eye.

****

David Daniel, a prolific author and longtime contributor to richardhowe.com, passed away recently. Three of his close friends, Steve O’Connor, Jerry Bisantz and Jay Atkinson, remembered Dave in heartfelt essays which I combined into a single blog post which you should check out.