The high point of Tuesday’s meeting was an informational report to Councilors from the city’s energy manager regarding a “geothermal demonstration pilot” program in partnership with UMass Lowell and National Grid. In remarks to Councilors, a National Grid representative said that geothermal is one tool in the quest for a “fossil-free future.”
Geothermal energy uses the natural-occurring heat of the earth’s core to both warm and cool houses and other structures. In its simplest form, a homeowner would drill 500 feet into the earth in the same manner that an artesian well would be created, but rather than extract water from the ground, the geothermal system is “closed” and uses a set of pipes that extend from the depths of the “bore hole” to the interior of the house being serviced. A water solution is then circulated through the pipes. When this water circulates through the pipes deep in the earth, it warms (or cools) to the earth’s temperature at that depth which is about 50 degrees. This 50-degree water solution would then circulate through the house. If the outside temperature at the surface is colder than 50 degrees, the geothermal system provides heat for the house; if the outside temperature is warmer than 50 degrees, the geothermal system cools the house.
The system coming to Lowell is not for individual houses. Rather, it is a networked system that consists of a collection of “bore holes” and a loop of pipes through which the warmed water solution circulates. If any houses along that loop want to partake of the geothermal system, service can be established to that home in the same way natural gas service operates. (In fact, this pilot program is only available to existing National Grid natural gas customers, so presumably it uses the existing infrastructure).
The “bore hole” farm will be on the UMass Lowell South Campus faculty parking lot at the corner of Wilder and Broadway. The geothermal loop will circulated through Broadway – Waugh St – Wilder St – and Walker St. Anyone along that route who is a National Grid gas customer is eligible for this service.
The National Grid representatives indicated that geothermal is more of a supplement to an all-electric heating system that would utilize things like heat pumps than a standalone system. They also said that this pilot program is the first in Massachusetts. While the technology would last much longer, this pilot program will last 5 years after which it will be assessed for its longer term viability. The pilot program is funded through a surcharge on the bills of National Grid gas customers, in the same way that the Mass Save program is funded.
****
The response to an early April motion by Councilors Wayne Jenness, Erik Gitschier, and Vesna Nuon requesting an update on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the 2019 Clifton Larson Human Resources Audit of the city got some pushback from Councilor Jenness. His concern was that the motion response, while listing what has been accomplished, was silent on at least ten of the report’s other recommendations so there was no way of knowing their status. After a fairly lengthy discussion, Councilor Jenness moved that the city created an online “dashboard” that lists all of the recommendations and the current status in implementing them. That motion passed.
There was also discussion of the still-unfilled DEI Officer position. To review, in December 2021, then City Manager Eileen Donoghue hired Lowell resident Ferdousi Faruqe to be the city’s first Diversity, Equity and Inclusion officer. However, just four months later, in April 2022, Faruqe resigned. Notably, in that 120 day stretch, a new Council (the current one) had taken office and among its first actions was to reject Eileen Donoghue’s request for a 1 year extension of her contract and instead hire State Representative Tom Golden to succeed Donoghue as City Manager.
In an April 8, 2022, interview on WGBH radio’s All Things Considered program (full transcript and audio available online), Faruqe said the following (among other things):
There have been a number of roadblocks that I didn't see myself getting through without direct assistance from the City Manager's office — administration. In addition to that, the onboarding of the new city manager coming in seemed to be stemmed from a lot of nepotism and, frankly, systemic racism that I won't be able to get around. So if I don't have the support from council or the personnel subcommittee, in addition to not having support from some key stakeholders that I would work with, it's really difficult to get the work done.
Today, a full year after Faruque’s departure, the city has yet to replace her. To questions about that raised on Tuesday night, City Manager Golden pointed to the ongoing DEI training program that Middlesex Community College is providing to city leaders. The first cohort of 16 city employee-leaders began the program last August and graduated in November; the second cohort just completed the program this week. Golden said that six additional employees will start the program now which will complete the training for everyone in city leadership positions (with the caveat that there is constant turnover among employees so new hires will not yet have had the program).
The City Manager emphasized that he made the completion of the MCC DEI training the top priority “so that everyone is at a baseline before we move forward.” However, he did suggest that the process of hiring a dedicated DEI Officer has been underway and hinted that news might be forthcoming in the near future.
****
The Council took up a proposed amendment to an ordinance on outdoor seating at restaurants. The proposed amendment would extend the outdoor seating period to November 1, 2023. Councilors at this meeting and previously have sought more flexibility in the start and end dates of this period due to the unpredictable nature of the weather. For instance, in mid-November, it could be 60 degrees and sunny, or it could be 20 degrees with a foot of snow.
DPD Director Yovani Baez-Rose brought some clarity to the discussion by explaining that this ordinance affects so-called “streeteries” which are curbside parking spaces that are enclosed by Jersey barriers emplaced by the city and repurposed as restaurant seating areas. She made clear that sidewalk dining – where tables and chairs are set up on designated portions of the sidewalk adjacent to the restaurant – have different rules and more flexibility. The challenge with in-the-street dining areas is that if it snows and the Jersey barriers have not been removed, it will be extremely difficult to clear snow from the adjacent road. There were also allusions to the challenges restaurant owners face in obtaining and maintaining insurance for outdoor seating when the time being covered by the insurance is variable rather than fixed. It’s not like a backyard barbeque where you can watch the weather forecast on Thursday and then decide whether your Saturday event is still viable. Because of the Jersey barriers and the complexities of insurance coverage, outdoor dining for restaurants is more complicated.
I believe the Council forwarded the ordinance to a public hearing so it should come up again.
****
A fair chunk of Tuesday’s meeting was devoted to a citizen’s petition requesting changes to Lowell’s “unhoused persons protocol.” Several individuals spoke in support of the petition. It seemed the main criticism was the city’s practice of removing unauthorized tent encampments, arguing that in doing that, the city makes the already challenged lives of those living there even more challenging.
Councilors were not very receptive. Several reacted to the criticism of the petitioners by pointing out that some who signed the petition didn’t live in Lowell and they should go to their own communities and urge the leadership there to do more to do their share for the homeless. Other councilors were more sympathetic to the intent of the petitioners yet still maintained that tent encampments, particularly in the winter, pose threats to the health and safety of those living in them as well as to the entire community, so allowing the encampments to remain indefinitely could not be considered either humane or considerate to those residing in the tents.
****
Despite the difference of opinions over the citizen petition, all would agree that more housing, especially more affordable housing, would be a major step towards reducing homelessness. On Monday, the Boston Globe editorial reviewed a century’s worth of local “rules that suppressed housing growth and kept out poor people and renters.” The Globe asserts that “the bill may be coming due” for this policy, citing the departure of 110,000 people from the state since the start of the pandemic and the cost of the median single family house in Greater Boston being nearly double the average for the rest of the country.
The Globe’s prescription is for state government “to reestablish its primacy on matters of housing and wrest power away from the state’s 351 cities and towns just as it once did from the private sector.” (When the state first established restrictions 100 years ago on what could be built where, regulatory authority resided with the state but it was quickly delegated to the local level where it has resided ever since).
Having state government assume control over zoning would likely lead to a more balanced distribution of affordable housing across the state. In the meantime, Lowell is considering a zoning change that would allow Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a matter of right in single family neighborhoods. In last week’s newsletter, I reviewed the good work of the Council’s joint zoning and housing subcommittee which held four different sessions on this proposal and, just last week, submitted a refined proposal for ADUs to the full Council which then voted to send the proposal to a public hearing by way of a non-binding recommendation from the Planning Board.
However, at this Tuesday’s meeting, Councilors voted for a Councilor Rita Mercier motion to have the Neighborhood Subcommittee “meet to discuss ADUs and get residents views about the subject of having them throughout their neighborhoods.” Councilor Mercier said that many people have contacted her and wanted their opinions on this proposal known – I guess they missed the four meetings on the topic already held by the Zoning/Housing Subcommittee – and so she scheduled a Neighborhood Subcommittee meeting on this topic on this coming Wednesday, April 19, 2023, at 6pm in the Mayor’s Reception Room at City Hall.
****
Next week being school vacation week, the Council canceled its April 18, 2023, meeting.
****
In recent years, many homeowners have expressed concern about the risk of having the title to their home stolen. The worry about this is mostly an outgrowth of extensive marketing campaigns by companies that provide “title monitoring” services. This week, the Boston Globe assessed the risk and the relative merits of employing one of these services in “Are title protection services worth the expense?” (Because I’ve written on this topic previously, the reporter interviewed me for the story.)
****
Happy Patriot’s Day to all who celebrate.
Mr. Howe, This comment is in response to your comment on the very good report of the joint housing and zoning subcommittees regarding zoning changes to single family neighborhoods to permit homeowner ADU development. I have protested these actions because ADU development will do nothing to alleviate Lowell's serious affordable housing crisis. The development of ADUs is predicated on homeowner willingness to build such a unit and to charge the fair market rent or under and then to serve as landlord and rent to Lowell citizens who are rent-burdened. Another issue is that supposing these changes were made, the rate at which ADUs woulld be planned, permitted, built, and ready for renting will not in any way be able to meet the extent of the need for affordable housing in Lowell. Do we continue to ignore the fact that 20% of Lowell's population lives in poverty? That this population is rent-burdened... meaning trade offs must be made between paying an electric bill, buying enough food for the family, seeing a dentist or a doctor when the need arises....because the rent must be paid. These people are on the road to becoming homeless as well. Do we continue to do nothing about creating the means to develop affordable housing? I have continued to do research on this topic for over a year and half now using a wide variety of sources. In no city has ADU development led to an increase in affordable housing (cities in California and Oregon are some of the early adopters) for rent-burdened residents for the very poor, poor, students, and even for the middle class. ADUs cannot accomodate families. Instead of hammering time and again on ADUs as the way to increase affordable housing, city council members must collaborate with the appropriate state and federal agencies, the private sector, and non-profit organizations concerned with housing and the homeless to develop an overall strategy comprising multiple tactics, approaches, and efforts. It requires a serious focus. It will be difficult work over a long period of time, but it must be done. There are tactics and approaches being tried in other states and cities. Our city council members, city manager, and city planners and professionals in City Hall must roll up their sleeves to do the hard work....they are treating ADUs as a silver bullet. It is a fig leaf to hide behind. Or if you will, one small tactic to include in a much larger, comprehensive strategy to address the very serious lack of affordable housing and the growing population of Lowell's homeless. The City Council should be held accountable for ignoring the huge dimensions of this issue. You also ask why city neighborhood organizations haven't been listening to the now four in total joint meetings of the housing and zoning subcommittees. People are listening. But voices are not listened to. One gets a total of 3 minutes to speak Council members have resorted to taking up the majority of time with their own questions as a means to drastically reduce the time for public comment. There is no room for discussion or debate. I live in a SFN in Pawtucketville, but my concern is with social justice. My concern is with the narrow vision of the city councilors and the city manager. My concern is the fact that city councilors ignore the very large large population in Lowell who desparately need more affordable, and decent housing. I'm happy to share my research. Sincerely, Patricia Vondal
Thanks for keeping us up to date!