Lowell council declines proposed 15-year lease for senior center at 276 Broadway after heated public hearing

Lowell — The Lowell City Council declined a proposed 15-year lease that would have continued the senior center at 276 Broadway under private ownership, voting against the measure after extensive public comment and repeated questions about legal terms, back rent and funding.

The motion before the council would have authorized the city manager to "enter into a lease agreement with Nicholas C. Sarris as trustee of CityBarnes Trust" for the property. After more than two hours of public testimony from residents and legal representatives, and lengthy council questioning of the city solicitor and finance staff, the motion failed on the recorded vote.

Residents urged caution and additional review. "Please vote no on this lease tonight," said Ryan Ferria, a Highlands neighborhood resident, who recommended the council seek outside real-estate counsel, an auditor memo on payments made under prior agreements and a possible RFP for alternate senior-center sites. Ferria also put several per-square-foot comparisons on the record and said the proposed $22.70 per square foot in the new lease exceeded other city lease rates.

Neighborhood resident Anthony Malice asked why executive-session minutes and full contract exhibits had not been released before a vote and raised concern about a roughly $7.5 million figure that had circulated describing total payments or costs associated with the deal.

Representing the landlord, Attorney George Theodore said the building is a "special purpose" facility with a commercial kitchen and assembly spaces, and argued the rent level reflected those uses. "There is no escalation clause in this lease at all. It is a flat rent over a period of 15 years," Theodore said, noting the trust made concessions on term and other points.

City finance staff and legal counsel provided figures and cautions. CFO Baldwin told councilors the proposed rent is $504,000 a year and that a design study (Gale Associates) estimated immediate capital needs of about $1.85 million and total longer-term needs in the neighborhood of $7.8 million; amortized over 15 years at 4 percent, that would equate to roughly $700,000 a year in capital costs. Baldwin also said the city’s outstanding arrearage on the property stood at approximately $1,270,000.

Solicitor Williams emphasized legal risks about the property transfer language in the existing documents. "There is no explicit contractual term in the body of the lease. There is a reference in an exhibit — Exhibit B — in a footnote that says at the end of the 20 year period the property will be gifted back to the city," he said, adding that a footnote in an exhibit is legally weaker than a term in the deed or lease itself.

Several councilors said they were not comfortable voting without independent legal review or missing exhibits. Councilor Robinson urged the council to secure independent municipal counsel before any final decision, saying council members lacked sufficient information to make an informed choice tonight. Councilor McDonough pressed for clarity on who would be responsible for upkeep, particularly heating and common-area costs, if the city retained occupancy but not ownership.

The city manager and the administration defended the recommendation as the product of multiple executive-session discussions and budget analysis. "We were asked to put forward a 15-year lease," City Manager Golden said, adding that CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds could be used to pay rent for public facilities and that staff had consulted with federal program officers.

After public testimony and deliberations, the council voted on the motion to adopt the lease. The roll-call failed and the motion did not pass.

What’s next: The council left other related options on the table — including pursuing ownership or continuing negotiations — and several councilors called for additional documents, including the missing exhibits and an auditor’s memorandum, before revisiting any successor agreement.

By the council’s timetable, the item will not move forward tonight; councilors also voted separately on motions to seek independent municipal counsel to advise the council on real-estate and litigation questions (that motion was considered during debate).