Council pauses plans while nonprofit seeks access to inspect historic Smith Baker Center

A proposal by the nonprofit group Save the Smith Baker to inspect the interior of the Smith Baker Center prompted a lengthy debate at the Lowell City Council on March 4, 2025, touching on procurement fairness, HUD funding requirements and the building's structural and environmental condition.

The council debated a motion that would have allowed two representatives of Save the Smith Baker to enter the property for a city-led interior inspection if they supplied a one‑day insurance policy covering the visit. Councilor Dakota made the motion and Councilor Mercia seconded it. The motion initially passed during the public meeting, but later in the discussion councilors and the city solicitor raised concerns about giving potential bidders an appearance of an unfair advantage and about outstanding legal and funding questions. The proponent then withdrew the motion and the council did not adopt an alternative action that night.

Why it matters: the Smith Baker Center sits on property the city acquired with HUD funds; any change in ownership or use could trigger HUD repayment conditions. At the same time, community members and preservation advocates say allowing limited access could help the nonprofit assemble financing and a plan to preserve and reuse the building rather than see it demolished.

What happened in the meeting: Save the Smith Baker volunteers, including Dennis McCarthy and Christine (Chris) McCarron, described forming a nonprofit, raising donor money and seeking grants but said foundations and other funders generally require control of a property before they commit funds. McCarron said volunteers had raised “over six figures” in donations and sought access to inspect the interior so they could produce a reliable preservation plan for potential funders.

Council members and staff described several procedural and substantive constraints. City staff said the city has a hazardous-materials assessment underway and expects that report soon; they are also coordinating with MassDevelopment to obtain a real-estate technical-assistance review. City Manager Tom Golden said the city could run an assessment and that there may be only a matter of weeks before an RFP and HUD timelines require clearer direction.

City Solicitor Williams and other councilors flagged procurement and fairness issues: allowing a specific group inside before an RFP or while a vote to demolish remains on the books could create the appearance of an unfair advantage to a potential bidder. Williams explained the council’s procedural options — including a motion to rescind the demolition vote or a motion to table — and described timing and voting thresholds for rescinding or reconsidering prior actions.

Several councilors urged caution. Councilor Getchia (sometimes spelled Gichia in the record) and others said unrestricted access for one group could be legally problematic in a procurement context; Councilor Robinson and others pressed for clear proof that any transferee could stabilize and fund the building before ownership transferred. Other councilors said the group should be given “one last chance” to inspect the building before any demolition proceeds.

City staff update and next steps: the manager reported the city is running hazardous‑materials testing this week and expects results within one to two weeks; MassDevelopment is working on a real‑estate technical‑assistance review. Staff said they could run concurrent procurement paths but warned the council that at some date soon a choice would be required to move toward demolition or transfer/rehab. Councilors asked the solicitor to prepare guidance on how to avoid procurement unfairness and to explain the legal implications of rescinding the earlier demolition vote.

Community views: speakers emphasized the building’s historical and cultural value and said local groups are prepared to pursue an adaptive reuse plan if they can demonstrate control and a viable funding strategy. Nonprofit leaders said major foundations and programs would not fund a project without proven control or ownership.

Outcome and record: the council did not authorize the requested inspection that evening. The specific inspection motion (Councilor Dakota, seconded by Councilor Mercia) was initially passed and later withdrawn; councilors directed staff and the solicitor to report back with hazard and procurement guidance, and councilors discussed the possibility of rescinding the earlier vote to demolish the building at a future meeting.

Ending: Councilors and proponents agreed there is limited time to resolve funding and procurement questions. City staff committed to return with hazardous‑materials results and technical‑assistance findings and the solicitor agreed to advise the council on options to avoid procurement pitfalls and to clarify the legal path should the council choose to rescind or revisit its prior demolition vote.