Lowell council approves three-year extension to city manager contract after heated debate

The Lowell City Council voted Feb. 18 to amend and approve a three‑year extension of City Manager Tom Golden’s employment contract, a measure that prompted extended debate over timing, process and fiscal implications.

Councilors debated whether to negotiate the manager’s terms in public or in executive session before taking a roll-call vote. Councilor Murphy moved that the mayor enter negotiations with the city manager and council in executive session to discuss extending the contract; Councilor Young seconded. Councilors then offered amendments and discussed whether negotiating years or other terms on the open floor would constitute public bargaining. City Solicitor staff advised that amending strictly by years on the floor was permitted and that executive session remained an option.

The discussion centered on whether it was appropriate to extend a contract with roughly two years remaining. Councilor Mercia said Golden has assembled “the right people” and urged support, saying he has evaluated the manager “every time from the day he started till today.” Several other councilors, including Councilor Genes and Councilor Noon, said they valued Golden’s performance but opposed locking in a multi‑year extension while fiscal uncertainty remained at the state and federal level.

City Manager Tom Golden answered procedural and legal questions during the discussion and noted that the administration has been awarded grant funding and completed projects during his tenure. The city solicitor clarified later that extending a municipal employee’s contract to more than five years in total raised legal questions depending on start dates and terms; the solicitor said the question of total contract length would depend on the start date chosen for any extension.

Councilors then voted on an amendment to the original motion to add a three‑year extension. The roll call on the amendment recorded: Councilor Newton (No); Councilor Robinson (No); Mayor Roark (Yes); Councilor Scott (Yes); Councilor Yim (Yes); Councilor Belanger (Yes); Councilor Chao (Yes); Councilor Dakota (Yes); Councilor Gichia (No); Councilor Genes (No); Councilor Mercia (Yes). The amendment passed. On the motion as amended, the roll call recorded: Councilor Noon (No); Councilor Robinson (No); Mayor Roark (Yes); Councilor Scott (Yes); Councilor Yim (Yes); Councilor Belanger (Yes); Councilor Chao (Yes); Councilor Dakota (Yes); Councilor Gichia (No); Councilor Genes (No); Councilor Mercia (Yes). The motion as amended was approved.

Councilors who opposed the extension repeatedly said their objections were about timing and fiscal prudence rather than the manager’s competence. Councilor Noon and others cited uncertainty about future state and federal funding and questioned whether locking in extended compensation now was fiscally responsible. Councilor Mercia and other supporters pointed to recent grant awards and major projects — including grant funding secured for bridge and paving work — as reasons to retain continuity at the top.

The council also asked the solicitor and administration to clarify whether total contract length would exceed legal limits if the extension's start date caused a contract longer than five years; the solicitor said that if an extension would make the contract exceed five years in total, that raised issues to be addressed depending on the chosen start date.

The council took the votes in public session after the discussion. The motion directs the mayor to enter negotiations with the manager and council and was approved as amended to add a three‑year extension.