Council approves additional $36.19 million loan order for Lowell High School after debate over contingency and oversight

The Lowell City Council on Jan. 20 adopted a loan order to borrow $36,185,757 to cover additional costs on the Lowell High School project after a lengthy public hearing that blended resident questions, technical briefings from city finance staff and the project team, and extended council debate.

CFO Baldwin told the council the current loan order reduces several fees from the prior request and lowers contingency, explaining the difference between the earlier ~ $39.8 million request and the $36,185,757 before the council. “The loan order that’s in front of the council this evening for the public hearing is 36,185,757,” Baldwin said, and he outlined reductions in the owner’s project manager (OPM) fee and architect fee and a $3.25 million cut to contingency that together account for most of the change.

A public commentor, Theresa Roach, told the council she was not for or against the project but worried about tax impacts for seniors and residents on fixed incomes, asking whether figures cited (she referred to $63 annually) were “in perpetuity.” CFO Baldwin said the levy increase would be permanent until the debt was paid and estimated a roughly $72 annual increase for an average single‑family home assessed around $500,000 (the administration described this as debt service over a 30‑year period).

Councilors pressed the project team about uncovered problems in the oldest building on the campus (the 1892/Colvin building). Kevin Kane of Skanska, the owner’s project manager, said the team had discovered a structural condition that required review by Perkins Eastman’s structural engineer and that the project would provide updated findings within days. Kane said the construction manager and trade partners remain engaged to manage costs and that the team had reduced contingency and negotiated fee reductions where possible.

Several councilors expressed frustration at recurring cost increases and questioned retention of prior project personnel; others warned that delaying approval risked pausing work and causing cash‑flow problems. Manager Golden and project staff cautioned that restarting the loan order process would reset statutory public‑notice and referendum timelines and could take 4–8 weeks, creating a potential cash‑flow gap.

A motion to adopt the loan order and refer it to the clerk’s office for the required 20‑day period passed on a roll call (mover: Councilor Duran; second: Councilor Dakota). The roll call showed one recorded No vote from Councilor Robinson; the remainder voted Yes. The loan order will be posted in the clerk’s office and follow the statutory referral period before final appropriation steps.

What happens next: Officials said engineers and the project team will return to the council with updates on the 1892 building’s evaluation and any material budget impacts. The administration also committed to providing the council with a line‑item breakdown of the revised $36.2 million if requested.