By Lyle Moran
Lowell Sun
LOWELL, Mass. — As the city explores ways to provide assistance to the property owners forced in recent years to buy new fire-alarm boxes from one company, a former leader of a nonprofit agency impacted by the policy is offering what she believes would be a just solution.
Judy Blackburn, former executive director of the Merrimack River Valley House, says the city should repay property owners the difference between the cost of the alarm boxes they had to purchase and the cost to purchase the same equipment at a lower cost.
“There are a lot of businesses who were impacted, and they need to get rebates,” Blackburn said. “They were forced into paying more than they should have for the equipment.”
In 2010, the Merrimack River Valley House was told to purchase a new fire-alarm box from East Coast Security Services of Salem, N.H., for $2,475, as were owners of residential properties with 13 or more units.
The Fire Department’s directive in late 2009 and early 2010 was part of the city’s effort to get property owners to switch from alarm boxes connected to city dispatch via telegraph wires to a wireless system.
Blackburn told The Sun in 2010 that the nonprofit, 30-unit rest home for seniors could have purchased the same radio box from Mammoth Fire Alarms of Lowell for $1,100, but it did not do so because only East Coast was given the ability to hook up the boxes to dispatch.
Blackburn questioned the fairness and legality of the policy, but said she did not want to put her agency at odds with the Fire Department. Mammoth installed the East Coast box for the Merrimack River Valley House, which is on Fletcher Street.
The fire-alarm issue has come back into the spotlight in recent weeks because of two new developments, both of which Blackburn said have given her a measure of vindication.
First, this summer the city reversed its policy that property owners with 13 or more units had to directly connect to the city’s dispatch center, and instead said any of four state-approved alarm-signaling systems, such as a central-station monitoring, could be used.
The change came in the aftermath of a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling throwing out a Springfield ordinance similar to Lowell’s policy.
In August, The Sun revealed that the Inspector General’s Office determined in October that the city violated multiple bidding laws when it procured the new fire-alarm system and forced private-property owners to purchase the boxes from only one company.
The one-company requirement “completely obliterated price competition,” and East Coast charged far more than the $1,100 it cost to obtain the boxes, which was not advantageous to Lowell businesses and citizens, according to then-Inspector General Gregory Sullivan’s letter on the topic.
For the Merrimack River Valley House, the extra cost was one more financial challenge during a time when it was also paying for other life-safety upgrades.
“If you are a small nonprofit, it was one more thing you wished you did not have to cope with,” said Blackburn, who retired in the summer of 2011. “I do wish there would be restitution and appropriate reprimands of the parties responsible.
“It’s disturbing to think that a simple bidding process could have been so badly botched or that any city officials could have so little regard for local businesses,” she added.
At its most recent meeting late last month, the Lowell City Council unanimously passed a motion calling on the city administration to report back on how city businesses and property owners forced to buy new fire-alarm boxes from East Coast could be assisted.
City Councilor Rodney Elliott, who made the motion, suggested the city look into refunding the fee that property owners have paid the city to have their alarm boxes monitored. That fee is $275, according to city documents. City Manager Bernie Lynch has yet to formally respond to the approved council motion, but said in his weekly radio appearance on WCAP last week that he was “not really” considering the idea of reparations for impacted property owners.
“I don’t think they did overpay,” said Lynch, arguing that in another local community, property owners have to pay nearly $5,000 for fire-alarm boxes.
But City Councilor Rita Mercier, who was on the board of the Merrimack River Valley House when it purchased the more expensive alarm box, said Sunday she wants Lynch and his administration to adhere to the council’s request for assistance to impacted property owners.
Mercier said she is troubled that the businesses, who pay the higher commercial tax rate, were negatively impacted by the way the city handled the fire-alarm procurement.
“I think an injustice occurred to the businesses, and that’s what the inspector general wrote,” Mercier said. “I don’t know why we would want to hurt the people that pay the most in taxes.”
Mercier said she thought Elliott’s suggestion about refunding the monitoring fees is a good one, but also said the city should consider the larger refunds for the boxes Blackburn has proposed.
It remains unclear how many property owners were impacted by the city’s one-company policy.
Lynch and his administration have yet to respond to the approved council motion from Aug. 14 calling for a report on how many properties with 13 or more units have purchased East Coast alarm boxes since they were mandated, and how many held out.
Copyright 2012 MediaNews Group, Inc.
All Rights Reserved