When the Mayor presents a budget number for education spending, and when the School Department reports its spending to the state, those two figures are not always the same. That gap can confuse residents, School Committee members, and even elected officials. At the center of that confusion is a mechanism called chargebacks — and understanding how they work is essential to understanding how Methuen, and really every district, funds public schools.

What Is a Chargeback?

A chargeback is a city expenditure made on behalf of the School Department that gets counted as education spending. These are not line items in the School Department's own budget. Instead, they are costs the City of Methuen pays directly, through services provided by other city departments, that are then attributed to the schools when reporting to the state.

Examples include the School Department's share of the City Auditor's office (which no longer exists), the Treasurer/Tax Collector's office, contributions to the city's retirement system, group health insurance, building insurance premiums, and the cost of School Resource Officers provided by the Police Department.

None of these dollars flow through the School Department's budget. But under Massachusetts law, they count toward what is called Net School Spending. Net School Spending is the minimum amount a municipality is required to spend on education each year which is set by the Commonwealth.

Why Does This Create Confusion?

When the Mayor announces a school budget number, that figure typically reflects what is appropriated directly to the School Department, net and non-net spending. Chargebacks are handled separately, through city departmental budgets, and are often not part of that public conversation.

When Methuen reports its education spending to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) at the end of each fiscal year, chargebacks are included in that total. This means the number residents hear in budget season and the number reported to the state can look quite different… not because of any error, but because they are measuring different things.

Lately, you've heard conversation about the $114M funding number the Mayor allocated to the schools. This breaks down to about $103M net school spending and $11M non-net spending (transportation costs, mostly). The difference between our required net school spending of about $124M and the current $103M is the total of the chargebacks.

This distinction matters. Net School Spending compliance is a legal requirement in Massachusetts. Meeting it, or failing to, has real consequences for the district.

The Agreement Behind the Chargebacks

The specific services and percentages that make up Methuen's chargebacks are governed by a formal agreement between the Mayor and the Superintendent. The document on file is titled Agreement on City of Methuen Expenditures for the Methuen School Department, and it covers fiscal years 2019 through 2021.

That agreement, now several years past its intended review period, was supposed to be revisited every three years, prior to the budget development process. By multiple accounts, a revised version has been sitting with the City's Chief Administrative and Finance Officer (CAFO) since at least January of this year, awaiting action.

You can see that document here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10a7KR0tzZm0TJ-S8gMGKM6_BoKYrzbf-/view?usp=drivesdk

The stakes of an outdated agreement are practical, not just procedural. Former School Committee members and current committee members have noted that the existing document does not accurately reflect the current reality: there are services listed in the agreement that the School Department no longer uses, and services the School Department does use that are not captured in the agreement. Until the document is updated, the formula used to calculate chargebacks, and therefore net school spending, may not reflect what is actually happening on the ground.

Who Is Responsible?

Ultimately, the agreement requires sign-off from both the Mayor and the Superintendent, as the signatures on the current document reflect. In practice, the work of developing and maintaining it is a collective effort involving the Superintendent, the Mayor's office, and the CAFO.

The agreement's own language requires it be reviewed every three years, prior to the budget development process. The current document expired after FY21. That means Methuen has been operating under a chargeback agreement that is, by its own terms, overdue for revision while budget season comes and goes each year.

What Residents Should Know

Chargebacks are not unusual. Most Massachusetts municipalities use a similar mechanism to account for shared city-school services. The state's own guidance provides methodology for how these costs should be calculated and reported.

But the accuracy of that accounting depends on the underlying agreement being current and correct. An outdated agreement creates risk, not necessarily of wrongdoing, but of miscalculation. Services that have changed, costs that have shifted, and arrangements that no longer exist can all distort the final number reported to DESE. A finding from DESE that we missed our Net School Spending could cause serious issues for the City in terms of oversight and funds received.

For residents trying to evaluate whether Methuen is adequately funding its schools, understanding chargebacks is a necessary first step. The headline budget number is only part of the picture. The full picture includes what the city spends on the schools' behalf, and whether the agreement governing that spending actually reflects today's reality.

At a recent Methuen School Committee meeting, Mayor Beauregard said something that no mayor in this city has said before. Facing a vote on the school budget he had proposed, he told the committee exactly what he thought of it:

“I am not voting tonight on something I think is good. I’m not in favor of it. If I weren’t the mayor and didn’t have a fiduciary obligation to submit a balanced budget to the council, I would be voting no. I’d probably be wearing a red shirt right now on the other side of this podium.

Given the position that I am in, I have to present a balanced budget to the council. I have to make that very difficult choice. I would love to join you, I truly would, but I can’t.”

That honesty deserves genuine credit. The mayor said the quiet thing out loud, in a public meeting. This is something that the ongoing Charter Review Committee opted to ignore in the revamp of our Charter and how the structure of Methuen’s government. The simple fact is that the roles of mayor and school committee member are fundamentally in conflict and no person can serve both faithfully at the same time. He was right. And his candor makes the case for a reform that Methuen’s Charter Review Committee should act on.

How We Got Here: A Short History

To understand why the mayor chairs the school committee, it helps to trace how the charter arrived at that arrangement, because it was not always this way and it did not happen by accident.

Methuen’s original Home Rule Charter, effective in 1978, put a city council member on the school committee as its seventh seat. That experiment did not last long. In 1981, Methuen voters eliminated the appointed council seat and replaced it with a sixth elected at-large member, leaving the committee fully elected and fully independent.[1]

That arrangement held for fifteen years. Then, in 1993, Methuen made its most significant governance change in decades: it converted from a town manager form of government to an elected mayor. The position of mayor was new to Methuen in the modern era, and with it came questions about how the mayor would relate to the school committee.[2]

The answer came in 1996. The city council passed Resolution #3745, which was submitted to the General Court as a home rule petition. The legislature enacted it as Chapter 148 of the Acts and Resolves of 1996. Methuen voters ratified it at a special election that November. The new law rewrote Article 4, Section 4-1(a) of the charter to read that the mayor shall serve as the seventh member of the school committee and shall also serve as the chairman thereof with full power to vote.[3]

In plain English: the voters, in 1996, amended their own charter to give the newly created mayor a seat at the table and the gavel. The stated rationale at the time appears to have been coordination: a mayor who was also committee chair could better align the school budget with the city’s overall fiscal plan. The logic was that tighter executive involvement would reduce the friction between city hall and the school department.

Nearly thirty years of experience suggests the opposite has been true. What the 1996 amendment created was not coordination but a structural conflict, one that Mayor Beauregard himself has now publicly acknowledged.

What the Charter Actually Says

The current charter makes the mayor not just a member of the school committee but its presiding officer a.k.a the Chair. Under Article 4, Section 4-2, the chair prepares the agenda for every meeting, presides and decides all questions of order, and appoints every member of every school committee subcommittee, standing or special.[4] The six elected members of the committee can vote, but the mayor sets the agenda, controls the floor, and determines who sits on every subcommittee that does the committee’s detailed work. This does not happen today. The superintendent’s office controls the agenda with input from the whole body and subcommittees are voted appointments.

The mayor is also, under Article 6 of the charter, the officer who submits the school department’s budget to the city council as part of the overall municipal budget.[5] The school committee submits its request to the mayor first, and the mayor then decides what to present to the council.[6] The council can reduce that figure but, except on the mayor’s own recommendation, cannot increase it. Althrough, the functional reality is that the School Committee and School Administration sit ideally by waiting for a mayor to provide a budget number.

The mayor thus controls the budget at every stage: receiving the committee’s request, deciding what to forward to the council, and presiding over the committee that is supposed to advocate for the schools.

That is the structure Mayor Beauregard described when he said he could not vote his conscience because of the position he holds. He was not complaining about a bad situation. He was accurately describing the architecture of a conflict that the charter built in.

The Mayor Should Not Vote

The mayor’s remarks raise a question that goes beyond the chairmanship: should the mayor be a voting member of the school committee at all?

Standard governance practice treats conflicts of interest as disqualifying for specific votes. A board member with a financial stake in a decision is expected to recuse themselves. The mayor of Methuen has a direct structural stake in every school budget vote, because the mayor is the official who proposed the budget and who is legally responsible for submitting a balanced plan to the city council. When the mayor votes to approve the budget, it is a self-ratifying act. When the mayor votes against it, as he indicated he wished he could do, it would be a mayor publicly repudiating his own fiscal edict.

Mayor Beauregard essentially issued a public recusal statement from the table. He told the committee he wished he could vote differently but could not because of the position he holds. The logical conclusion of his own statement is that the position he holds is incompatible with the vote he is being asked to cast. If the mayor himself recognizes that, the charter should reflect it.

What the Charter Review Committee Should Do (Should Have Done)

Methuen’s Charter Review Committee presented its near-final draft at a public hearing on April 9, 2026.[7] That draft does not propose any substantive changes to Article 4. The mayor remains the seventh member, the president, and a full voting member of the school committee.[8]

That is a missed opportunity and, frankly, a big mistake. Most Massachusetts cities and towns that have school committees do not give the mayor a seat or a gavel. The Massachusetts Association of School Committee’s own guidance notes that in most communities the committee elects its own officers, and that the mayoral chairmanship is an exception rather than the rule.[9] Methuen created this exception in 1996 for reasons that made sense in theory but have not worked in practice.

The fix the committee should/should have recommend(ed) is straightforward: amend Article 4 to remove the mayor as a member and presiding officer of the school committee. The Mayor’s role at the School Committee table should be the same as his role at the City Council table. Both bodies, the School Committee and the City Council, are legislative bodies and to treat them differently is a double standard in the city's governing document and one that gives the mayor a vote over the schools that he is explicitly denied over the other legislative body of city government. That power should belong to someone whose only obligation is to the committee’s educational mission.

Taking the Mayor at His Word

Mayor Beauregard did something genuinely valuable at that meeting. He named the conflict honestly and publicly in a way that invites a real conversation about the structure of governance in this city. The right response from the charter review committee would be to not to let this moment pass unremarked. If the mayor believes enough to make such a public statement regarding how the structure places him in an impossible position, the structure should be reexamined.

The 1996 amendment that created this arrangement was approved by voters. Removing it will also require voter approval. The Charter Review Committee’s job is to recommend what should go on the ballot. Mayor Beauregard, from the seat of the Chair of the School Committee, has already made the case for putting this question before the people of Methuen.

Sources

[1] Methuen Home Rule Charter, Article 4, Section 4-1(a). Chapter 148 of the Acts and Resolves of 1996, enacted by the General Court and accepted by Methuen voters November 5, 1996.

[2] Methuen Home Rule Charter, Article 4, Section 4-2(b). The charter vests in the President the power to prepare agendas, preside at all meetings, decide all questions of order, and appoint all committee members, standing or special.

[3] Methuen Home Rule Charter (as amended), Article 4, Section 4-1(a) and Section 4-2. Under the current charter the mayor is both seventh member and President. The 2026 Charter Review Committee draft (HRC_CLEAN.pdf, April 9, 2026 public hearing) retains this structure unchanged.

[4] The Boston Globe, “Methuen mayor, School Committee divided over district budget,” June 13, 2025.

[5] CBS Boston / WBZ-TV, “Methuen, Massachusetts struggling to close $9.6M school budget gap,” May 2025.

[6] Methuen Home Rule Charter, Article 6, Section 6-3. The school committee submits its budget to the mayor at least 30 days before the mayor submits the overall city budget to the city council.

[7] Methuen Home Rule Charter, Article 4, Section 4-7(a); Article 6, Section 6-4. The city council adopts the budget, but may not increase any line item except on recommendation of the mayor.

[8] Eagle Tribune, “Public hearing on charter changes April 9,” March 26, 2026. The article describes the proposed charter overhaul and notes the IT consolidation dispute as a motivating example of inter-departmental conflict.

[9] Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Member Handbook. The MASC notes that in some cities the mayor presides as chairman of the school committee, while in most communities the committee elects its own officers.

Central District City Councilor Yanilda Santos appeared in Salem, NH court this morning to face the DUI charge stemming from her January arrest, and left with a plea deal that keeps a DUI off her record but not without consequences.

Prior to trial, Santos' attorney negotiated an agreement with the District Attorney's office. She had a lot working in her favor… mainly that was her first offense and she has no record prior.

Santos pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of reckless driving and will pay a fine. She had already completed a safe driving course ahead of the court date. In addition to the fine, two months were added onto the six-month license suspension she already received for refusing the breathalyzer at the scene bringing her total suspension to eight months which started back immediately following the arrest.

Contrary to popular belief and comments circulating on social media, the breathalyzer refusal suspension and subsequent additional 2 months is not limited to New Hampshire. Former Salem, NH prosecutor Jason Grosky weighed in on the case via Facebook, clarifying what the cross-state impact looks like for a Massachusetts resident like Santos:

"NH suspends the right to operate, then notifies the Mass RMV. Mass will then impose a reciprocal license suspension and not reinstate the license til all NH requirements are satisfied and NH reinstates the right to operate here."

In other words, Santos will not be able to legally drive in Massachusetts either until she has fully satisfied New Hampshire's requirements and her driving privileges are restored there first.

For background on the original arrest, [read our earlier report here:

https://www.insidemethuen.com/p/central-district-council-arrested

Now that the case is closed, one question remains open: what was worth redacting?

When we submitted a Right to Know request for the police records from that night, what came back was redacted with no statutory exemptions cited to justify it. We formally pushed back, requesting either the unredacted records or a legal explanation for each redaction.

Salem responded on March 9th… not with answers, but with a two-page letter citing a broad range of possible exemptions, from personal identifying information and CJIS restrictions, to body camera footage rules and crime victim privacy protections, and asked for up to 90 more days to respond.

The letter doesn't tell us what was redacted or why. It tells us what could justify a redaction… which is a different thing entirely.

The case being settled doesn't make that question go away. It may be nothing. There may be a perfectly routine explanation for every blacked-out line. But under New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, the burden is on the government to say so and they haven't. We'll keep asking.

The city is in the middle of a budget crisis that, if we are being honest with ourselves, we all knew was coming 2 budget cycles ago. The warnings were there two years ago. The revenue trends were visible. The structural gaps between what Methuen spends and what it takes in were not a secret hidden in the CAFOs drawer. They were hiding in plain sight. And yet, here we are with Emmy-winning performances for acting surprised

.

What follows is not an attempt to assign blame to any single person or administration. I feel like I’ve made it clear that this current administration has done more than earlier to help drive education specifically… but I will admit it still has its faults. It is something harder and more useful: an accounting of the tools we had available and did not use, and an argument that the path forward requires a different kind of discipline than we have shown.

What We Could Have Done and Did Not

Let us start with department restructuring. There was a moment, and there still is though the window is narrowing, where a serious look at how the city deploys its Police, Fire, DPW, and School (but it’s really too late for schools at this point) and other departments resources could have produced real savings. The only genuine attempt was an executive order on IT consolidation, and it was dead on arrival, not because the idea was wrong, but because of how it was delivered. There were also some early efforts to connect DPW with the schools on outside maintenance, a reasonable idea, but it materialized largely as a reaction to school conditions and short-staffing problems rather than as a proactive efficiency play. That is the difference between strategy and scrambling.

Then there is the grant question. A dedicated grant writer, hired at the start of FY26, could realistically be generating new revenue right now, federal and state dollars that could be dedicated to specific programs, freeing up municipal funds for the operating and personnel budgets where the pressure is greatest. Grant writing is not glamorous. It does not generate headlines. But money is money, and we left it on the table. To the mayor’s credit, they posted the position and nobody wanted the job. Personally, I can’t say that I blame them. Methuen hasn’t exactly created the most welcoming atmosphere. But running with our theme of honesty and retrospective … this was still 2 years too late and the pivot that’s occurring now could have occurred much earlier and it could have been a body in the chair at the beginning of the fiscal year.

On economic development: the city has finally started looking seriously at zoning. That is good. It is also late. A structured commercial attraction campaign, a real blitz with targeted outreach, incentive packages, and a clear pitch, could have been in motion two years ago when the fiscal forecast first turned worrying. We knew the day was coming. The urgency simply was not there yet, so the urgency did not come. To be clear, I’m not talking about more housing. We need to be targeting more business to grow our commercial tax base. The commercial tax base in Methuen hovers around 12 to 14% but all reputable sources suggested should be up in the mid mid high twenties.

The Longer List of Missed Opportunities

Beyond those headline failures, there is a longer list of tools that never made it off the shelf:

• Fee schedule audits. Many municipalities have not updated permit, licensing, or inspection fees in years. That is uncollected revenue sitting in a drawer. These departments should not be operating at the margin they do.

• Tax delinquency collection push. Money already owed to the city, unpaid taxes, fees, and fines, could have been systematically recovered.

• Shared services with neighboring communities. Splitting costs on specialized staff, dispatch, or heavy equipment does not require a merger. It requires a phone call and a will to cooperate.

• Monetizing underutilized assets. Surplus land (which admittedly we don’t have much of), unused municipal buildings (most of which are falling apart or in decrepit repair), billboard and cell tower leases represent real value sitting idle. With all of the miles of highways running through Methuen, there was an opportunity for expansion here.

• Multi-year budget forecasting. A three-year projection model would have made the FY27 problem visible and actionable in FY25, when there was still room to maneuver.

• Zero-based budgeting in select departments. Rather than rolling last year’s numbers forward, forcing even one or two departments to justify every line from scratch often surfaces savings that routine budgeting never finds.

• Early retirement incentives. A cohort of higher-salaried employees eligible to retire, given a structured incentive, can reduce payroll costs while creating room to right-size or hire at lower salary levels. To the mayor’s credit, he tried to bring this forward and it appears to have died on the vine courtesy of the council.

• Business retention programs. Losing an anchor business is often more financially damaging than failing to recruit a new one. Methuen has no formal program to prevent it.

The Real Problem Is Not the Budget. It Is the Clock.

None of the items above are exotic or untested. They are standard tools of municipal fiscal management. The reason they were not deployed is not ignorance. It is timing. Budget crises have a way of compressing time until the only options left are the bad ones: cuts to services people rely on, tax increases that hit residents who are already stretched, or deferred maintenance that turns today’s savings into tomorrow’s capital crisis. This should be our new city motto because it’s what we have been doing for decades.

Effective fiscal planning is, at its core, a discipline of acting before you have to. The city knew two years ago that this day was coming. What was missing was not information. It was the institutional will to treat a future problem with the same urgency as a present one.

What Comes Next

The FY27 budget will get passed. It will be painful. Some version of cuts, revenue increases, or both will happen, and the community will absorb it. That part is inevitable now. … Unless the state steps up at some point in the very near future to help Methuen and the numerous other communities suffering.

What is not yet determined is whether FY28 looks the same. The city has an opportunity right now, in the middle of this crisis, to put in place the structures that prevent the next one. Multi-year forecasting. A grant writer. A real economic development strategy tied to zoning reform. Shared services agreements with neighboring communities. Fee and delinquency audits. These are not transformational ideas. They are basic competencies that cities our size should have as a matter of course.

The question for the council, the mayor’s office, and frankly for the residents who elect them, is simple: will this budget season be a turning point, or will it be a rehearsal for the same crisis in three years? If history teaches us anything… we already know the answer to this but I am choosing to have faith in the Mayor for now.

Methuen deserves a budget process that starts 24 months early, not 24 days early. It is time to build one.

Full agenda with attachments: Here
Recording of Meeting on Youtube: Here

The Council met Monday night for its regular May meeting. All members were present and accounted for which made the crowd composed of largely senior citizens happy. The agenda was amended early by request of Councilor Simard who motioned to move the tipping fee transfer up to immediately follow the Mayor’s Report, as he knew that is why everyone was there. This was seconded by Valley, and that passed unanimously. A moment of silence was observed for a member of the community connected to the Pesce family and Councilor Santos offered words of wisdom. There was no mention of God, for those keeping track.

Public Participation

The themes were consistent: trash, accountability, and the expectation that elected officials show up and do the job.

Cornelius Smith identified himself as a business owner and equipment operator. He wants city equipment liquidated rather than left sitting in the DPW yard where it will, in his words, turn to junk and get stripped.

Linda Borngruino took a quick shot at absent councilors from the last meeting and called for them to respect the Mayor’s time, do their jobs, or resign. She called them a disgrace.

Barbara Ell echoed the same sentiment: step down if you won’t show up.

Dottie Pepe kept it personal. “I’m disappointed.” She acknowledged that everyone is busy, but pointed out that public housing residents are dealing with trash problems severe enough to attract rats, and invited councilors to come see the mess for themselves. “You wanted this job to make a difference. Be here.”

Debra Ward asked the Council to consider residents who can’t manage their own trash without support.

Steven Tarpino addressed the ongoing pickleball court situation, citing noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. He referenced other communities wrestling with the same issue and suggested this could end up in court.

Linda Soucy asked everyone — including on social media — to take a step back. Stop assigning blame. Focus on getting things done. She called for a social media pause to reset the tone. A reasonable ask.

Kathy Woekel came with receipts — literally. She read from SeeClickFix messages documenting a guardrail issue and made clear she is not impressed with that platform’s interface. To put it mildly.

Lisa Gomez has done considerable trash cleanup work on her own. She’s fed up with Harvey and the ongoing failure to pick up large, illegally dumped items behind her home.

Jack Burke addressed the nepotism ordinance. His critique was substantive: the ordinance is flawed. It lacks consequences, has no complaint procedure, no investigation authority, and doesn’t apply to school department hiring. He also didn’t acknowledge that the stated goal of the ordinance was to address the summer jobs issue specifically. Still, the structural critique stands.

Dan Thibault said he’s embarrassed by the trash situation and doesn’t want to keep cleaning up after the trash company, but he’s worried about what happens if it doesn’t get resolved.

Organizational Business

Councilor Soto made a statement about meeting access and then suggested the Mayor, not the Council, called the meeting that 3 members missed.

This was vaguely stated at best and intentionally misleading at worst. The Chair runs the Council’s meeting schedule, not the Mayor. The Mayor may request a meeting but the Chair approves and schedules. It’s in the council rules and procedures. The Mayor can’t force the council to meet.

Minutes

Valley objected to the approval of the minutes and moved to include a statement made by the Chair to the Mayor in the minutes from the April 21 meeting. Seconded by Santos. Passed unanimously.

A note on the minutes in general: they are not statutorily required to be verbatim and rarely add meaningful value to the public record.

Appointments

Kevin Barry — Promoted to Deputy Fire Chief

Moved by Pesce, seconded by DiZoglio. The Fire Chief recommended Barry. The position is budgeted. Councilor Drew confirmed the promotion structure is set by the union contract as it requires how many of each position need to be on each shift. Soto asked about the chain of command; the Chief explained the lieutenant-to-deputy pathway, with the lieutenant's appointment coming to the Council at a future meeting. Passed unanimously.

Mayor’s Report

The Mayor covered a lot of ground:

PACE Massachusetts: on the agenda later tonight (and covered below).

Special Education / Out-of-District Spending: The Mayor announced an RFP for a targeted review of out-of-district special ed spending systems. He was clear: this is not a discontinuation of services. It’s a review. The out-of-district cost is $18 million in FY26. One school placement alone runs $3.5 million for 13 students. The Constellation program, which would bring some of those services in-house, carries a $2.7 million startup cost with no guaranteed savings. There is also an option on the table to explore becoming a school choice district.

DiZoglio asked whether Branch Street could be used to pursue grants for in-house special ed. The Mayor confirmed it’s being explored through the Constellation program.

Health Insurance: The city is running at a 110% loss ratio. For every dollar collected, $1.10 goes out in claims, he explained. The Mayor is advocating for a resolution that would allow the administration to explore other options stating “the status quo isn’t working. Councilor Drew asked why GIC is being pushed when employees are clearly pushing back. The Mayor acknowledged a 2019 analysis projected $3 million in savings under GIC and said an updated analysis is needed. Drew also asked about the historical health insurance trust fund funding patterns. The Mayor acknowledged the city has consistently run over budget on health costs and that planning a budget overrun into the budget itself creates its own problems as it’s uncapped, uncontrollable, and unpredictable with any accuracy.

Economic Development / Zoning: The Mayor announced work with a team to revisit and revise the city’s zoning ordinance, noting Methuen has one of the lowest commercial tax rates in the region. Councilor Marsan asked to be included on the team. Done.

Other announcements: School Committee member Baez was recognized for organizing a job fair. Congresswoman Trahan will visit the Arlington neighborhood on Wednesday and an arts and music festival is scheduled for May 14th at the Senior Center.

Tipping Fees: TR-26-45 (As Amended)

A Resolution Authorizing a Transfer of $850,000 from Free Cash to DPW Solid Waste Disposal Expenses

If you’ve been following the trash saga, you know the backstory. This transfer was needed to cover tipping fees for the remainder of FY26 after the line item was underfunded in the budget. It failed on April 21. It came back tonight and the crowd came for it.

On reconsideration: Moved by Drew, seconded by Simard. The City Solicitor initially characterized this as a second read upon reconsideration. The Mayor disagreed agruing a failed vote doesn’t count as a first read, so this required an Emergency Preamble Authorization (EPA). The Solicitor ultimately agreed the Mayor was right.

DiZoglio invited a Harvey representative to the podium. The rep clarified that Harvey never said they would stop trash pickup and that they found out about that claim on social media. DiZoglio asked about the extra barrels situation and the inconsistency in fee payments. The Harvey rep estimated approximately 4,500 extra barrels are out in the city.

The Mayor pushed back on that number: those 4,500 barrels cover both trash and recycling, and the city doesn’t charge for recycling. The trash ordinance also has no language about cart renewal, which he said needs to be corrected. He also confirmed the city is not past due on invoices, a fact Valley confirmed with Harvey directly.

Councilor Drew, clearly frustrated, cut through the back-and-forth: the issue tonight is moving $850,000 into the account to pay the bill. Whatever isn’t spent comes back to free cash. Just vote. Spoiler aler… They didn’t. The conversation continued to sway in and out of relevance to the point of the resolution at hand for a while longer.

Councilor Marsan didn’t want to take the full amount from free cash but couldn’t identify an alternative and talked in circles without making an amendment while stating he would like an amendment. It was interesting.

Councilor Pesce then became a dancer partner for Councilor Marsan’s circle dance but eventually moved to amend the resolution to add language mirroring TR-26-48 which sets up a requirement for a monthly report to the Council on actions taken and invoices paid. Seconded by Drew. CAFO confirmed she can work with that. Amendment passed unanimously. It took her a bit to get there but ultimately this was a good play.

Main motion as amended — EPA required. Pesce asked what the risk was if the EPA failed. The Mayor asked the Council to just do it. Both the EPA and the amended resolution passed unanimously.

Worth noting: Santos voted no on reconsideration but yes on the final vote. Make of that what you will.

CAFO Report

The CAFO walked through how tonnage and trash billing projections work at the request of Chair Soto. This has been discussed now at 2 past meetings but she was only present for one of them. Councilor Valley asked about a grant-funded position. No major developments and nothing really noteworthy.

Requests of Councilors

Quick status updates on outstanding items:

• Echo Lane Sewer Connection: Proposal requested. Mayor has a timeline in an email and will share it.

• Oakland Avenue Bridge: Inspection report received; repairs to come from CIP. No change from last meeting.

• Public Safety Buildings / DPW Feasibility Study: No update.

• New Trash Barrel Order: Arrived. Distribution is ongoing.

• Barrel Fee Collection (Years 2, 3, 4): No update provided.

• Lowell and East Capitol Street Construction: Paving expected by end of May; final paving scheduled for August.

• Parks and Buildings Audit RFPs: Parked until after the budget season.

• Pickleball Court Concerns: Still in subcommittee. Mayor said he’s all ears.

• 2-Hour Downtown Parking (DiZoglio): Chief MacNamara wasn’t present; tabled for now. DiZoglio noted this is about downtown employees and salon clients whose appointments run longer than two hours.

• Lowell Street Bridge: Flagged by DiZoglio for further discussion.

• Swan and Jackson Street Sign: New request tonight. Perry had a quote. Just needs a funding source.

On pickleball: what was supposed to be a brief update turned into a 20-plus minute off-agenda discussion involving the entire council, the Recreation Director, and public comment from a representative of the neighborhood residents who left disappointed. Councilor Drew shared that changes are being explored that include adjusted hours, a reservation system for all six courts, and silent paddles, all of which were apparently decided 45 minutes before the meeting at the Subcommittee meeting. A discussion around a sound study being needed before anything is finalized. The mayor wants to talk to Recreation Director Angelo before any decisions are made. Councilor Pesce asked whether alternative locations have been explored (they haven’t) and whether courts can be limited to Methuen residents (they can).

None of this was on the agenda. The Requests of Councilors section is not the place for substantive policy deliberation. This discussion, given the level of engagement it received, was almost certainly an open meeting law violation.

Other Officers and Committee Reports

• Simard on Veterans: Four applications received for the VSO position.

• Marsan Economic development: subcommittee discussed zoning, ADUs, and planning/permitting with Merrimack Valley Planning.

• Drew Parks: No further update from subcommittee.

Old Business

TR-25-75 (Cooper Lane as a Public Way): Tabled for a joint meeting.

TR-26-42: Seasonal Restroom Policy for Non-City Use of Athletic Fields. Moved by Valley, seconded by Pesce. Recreation Director Angelo was aware of the original complaint that prompted this. This was a second read do there was no real conversation. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-43: Transfer of $42,500 to Fund Grant Writing Services. Moved by Pesce, seconded by Santos. The Mayor confirmed grant writing services are fully funded in the FY27 budget and this contract will come back to the Council for approval once a vendor is selected. Valley was concerned $42,500 isn’t enough; the Mayor noted it’s consistent with what Haverhill spends (~$150K annually). This was also a second read do there was no real conversation. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-44: Transfer of $40,000 from Free Cash to Fund Payroll Processing. Moved by Valley, seconded by Santos. Another second read with no discussion. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-46: Acceptance of $75,000 Brownfields Redevelopment Fund Grant from MassDevelopment. Moved by Valley, seconded by Santos. Valley asked what happens if the property is sold and the CAFO confirmed the funds would be returned. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-47: Letter of Support for the State Auditor’s Audit of the Legislature (Question 1). Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

TO-26-13 (Nepotism Ordinance Amendment): This was awkward. Everyone around the table sat with their heads down as the Chair called for her beloved nepo resolution. No one moved it off the table. It stays.

The photo below shows this from minute mark 4:12:55 of the youtube recording.

New Business

TR-26-49: PACE Massachusetts (Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy)

A representative from the program explained how it works: no public funds are used; financing is attached to the property and repaid through a tax assessment the city collects and remits to PACE. Minimum project size is $250,000; there is no cap (creditworthiness is the limit). Drew confirmed no public funds are at risk and asked the CAFO if the city can administer the lien collection and she said yes. Marsan asked about marketing materials for local businesses; the Mayor confirmed they’re attached to the agenda. Passed unanimously.

TO-26-11: Pest Control Ordinance for Demolition, Site Clearing, and Commercial Waste

Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos. DiZoglio has been working on this since February with the Health Department. Health Director Caeli gave background: ongoing issues with new developments, where builders commit to pest control measures and don’t follow through. Councilor Simard asked about recourse for past violations. Passed unanimously.

The Bottom Line

Tonight’s meeting had real business… the tipping fee transfer got done, PACE passed, the pest control ordinance moved forward, and several transfers were cleaned up. The Barry promotion sailed through without drama.

What didn’t work: the pickleball discussion hijacked the Requests of Councilors section for well over 20 minutes without being on the agenda, a neighborhood gets no real answers or even clear path forward, and Councilor Soto’s procedural statement early in the meeting got the basic facts wrong about who calls a regular meeting.

The tipping fee vote, unanimous in the end, was the right outcome. Getting there took longer than it needed to. Councilor Drew had it right from the beginning: move the money, pay the bill, return whatever’s left to free cash. It really is that simple.

The live agenda with backup attachments is available at cityofmethuen.net. Inside Methuen is an independent local publication. Corrections and updates welcome.

Watch live at methuen.gov/livestream | Channel 8 (Comcast) or Channel 32 (Verizon) | YouTube: youtube.com/@MethuenMeetings

Full agenda: View the May 4, 2026 Agenda

It’s hard to keep up with life, never mind the political circus Methuen keeps running. You have stuff to do... we know that. The City Councilors know too. Here is your quick breakdown of the upcoming Council meeting agenda and cliffnotes on why it’s important.

The more you know, the more you can plan your time, your comments, and be effective.

Procedural Opening

They all start the same way:

• Roll call

• Acceptance of the agenda

• Pledge of Allegiance, invocation, moment of silence,

• Public participation,

• Acceptance of minutes from the April 21 meeting.

Same as always. Public participation is your time. Step up if something on this agenda moves you. There is plenty to be moved by tonight.

Something I noticed while looking at the agenda is that there is nothing for proclamation. I’m curious to see if the Council surprises us with one.

Appointments

Kevin Barry Promoted to Deputy Fire Chief

View backup document

This one is straightforward and well-earned. Kevin Barry is a lifelong Methuen resident with over 22 years in the Fire Department. He was promoted to Lieutenant in 2023, served as union president for six years, and has been stationed at the East End Station for most of his career. Fire Chief David Toto is recommending him without reservation. He also sits at number one on the Civil Service certification list for this position, meaning the process was competitive and above board. This should sail through.

I don’t know Mr. Barry and this is in no way a reflection on him but the question the Council SHOULD BE asking is “do we really need a deputy chief?” We are looking at massive layoffs across the City but here we are promoting someone. Is this a good time to think about starting a restructuring? Maybe one of them reads this and asks the question….

Mayor’s Report

Usually, the mayor’s report is run down of upcoming events, things going on, and the councilors’ questions (listed below).

Several carry-over requests from the last meeting are back. Some of these are waste of time questions as they are projects that will take months if not years and could be brought up less consistently.

• Echo Lane Sewer Connection (Councilor Valley): Still no timeline for residents waiting on this sewer project. The fact that it is back on the agenda means DPW has not given a clear answer yet.

• Oakland Avenue Bridge State Report (Councilor Santos): The state inspection report on this bridge has been requested twice now. It should exist. Where is it?

• Police/Fire/DPW Building Feasibility Study (Councilor Santos): Also a repeat. These buildings are aging and the city knows it. Santos keeps asking for a status update on the feasibility study. These things move slowly in government, but at some point, “it’s moving” needs to become something more specific.

• New Trash Barrel Delivery (Councilor Drew): When are the barrels arriving and how will they be distributed?

• Second and Third Trash Bin Fees (Councilor Marsan): Are residents actually being billed in years two, three, and four for extra bins? How many extra bins are out there? This is a revenue question the city should be able to answer quickly.

• Lowell and East Capitol Street Construction (Councilor Marsan): Another repeat. When does work resume and when does it end?

• Parks Audit RFP and Buildings Audit RFP (Councilor Drew): Are these formal requests for proposals out the door yet? The city committed to auditing its parks and buildings. This is asking if the paperwork to get that done has actually been filed.

• Pickleball Court Concerns (Councilors Pesce and Drew): No further details are in the agenda, but this has clearly become a point of community tension. Expect some back-and-forth.

• Downtown 2-Hour Parking (Councilor DiZoglio): A request to Chief MacNamara asking whether the 2-hour parking limit downtown should be reconsidered in favor of something more flexible. A good question for downtown businesses.

• Lowell Street Bridge Revitalization (Councilor DiZoglio): DiZoglio wants a broader discussion about the future of the Lowell Street Bridge corridor. No vote, just conversation, but it is a conversation worth having.

• Swan Street and Jackson Street Sign (Councilor DiZoglio): A sign update. Small ask, easy win if someone just handles it.

CAFO Report

The Chief Administrative and Financial Officer’s report will be delivered, with one specific question on the record:

Searles Estate Expenses (requested by Chair Soto): This request has been on the agenda before. Soto wants a full accounting of every dollar associated with the Searles Estate: acquisition, insurance, bond payments, outstanding obligations, all of it. She says it’s because the public deserves a clear answer on this which is absolutely true but it smells more like she’s just trying to shame the mayor. Tonight may be the night it actually gets addressed. We will see.

Unfinished Business

TR-25-75: Cooper Lane Accepted as a Public Way

View resolution

This one has been sitting around for a while; it was filed in 2025. The developer JR Builders, Inc. wants Cooper Lane officially accepted as a public way, meaning the city takes ownership and maintenance responsibility for the road. Councilor Marsan is pulling it off the table for a vote. Once a developer builds a road in a subdivision and the city accepts it, plowing, pothole repairs, and all future upkeep become the city’s problem. The council needs to be satisfied the road was built to proper standards before they vote yes.

Nothing was provided to address the quality of the road or any of the many other things required to get this ready for acceptance.

TR-26-42: Seasonal Restroom Policy for City Athletic Fields

View resolution

Sponsored by Councilors Drew, MacLaren, and Valley. This came out of the public health concern raised last meeting about kids playing baseball with no bathroom access. What it fails to mention is that the complaint came during the tail end of the winter, when pipes freeze at night and that is the reason the bathroom wasn’t open.

The resolution does two things: it sets April 15 through October 31 as the window when city restrooms at fields will be open for permitted groups, and it requires any outside organization using city fields outside that window to provide and pay for their own portable toilets, including at least one ADA-accessible unit. The organizations, not the city, foot that bill.

This is a reasonable but we have a few questions … who checks that the portable units are actually there and up to standard and can we actually force them to do this?

TR-26-43: Moving $42,500 for Grant Writing Services

View resolution

The city budgeted $42,500 to hire a full-time grant writer. After going through an RFP process, they decided to contract it out instead of hiring someone. This vote just moves the money from the salaries bucket to the outside services bucket. No new spending, just accounting housekeeping. The decision to go outside rather than hire in-house is worth watching over time, but for tonight, it is a clean vote. This is a second vote.

TR-26-44: $40,000 for Payroll Processing

View resolution

The city’s payroll software and service costs came in higher than what was budgeted through the end of the fiscal year. This transfers $40,000 from free cash, which currently sits at over $20 million, to cover it.

I believe this is also up for its second vote. All of this is because the munis implementation is not on timeline. Now you should be aware that some of that is the fault of the city for setting an unrealistic timeline, clearly without considering the history of poor staffing levels.

TR-26-46: $75,000 Brownfields Grant for Searles Estate

View resolution

The state’s Massachusetts Development Finance Agency is awarding Methuen $75,000 to test the soil and groundwater at the Searles Estate for contamination. Free money, no city match required. Before the city can do anything meaningful with that property, whether to redevelop, sell, or lease it, it needs a clean environmental bill of health. This is a necessary first step and a smart use of available state funding. This should be an easy one.

TR-26-47: Letter Supporting the State Audit of the Legislature

View resolution

Sponsored by Councilor Pesce. In November’s election, Massachusetts voters approved by a wide margin (72%) giving State Auditor and hometown superhero Diana DiZoglio the authority to audit the state legislature. The legislature, with help from Attorney General Campbell, has been blocking it ever since. This resolution asks Methuen to formally go on record supporting the audit and send a letter to AG Campbell saying so. This is a political statement, not a financial one. I don’t expect any real debate but I’m calling it now some of the Councilors will use this as an opportunity to campaign from the table. How the council votes will say something about where they stand on government accountability versus staying out of state-level politics.

TO-26-13: Nepotism Ordinance Update (as amended)

View ordinance

Chair Soto has been pushing this one and it is back with amendments. The current city nepotism rules, she claims, are outdated as and insufficient. This ordinance rewrites them to be “strictest in the state”.

The definition of “family member” now includes spouses, children, stepchildren, in-laws, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and first cousins. The rules prohibit hiring family into the same department, bar family members of department heads from working in that department, and require that if two employees in the same department become family members after the ordinance passes, one has to transfer out within 90 days. If they cannot agree on who moves, the lower-seniority employee must go.

Here is where it gets interesting: Police and Fire are explicitly carved out. The ordinance exempts both departments from the same-department hiring rules, the department head family member prohibition, and the 90-day vacate requirement. The reason is legitimate. Police and Fire operate under Massachusetts Civil Service law, which controls hiring and promotion at the state level independently of anything the city passes locally. Methuen cannot override that with a local ordinance, so the carve-out is legally necessary, not optional.

What that means practically is that the nepotism rules with the most bite apply to every city department except the two largest uniformed departments. That is not a knock on this ordinance. It is just the reality of how Civil Service works in Massachusetts, and anyone who tries to tell you the exemption is suspicious does not understand the legal landscape. The state controls those hiring lists, not the Mayor, not the Council, and not HR.

There is an important note on the rest of the ordinance: this is prospective only. Nobody loses their current job because of it. But within 30 days of passage, any existing relationships that would otherwise violate the policy have to be disclosed in writing to the City Clerk.

A few things worth watching when this comes up for debate:

The ordinance defines “family member” more broadly than Massachusetts state law does. State law covers immediate family: parents, children, siblings, spouses, and in-laws. This ordinance goes further, adding first cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews to the city’s hiring rules. That is a deliberate local expansion and arguably a good one. But the ordinance then references state law’s financial conflict provisions in the same document without acknowledging the two definitions do not match. That gap does not kill the ordinance, but it is sloppy drafting that could create confusion down the road.

The 90-day vacate requirement for employees who become family members sounds reasonable until you think about what it actually means. If two city employees get married, one of them has 90 days to transfer or leave. The ordinance does not say the city is obligated to make a transfer available. It just says one of them has to go. That is a real employment consequence with real legal exposure and the ordinance is silent on the details.

The 30-day window to file disclosures after passage is also tighter than it sounds. With “family member” now defined this broadly, there are likely more existing relationships across city departments than anyone has formally counted. Thirty days to identify all of them, document them, and get paperwork to the City Clerk is going to be a sprint.

The council should go in with eyes open about what questions the implementation is going to raise almost immediately after passage. They should also be asking what the catalyst is and pushing for clear and specific answers. For anybody who’s been paying attention to the city for more than a minute, this looks to be the piece of a bigger puzzle. If I had to guess, right now on the spot, this is to block promotions and new applicants to help guarantee certain people are able to apply and get jobs. That may not be nepotism… but that’s still dirty politics and that’s what I think this is helping build towards.

New Business

TR-26-45: $850,000 for Trash Tipping Fees (Reconsidered)

View resolution

The trash saga continues. This resolution, $850,000 from free cash to cover trash disposal costs that ACTUALLY aligned with projections, was apparently voted on at a prior meeting. Councilor DiZoglio is requesting it be reconsidered, which means the council will first vote on whether to reopen the question, and if that passes, vote on the resolution itself again.

A little history… This was budgeted almost appropriately last year. I say almost appropriately because the mayor reduced the number before it even went to the council. Yes, that’s a dangerous game to play but given the circumstances, not the worst decision that could have been made. The problem came later when the council reduced it even farther. Now, there is lots of blame to go around here already but some of this is on the Mayor and CAFO for not addressing this earlier in the year. We did a whole story on this. You can go back and read it (or listen to it on substack) later.

Was the new trash and recycling program not supposed to reduce waste and cut these costs?

Yes, and we are producing less tonnage than we did pre-barrel program. This is a budgeting issue. The projections for tonnage were spot on. We all saw this coming because it was heading our way by design. The mayor brought forward A proposal to move the funds that failed. Then we had the special meeting which was tanked by Councilor Marsan.

If any of these votes on money transfers for trash fail, we are likely looking at a stoppage and trash pickup, probably late May.

Personally, I don’t think it passes.

TR-26-49: PACE Massachusetts Clean Energy Program

View resolution | View backup/program overview

This one is worth understanding because it could have real impact on Methuen’s commercial property landscape. PACE stands for Property Assessed Clean Energy. Here is how it works in plain language:

A business owner wants to make energy upgrades: solar panels, new HVAC, better insulation, LED lighting. They do not have to pay out of pocket. Instead, a private lender finances the project, and the business repays the loan through a special line item on their property tax bill over up to 20 years. If the property is sold, the assessment transfers to the new owner.

For the city to allow this, Methuen has to opt in. That is what this vote does. The city collects the payments and passes them through to the state’s program administrator, MassDevelopment. The city takes on no financial risk; private capital funds everything, and Methuen is not on the hook if a business defaults.

Eighty-two Massachusetts municipalities have already signed on, including Lowell, Peabody, North Andover, and Lynn. Methuen is late to this party but catching up. For a city that wants to attract and retain businesses and lower their operating costs so they stick around, this is a no-brainer. It costs the city nothing and gives local businesses a financing tool they currently have to go elsewhere to find.

TO-26-11: Pest Control Ordinance for Demolition and Commercial Waste

View ordinance

Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio. This ordinance has been in progress for a while. The idea is simple: when a building comes down or a commercial waste operation runs nearby, rats and other vermin get displaced and spread into surrounding neighborhoods. This ordinance puts the responsibility for pest control squarely on whoever is doing the demolition or running the commercial waste operation, not on the neighbors who end up dealing with the aftermath.

The fine for non-compliance is $300 per day, per offense. The Board of Health sets the specific standards. The ordinance also requires that anyone applying for a dumpster permit for demolition or site clearing gets clear written notice about this requirement upfront: no surprises.

This is good, practical, public health legislation. The only real enforcement question is whether the Board of Health has the capacity to follow through when a complaint comes in. Passing the ordinance is step one. Making it real is step two.

Keep an eye out for the meeting recap on Tuesday.

So, I went live. Watch the video and react appropriately.

After four councilors blocked emergency trash funding last week, Mayor Beauregard and the City Council have reached a tentative deal to keep the trucks rolling. But the vote isn't done yet.

Methuen's trash standoff appears to be heading toward a resolution — but residents won't know for certain until Tuesday night. Mayor D.J. Beauregard announced Thursday that the city is moving forward with a plan, developed in partnership with the City Council, to ensure that trash and recycling pickup continues without interruption.

The mayor has called an emergency special meeting of the City Council for Tuesday, April 28, at 7:00 p.m. at which the Council will take a formal vote on the proposal. Until that vote happens, no funds have been transferred and no services are formally secured.

"At its core, this is about putting taxpayer dollars to work to pay a critical bill that provides essential services our residents rely on."

— Mayor D.J. Beauregard

The plan includes a transfer of funds to cover current solid waste disposal costs — the tipping fees at the heart of this week's crisis — along with additional measures aimed at controlling long-term expenses. As part of the deal, the city would implement enhanced enforcement of its solid waste ordinance, including public education and penalties for violations like contamination and improper disposal. The administration says those enforcement efforts are designed to reduce overall waste tonnage and bring down the disposal costs that have put the city in this position.

The plan also includes a new accountability provision: monthly reporting to the City Council on enforcement actions and progress toward cost control goals.

How We Got Here

The crisis traces back to the FY26 budget process, when the City Council trimmed the tipping fee line item — the charges the city pays to dispose of collected waste — over warnings from the Beauregard administration. When those costs came due, the city found itself short.

A funding transfer to cover the gap was brought before the full Council on April 21. A majority of councilors supported it, but four voted against, blocking the supermajority required to pass. Mayor Beauregard warned publicly the next day that trash and recycling service was now at risk, directing residents with service complaints to call the Office of the City Council at 978-983-8510.

Since then, the mayor's office says it worked with Council members to negotiate the path forward announced Thursday.

📅 What's Next

Tuesday, April 28 · 7:00 p.m. — Emergency special meeting of the Methuen City Council. The Council will vote on the funding transfer and the accompanying enforcement and accountability measures.

If approved, funds will be transferred and tipping fee costs will be covered, securing services for the remainder of FY26.

If the vote fails again, service disruption remains a live possibility. Residents should monitor city communications.

The Bigger Picture

This episode is the latest in a pattern of mid-year funding scrambles in Methuen. The tipping fee situation follows the same contour … a line item cut over objection, then a crisis when the bill came due.

The enforcement and monthly reporting requirements built into this deal suggest both sides are trying to address the structural dynamic, not just patch the immediate hole. Whether that accountability mechanism changes how the FY27 budget process plays out will be the real test.

For now, the trucks are still running. Tuesday's vote will determine whether they stay that way.

The Numbers Every Resident Should See

Foundation enrollment: 6,553 students
Required Net School Spending: $124,723,584
Required minimum city contribution: $52,046,906
Chapter 70 state aid: $72,676,678
Non-net spending (busing, etc.): $11,855,430
Mayor’s total proposed number: $113,976,970 (includes non-net)
True educational spend in the mayor’s proposal: $102,121,540
Estimated chargebacks toward NSS: $24,000,000

Overage above NSS floor: $1,397,956, or approximately 1.1 percent

FY26 Net & Non-net $110M (plus some one-time transfers from free cash not counted here)

Municipal budgeting is a mystery to many… even some of those tasked with doing the job. We are going to recap last night’s School Committee budget workshop and the school budget here. This isn’t meant to illicit fear. This is meant to be educational and informative. We need to understand the problem so we can discuss a path forward.

Let’s get into it…

The school has the mayor’s number and it is $113,976,970, verified directly with the Mayor moments before publishing. He says it exceeds Net School Spending. That’s true but it deserves clarification.

To get a real view, you need to strip out the $11,855,430 in non-net spending, which covers things like busing and other costs that do not count toward the state’s educational spending requirement, and the actual educational investment in the mayor’s FY27 proposal is roughly $102 million. The state requires Methuen to spend $124,723,584 in net school spending to meet its legal obligation for 6,553 enrolled students.

Chargebacks are estimated at around $24 million and do count toward NSS. These are things like Insurance, school resource officers, and shared city resources. Factor those in and the district is at approximately $126 million in total credited spending, which puts it barely above the NSS floor by about 1.1 percent. That’s still a win here in Methuen.

None of this was explained clearly at Tuesday night’s school committee budget session.

The Meeting

Superintendent Golobski opened by framing the discussion around what needs to be protected as the district works toward reductions. It was a hopeful framing for what became a long and uneven session.

Mayor Beauregard was direct about the structural problem. Last year’s school budget was $110.6 million. To maintain level services, the district needs $123 million or more. Proposition 2.5 caps the city’s ability to raise revenue at 2.5 percent annually, and costs are growing far faster than that. He defended the city’s free cash position, noting that relying on it is not sustainable year after year, and made clear that without help from the state, the math does not work.

School Committee Member Nick DiZoglio, joining remotely and without his camera on for the entire meeting, acknowledged what others danced around: the city knew this was coming and did not adequately prepare. He floated ideas including a 1/12 budget to avoid immediate cuts, cutting bus routes, charging for transportation, and exploring partnerships with MEVA. The mayor ruled out the 1/12 approach as an active consideration and explained why a fare-free MEVA partnership does not work if the service is restricted to students, since that would put children on buses alongside the general public.

Member Willette returned to familiar territory. Millionaires tax. State rainy day fund. Cannabis revenues. Gambling receipts. These are legitimate advocacy points at the State House. They are not going to close a gap measured in the millions before we need to present a balanced budget.

Member Keegan offered some of the session’s more grounded thinking. She renewed a push for a virtual academy that would generate revenue without disrupting students currently in school, and noted that cutting high school bus routes does not actually save money because the district pays for the bus whether it makes one run or five. We explored this on the last School Committee.

Member Donovan attempted twice to redirect the conversation toward decisions that are actually within the committee’s control.

“If it’s not in our purview, I don’t think we should be talking about it tonight. Right now we are in survival mode.”

Member Sirois brought some of the sharpest clarity of the night. She noted that there are two weeks left to balance a budget with no clear picture of what state and federal funding will look like. And she said what the numbers actually show:

“Once again we are being asked to balance the budget on the backs of our students.”

Way to go, Martha! I said it last year too and its still true. She also focused on her lived experience with budgeting and the impact after many years in the district.

The mayor, perhaps without realizing it, borrowed language that had been used to describe the district’s situation in earlier coverage, saying the city is not cutting from fat but from bone. That framing is accurate, but it obscures how the district got here. When the official budget number includes non-net spending to make the total look closer to the required threshold, and the gap is framed as a level-service problem rather than a structural underfunding problem, the public does not get the full picture. What he means here is that while other places like Lexington, Westford, Boston, and many others are cutting, they have been well above net school spending for years. In a way, this hurts less. Meanwhile, Methuen has routinely treated net school spending as a goal to meet and now when we cut, it hurts and takes core services away. More on this below.

DiZoglio pushed back on what he characterized as performative politics from the city council side, suggesting some members are more focused on their public image than on solving the problem at hand. He urged the committee to stop speechmaking and start making difficult decisions. He then weakened his own argument by floating cuts to early college and CTE programming. CTE is self-funding and revenue-generating. Cutting these hurts us long-term.

The most concrete outcome of the night was a class size framework. The target is to keep grades 2 through 8 under 26 students, with high school still being worked out. That reconfiguration accounts for roughly $1 million in savings so far. The evaluation is still ongoing.

Member Baez surfaced a concept started by Willette via email, presumably shortly before the meeting, focusing on administrative expenses. Dr. Golobski provides data from DESE that deserves more attention than it got. Methuen ranks 388th out of 395 Massachusetts districts in per-pupil administrative spending, at $408 per student. The highest-spending districts reach $3,000 per pupil. The district has zero instructional coaches. Peer districts have 11 or more each. The persistent narrative that Methuen is top-heavy with administrators is not supported by any data. It is the opposite of what the data shows. However, that narrative will continue as the masses are desperate to cling to something negative to avoid the real conversations.

This Is Not What It Looks Like Elsewhere

Most of the school districts generating budget headlines across Massachusetts right now are cutting from systems that grew substantially over the past decade. Methuen is not.

Lexington, long held as the gold standard of Massachusetts public education, is eliminating 65 full-time positions and sending non-renewal notices to 160 early-career educators, this, just months after voters approved a tax hike for a $660 million new high school. Its superintendent acknowledged that “half of Massachusetts school districts are wrestling with the same pressures we are.”

Boston Public Schools is proposing 300 to 400 position cuts from a district whose central office nearly doubled in size over the past decade as pandemic funding poured in.

Brookline faces the possibility of eliminating more than 200 positions if voters reject a $23.25 million tax override in May.

Salem, North Andover, Newton, and Framingham are all cutting staff and programs. Salem’s superintendent called this “the most challenging year I’ve seen” in 12 years of leading Massachusetts schools.

Statewide, Framingham has voted to cut 51 jobs, Chelsea is proposing 70, Middleborough 29, and Grafton 18. The executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees estimates roughly half the state’s districts are operating with painfully tight budgets.

The shared causes are real: the end of federal ESSER pandemic funding, inflation, rising transportation and utility costs, growing special education caseloads, and federal cuts under the current administration. None of these districts are having an easy year.

But the nature of the cuts is different. When Boston trims positions after its central office nearly doubled, that is a recalibration of a system that had resources to spend. When Lexington cuts teachers six months after approving a $660 million school building project, that is a community adjusting its expectations from a position of historic wealth. Methuen has never been in that position. Its $408 per-pupil administrative spend, 388th out of 395 districts, is not a system with room to trim. It’s zero instructional coaches, compared to 11 or more in comparable districts, is not a system that was ever overstaffed. The positions being cut or left unfilled here were never extras. They were never replacements for something better. They were the minimum. But let’s continue to blame our Superintendent because our kids can’t read.

What Happens if the Gap Does Not Close

If the district cannot close the shortfall without cutting further into positions and services, the consequences are concrete. Special Ed will have difficulty meeting IEP service requirements under federal law. Grammar school class sizes will exceed the targets the committee itself set Wednesday night. The STEM initiative tied to active state grant obligations will lack the coordinator required to fulfill those commitments. Students with behavioral dysregulation at the elementary level will not have intervention support. Families who do not speak English will have no reliable bilingual point of contact at the high school.

These are not theoretical outcomes. They are the documented distance between what the district currently has and what it is legally required to provide.

The meeting ended without resolution. There are two weeks left. The state’s Chapter 70 numbers are not finalized and likely will not be before the Council has to vote on a budget. Federal funding remains uncertain and that is unlikely to change. The structural gap between what Methuen needs to educate its students and what the city can legally raise under Proposition 2.5 is not a problem a virtual academy or a bus route review is going to solve.

Other districts across Massachusetts are falling from heights they built up over years of investment. Methuen never built that height. When Methuen falls, it’s from the starting line and it hurts far more than a fall from glory.

Sources and figures

Methuen School Committee meeting, April 22, 2026 |

FY27 Preliminary Budget documents (Central Office, Tenney, Timony, MHS) |

City of Methuen FY27 budget figures |

Massachusetts DESE district profiles |

Boston Globe, March 2026 |

Boston Globe, March 2026 |

Brookline.News |

Boston 25 News |

WBUR |

CBS Boston

A Suffolk County Superior Court judge has officially ended former Methuen Police Captain Gregory Gallant’s legal fight to get his job back, ruling on April 7, 2026, that his 2022 termination was justified.

Justice Cathleen E. Campbell denied Gallant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and allowed cross-motions filed by both the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission and the City of Methuen … meaning the court sided entirely with the city.

You can read the full text here → https://www.mass.gov/doc/gallant-gregory-v-city-of-methuen-related-superior-court-decision-4726-issued-by-superior-court/download

What Did the Judge Actually Do?

This wasn’t a full trial. Both sides asked the judge to rule based solely on the written record (the documents, decisions, and findings already produced through years of administrative proceedings). That process is called a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and it’s essentially each side saying “the facts are clear enough … just decide.”

Gallant argued the Commission got it wrong and asked the judge to overturn its decision. The Commission and the City filed their own cross-motions asking the judge to uphold it. Justice Campbell sided with the Commission and the City on every argument Gallant raised.

How We Got Here

The case stems from events dating back to 2017, when Gallant led the superior officers’ union bargaining team during negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement. After a tentative deal was reached, Gallant, tasked with drafting the final contract, inserted more than twenty pay-related language changes that were never agreed upon at the bargaining table. The revisions, which would have dramatically expanded the base pay formula, were so significant that city officials calculated they would have resulted in annual salaries of $200,000 to $500,000 for superior officers… increases of between 77% and 224% over the prior contract.

The altered CBA was signed by then-Mayor Stephen Zanni, who later testified he never read it before signing.

When a new administration took office in 2018 and discovered the financial implications, chaos followed. The Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General opened an investigation, a union grievance went to arbitration, and ultimately both the OIG and an independent arbitrator concluded that Gallant had unilaterally revised the contract without the City’s knowledge or agreement. You may recall the infamous statement Attorney for the Union Gary Nolan sent to Gallant about the last-minute changes he had added to the contract, "You covered all the bases, Greg. Nice work. Hopefully they (city councilors) don't have calculators at the meeting. Good luck."

In February 2022, Gallant received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice advising him he had become a target of a federal grand jury investigation for possible wire fraud and obstruction of justice. Months later, the City terminated his employment after a disciplinary hearing.

The Civil Service Battle

Gallant appealed his firing to the Civil Service Commission, and a Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) magistrate initially recommended reversing the discharge. But the Commission rejected that recommendation in an October 2024 decision, finding that the City did have just cause citing Gallant’s conduct unbecoming of a police officer and his evasive and contradictory testimony before OIG investigators and the arbitrator.

Gallant then brought the matter to Superior Court, arguing the Commission had overstepped. The court disagreed on every count.

Justice Campbell found the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, that it properly considered Gallant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights as part of its broader findings, and that a procedural argument over a one-day deadline did not invalidate the Commission’s ruling.

The Bottom Line

After nearly a decade of legal proceedings spanning a union arbitration, a federal investigation, an OIG inquiry, a civil service appeal, and now Superior Court review, Gregory Gallant’s termination from the Methuen Police Department stands.

The City of Methuen has not yet issued a public comment on the ruling.

This one had some moments. A feel-good citation that didn’t quite feel good, a nepotism ordinance that got tabled before anyone could agree on what problem it was solving, and a trash funding vote that failed and with real consequences announced before the night was even over.

I think the award for best councilor tonight goes to Councilor Drew. He had the right questions at the right times. You’ll see more as this goes on.

Here’s everything, in order.

Roll Call / Agenda

All nine councilors present. Pesce moved to pull TO-26-13 (the nepotism ordinance) and place it after item 9. Valley seconded. Passes unanimously.

Pledge / Invocation / Moment of Silence

Still doing this. Still making it religious. Still wondering why.

Public Participation

Bonita LaTorre (sorry if I spelled that wrong) came to speak on the VSO vacancy. She spent 20 years in the army and asked the council to keep the values of military service in mind when filling the role.

A letter was also read into the record from a firefighter opposing the potential switch from BCBS to GIC. He raised concerns about disrupted care for employees managing ongoing health issues and pointed out that fewer than 60 municipalities in the state participate in GIC. Worth keeping in the back of your mind as that item eventually comes back off the table.

Minutes

April 6th regular meeting minutes accepted.

Proclamations / Correspondence

A citation was presented to Michele Desrochers of Creative Hair for 23 years of service providing hair and beauty services to residents of Methuen. Sponsored by DiZoglio.

A few things worth noting here. It wasn’t on the agenda as proclamations usually are which would include the sponosor. We learned tonight it was sponosored by DiZoglio. DiZoglio mentioned he only met her two weeks ago which is when he decided she was deserving. No judgment on that, but it stood out. Marsan did make the point that the recognition was about more than just the salon, which was a nice moment. That moment was quickly ruined as Soto rushed through the presentation in what felt like a hurry to get to photos, not really giving Michele much of a chance to speak beyond a quick thank you.

TO-26-13 — Ordinance Amending Section 4-1(J): Nepotism

Moved by MacLaren, seconded by Valley.

This one meandered for a while before landing exactly where you’d expect it to.

Pesce raised a legitimate concern right out of the gate: what about people who genuinely chose the same career path as a family member? Should a firefighter’s kid be blocked from becoming a firefighter in their hometown? The HR Director acknowledged some revision might be needed, particularly around separating divisions within departments, and noted that having family members supervise family would likely run up against the state ethics law regardless.

Pesce followed up with a fair question: do we even know how many family members currently work for the city? The HR Director’s answer was it’s “hard to quantify… maybe 10” which was not exactly reassuring as a baseline for writing new policy. She estimated only one instance of a family member currently supervising family that she knows of.

This is Drew’s first big win of a question tonight, “what’s actually driving this?” Soto explained it came out of a conversation with HR and the assistant solicitor, rooted in a complaint that summer jobs were being given preferentially to city employees’ families. She called the proposed ordinance the most stringent in the state as written, which seemed to be a point of pride rather than a red flag.

Drew called it “overkill” (another point for Drew in my new game of best councilor award) and said what’s already on the books seemed sufficient. Soto got a bit testy, asking whether Drew thought family members should be able to vote for each other… a framing that didn’t quite map onto the actual discussion.

DiZoglio offered the most memorable hypothetical of the night: what if two city employees’ parents married each other, making the employees step-siblings in their late 30s? Under the ordinance as written, one of them would need to leave within 90 days. Soto held the line that someone would have to go. The HR Director suggested they could simply move to a different division. DiZoglio looked visibly disturbed by this.

Marsan liked the idea of keeping family members out of supervisory roles over each other which totally missed the point of why Soto said this was coming up. Simard supported the concept but wanted to table it to avoid unintentionally shaming employees who followed a family member into public service. The Mayor noted for the record that the city has hired every kid who applied for summer jobs in recent years because the applicant pool is just that thin.

Pesce moved to table. DiZoglio seconded. Passes unanimously.

[My take]: There’s a real policy question buried in here, but the ordinance as written wasn’t ready. Pesce and Drew were right to pump the brakes. “Most stringent in the state” is not a goal. Fixing a real problem is.

Mayor’s Report

Before the Mayor could start, Soto made an extended statement about how the council should not be viewed through the lens of favorable versus unfavorable votes. She talked about checks and balances, said votes aren’t personal, and expressed concern about the body being ridiculed. As chair, she said she wants to protect the integrity of the council and move forward with mutual respect without creating division.

The Mayor thanked her and said he hoped “those sentiments are echoed back my way by members of the council.” Make of that what you will…

On to actual news:

MEVA recently launched Route 25, a new cross-town bus connecting the Loop and Haverhill Street Plaza.

Leaf and yard waste pickup started April 6th and runs through November, collected on your regular recycling day.

Autism Awareness flag was raised at City Hall on April 6th.

Acting VSO Tim Sheehy was acknowledged for keeping operations running. The permanent search is posted, and Simard will lead the search committee.

Grant writing services are on the agenda tonight, with a target of $3–4 million in new grants.

2026 paving season: bids are in for full reclamation work, ready for DPW on May 4th. Milling is still out to bid and the stagger is intentional.

FY2027 budget: the Mayor acknowledged the “crunch” being felt across the commonwealth, said the city is looking for new revenue, and said the quiet part out loud … an override would likely not pass in Methuen.

CAFO Report

Pesce had requested projections on the cost of the Mayor’s paid parental leave executive order. The CAFO sent the data right before the meeting, so everyone was seeing it fresh.

The headline number was $2.5 million represents what it would cost if EVERY EMPLOYEE took all four weeks. That scenario would never happen so presenting it is a bit silly. CAFO went on to explain that based on 2023 data, 13 employees used leave, and if all of them had taken the full four weeks, the actual cash value would have been around $65,000.

Pesce said she supports the benefit but raised a process concern: this should have gone through collective bargaining, where it could serve as a real tool at the table. Worth watching how this develops with the unions.

Requests of Councilors

Echo Lane Sewer Connection (Valley): Nothing new as the mayor is bogged down with budget prep.

Police/Fire/DPW Building Replacement (Santos): A vendor contract is expected at the next meeting.

Oakland Avenue Bridge (Santos): The Mayor wasn’t aware of a specific state report, but the bridge is on the state replacement list. No timetable exists. Looking at roughly $60k for near-term repairs. Representatives Payano and Reyes are working to help secure funding.

New Trash Barrel Distribution (Drew): New orders are being fulfilled without issue. Fee collection runs through spring, then Harvey takes over management. Drew asked why a new position was created if it’s being handed off and the Mayor clarified the new hire will manage the vendor and enforce sanitation issues out in the field.

Lowell and East Capitol Street Construction (Marsan): Work has started. Six weeks expected.

Youth Baseball Field Restrooms (Soto): Ties back to concerns in March about freezing temperatures and pipe damage. Soto acknowledged they can push it down the road as its on the agenda tonight.

Holy Family Hospital Maternity Services (Valley): The Mayor spoke with the CEO of Merrimack Health. The facility is restructuring into med-surg, with maternity focused in Lawrence going forward. The Mayor acknowledged the city’s ability to intervene is basically nonexistent. Valley said she’s received calls indicating about 85 jobs are affected, with some belonging to Methuen residents.

Parks Audit RFP (Drew): Mayor acknowledged the timeline was ambitious. It’s top of mind.

Buildings Audit RFP (Drew): A recent meeting with Trane out of Wilmington about an energy audit went well. Could provide a state-compliant path for facility upgrades.

Permanent VSO Posting (Drew and Simard): Simard read a letter from former VSO Paul Jensen expressing frustration over the ongoing vacancy. Appreciated that the posting is up as of today. Simard also made clear the Chair does not speak for him in her statement made at the beginning of the Mayor’s report and the Mayor can keep posting on Facebook the same way the Chair does.

Pesce flagged the pickleball situation as an issue for the next meeting which stems a complaint from a year ago has resurfaced and now involves police. More to come.

There was supposed to be a discussion over removing the 2-hour downtown parking limit with Chief McNamara but that never happened.

Contracts

C-26-82: Marsh Boiler Replacement, $796,689

Rise Group, Cranston RI. Includes a five-year extended warranty. Valley asked who handles the disposal of the current boiler and the Mayor believes that’s on the vendor. Moved by Pesce, seconded by Santos. The Mayor confirmed this is a critical project. Passes unanimously.

C-26-83: Two Zero-Turn Mowers for DPW, $48,888.60

MB Tractor & Equipment, Plaistow NH. On state contract, funded through CIP. Santos asked about the fate of the current equipment and the CAFO explained surplus equipment comes to council once a year for auction. Moved by Valley, seconded by Santos. Passes unanimously.

C-26-84: Old Ferry Road Culvert Engineering, $144,000

Woodard and Curran, Andover MA. DiZoglio wanted to know if an engineering report already exists; the Mayor clarified this contract is what produces that report. Ties to Congresswoman Trahan funding and prior work by Perry. Some back-and-forth about whether the road is accepted by the state and ultimately the DPW director will work to resolve that with documentation. Moved by Valley, seconded by Santos. Passes unanimously.

C-26-85: Community Development Office Renovation, $73,454.63

W.B. Mason, Woburn MA. Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Simard. This one didn’t survive. Drew had the line of the night: “not proper to spend $75k to move desks.” That was the moment I decided he gets the gold medal of the night. The CAFO noted these weren’t budgeted operating funds. There was an discussion about whether the CIP funds could be repurposed, with the solicitor acknowledging rules exist on that but not spelling them out although eventually the CAFO did. Drew clearly caught on and you can tell he had thoughts how this money could be better spent although he voted in support. Fails 5-4. DiZoglio, Pesce, Santos, Valley, and Soto voted no.

[My take]: Drew called it. Spending $73k on an office makeover while pulling from free cash to cover tipping fees is a hard sell just wish he stuck with it and voted no. Bad vote… good outcome.

C-26-86: Employment Contract, Assistant Fire Chief Daniel Donahue

Moved by Pesce, seconded by Santos. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

Committee Reports

DiZoglio reported from the Public Safety Committee: the bird sanctuary had conservation staff exploring a path; a new dirt bike ordinance is in the works; utilities and handicap parking items are queued up; and National Grid was approached about downtown lighting. More to come on all of it.

Unfinished Business / Resolutions

TR-26-32: Health Insurance Exploration (MGL Ch. 32B §§21–23)

Still tabled. A motion to remove from the table failed when no one seconded it.

TR-26-35: $1,700 from Castle Fund for American Legion Memorial Day Parade

Moved by Drew, seconded by DiZoglio. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-36: Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month Proclamation

Moved by Drew, seconded by Valley. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-37: Currier School Transfer to City Government

Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos. DiZoglio confirmed that any future disposition still comes back to the council. Valley noted about $40k annually in maintenance costs while both buildings are winterized and the Mayor confirmed that Currier is unused; Pleasant Valley holds storage and city archives. The goal is to clear Pleasant Valley and get it listed. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-38: Pleasant Valley School Transfer to City Government

Moved by Drew, seconded by Pesce. Historical materials will need to be relocated before the building can go to market. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-39: FY26 Green Communities Grant from DOER

Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-40: Accepting MGL Ch. 200A §9A (Unclaimed Property)

Moved by Drew, seconded by DiZoglio. Passes unanimously.

New Business / Resolutions

TR-26-41: Naming the Burnham Road Field for Mary McDonough

Moved by Drew, seconded by DiZoglio. Pesce noted this requires a public hearing per process. Tabled for public hearing.

TR-26-42: Seasonal Restroom Policy for Athletic Fields

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by MacLaren. Drew explained this came out of the parks subcommittee to give the parks department a clear framework particularly around frozen pipes and the cost of porta-potties. Parks Director Angelo said he’d work with the leagues on expectations going forward. Soto asked whether pushing the season start back would solve it but Angelo explained shifting the calendar disrupts everything downstream and the focus is on giving kids a great experience. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-43: $42,500 Transfer for Grant Writing Services

Moved by Drew, seconded by DiZoglio. A transfer between budget lines to fund outsourced grant writing, with a $3–4 million fundraising goal. Drew asked why outsource versus a full-time hire and the Mayor said they budgeted, posted, and never got a qualified applicant. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-44: $40,000 from Free Cash for Payroll Processing

Moved by Drew, seconded by Valley. Needed because the Munis implementation is still incomplete … the city will be ready July 1st but the school department won’t, so the current payroll vendor has to stay on longer than planned.

Marsan asked why we’re here again and the CAFO explained the old council cut this funding and now it needs to come back. Drew called out the hypocrisy directly because this was founded until the last Council cut the funds and now we are putting it back. DiZoglio asked for a full Munis cost history; the CAFO said it runs about $200k annually and the legacy system is so manual that data has to be entered by hand just to migrate it. A Tyler Technologies rep is on-site a few days a week to help out but its costly and slow.

Soto took a jab at the CAFO, suggesting this reflected on how she’s perceived. The Mayor stepped in to defend her, noting her role goes well beyond Munis. Passes 6-3, with Drew, Marsan, and Santos voting no.

TR-26-45: $850,000 from Free Cash for Tipping Fees

Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos.

The background: tipping fees are what the city pays per ton to dispose of trash. The prior council cut this budget line last year. Costs have since risen in part because residents are putting trash in recycling bins and barrels are overflowing… plus the economy overall. The Mayor said the new sanitation coordinator will be out enforcing that.

Marsan pushed back, noting the Mayor recently touted $200k in savings. The Mayor clarified those were FY27 projected savings while this is current-year shortfall. DiZoglio expressed broader frustration that the city is constantly in reactive mode, plugging holes from prior underfunding. Drew asked for a full trash cost history and projections before the next meeting.

Soto asked what happens if the vote fails. The CAFO said the city would need to decide how to cover it and that possible answers would either be to cut something else or maybe skip some weeks of pickup. Soto asked, apparently in earnest, whether any communities do biweekly trash or if the city could “burn our trash.” The Mayor said other towns have experimented and nothing’s working; many are running out of disposal capacity entirely.

DiZoglio, Marsan, Santos, Valley, and Pesce voted no. Fails 5-4. (Needed six votes.)

[My take]: This needed six votes and didn’t get them. And before the night was over, the Mayor told the room that a disruption to trash pickup is now very likely as a direct result. Whether you agree with the no votes or not, that’s the consequence, and residents will feel it. The city’s trash situation is a slow-moving crisis, and kicking this vote doesn’t make the problem go away.

TR-26-46: Brownfields Redevelopment Fund Grant, $75,000

Moved by Valley, seconded by Santos. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-47: Letter of Support for Auditor’s Audit of the Legislature

Moved by Drew, seconded by MacLaren. Pesce brought this forward to support the Auditor in her effort to audit the legislature, as approved by voters on Question 1. Simard said he’d love to see hypocrisy voted out of office. Soto made a veiled statement about transparency that seemed to be aimed at someone in the room but it was unclear who took that shot. Passes unanimously.

New Business / Ordinances

TO-26-12: Rezoning Arcadia Street Parcel for Commercial Use

Applicant: K&K Realty Trust, represented by Johnson & Borenstein. Moved by Simard, seconded by Drew. Tabled for joint public hearing with Community Development.

Any Other Business

The Mayor closed with two significant announcements.

First: because the tipping fee transfer failed, he’ll be meeting with the DPW Director in the morning. His words: “Since we aren’t going to be paying the vendor for trash, there is very likely going to be a disruption to trash pickup service.” That’s not a hypothetical. That’s a heads-up.

Second: a meeting is scheduled for Thursday to discuss an early retirement program as part of the city’s effort to reduce costs heading into a difficult budget year.

That’s a wrap on April 21st. The full agenda is available at the City of Methuen website and meetings are archived at MethuenTV.

Have a tip, a correction, or something you want covered? Reach out.

Watch live at methuen.gov/livestream | Channel 8 (Comcast) or Channel 32 (Verizon) or on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@MethuenMeetings

Full agenda link: https://www.methuen.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04212026-1069?html=true

Agenda items and reports are linked for your convenience.

Procedural Opening

The meeting kicks off with a roll call, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Invocation, and a moment of silence. The part to watch for here is if they decide to work their god back into it or if they stay religiously neutral as they did at the last meeting.

Then comes public participation. Given some of the topics on the agenda (Health Insurance for employees and the transfer of buildings, one of which holds mountains of historical artifacts), I think we should expect a few participants here from the City unions.

The council will also approve the minutes from the April 6th meeting, confirming that the written record of that meeting is accurate.

Proclamations/Correspondence.

Michele Desrochers of Creative Hair will receive a citation. These citations have been a bit of a point of contention lately between Pesce and Santos. Pesce believes they should be giving out sparingly to honor those who have gone above and beyond for the community, while Santos seems to be determined to give them to her friends. Keep in mind, this is a formal honor from the city recognizing her contributions to the community. Ironically, it does not say on this agenda who is sponsoring this citation, as it has in the past. I can’t help but wonder if this is because we called out the previous clear ethical ambiguities of the last few.

Mayor’s Report

This is where the Mayor will rifle off some updates. Always a good time and typically tied directly to the requests of councilors noted below.

CAFO Report (City’s Financial Officer Update)

The CAFO report (Chief Administrative and Financial Officer), prepared by Maggie Duprey, provides a financial overview of the agenda items. Two specific questions are also being asked:

• Paid Parental Leave costs: Councilor Pesce is asking for a breakdown of how much the Mayor’s Executive Order on paid parental leave will cost now and in the future. As a first-world country, a City desiring to attract qualified staff, and a City with predominantly female city leadership. The goal here leaves me scratching my head. We shall see….

• Stadium Improvement Project accounting: Chair Soto wants a clear explanation of an email sent on February 18th regarding money tied to the Stadium project.

Councilors Asking Questions

Several councilors are asking city departments for updates on things residents care about:

• Echo Lane Sewer Connection: Residents on Echo Lane want to know when their sewer connection project will start. Councilor Valley is asking the Mayor and DPW for a timeline.

• Police, Fire and DPW Buildings: Councilor Santos wants to know where things stand on plans to rebuild or replace the aging Police, Fire, and DPW facilities. She has asked about this at every meeting. It may be prudent of the Mayor, CAFO, Solicitor, or even the Chair to explain how government works and how slow things like this move even under the best of circumstances.

• Oakland Avenue Bridge Report: Councilor Santos is requesting the state’s report on the condition of the Oakland Avenue Bridge.

• New Trash Barrels: Councilor Drew wants an update on when the new trash barrels will be delivered and handed out to residents.

• Lowell and East Capitol Street Construction: Councilor Marsan wants to know when construction on that stretch will resume and when it’s expected to finish.

• Second and Third Trash Bin Fees: Councilor Marsan is asking how many residents have extra bins and whether the city is actually collecting the fees for them in years 2, 3, and 4.

• Restrooms at Youth Baseball Fields: Chair Soto is raising a public health concern: kids playing baseball don’t have access to restrooms, and water service is delayed. The council wants an official response from the administration.

• Holy Family Hospital Maternity Ward Closure: Councilor Valley wants the Mayor to address the proposed closure of maternity and neonatal services at the former Holy Family Hospital and what the city plans to do about it. I’m curious what she thinks the Mayor can do about a private non-profit hospital.

• Parks and Buildings Audit RFPs: Councilor Drew is checking on the status of formal requests for proposals to audit the city’s parks and buildings.

• Veterans Service Officer (VSO) Position: Councilors Drew and Simard want to know if the city has posted the permanent VSO job opening yet.

• Downtown 2-Hour Parking: A request to Police Chief McNamara to look into eliminating the 2-hour parking limit downtown and replacing it with something more flexible.

• Lowell Street Bridge Revitalization: Councilor DiZoglio wants to start a conversation about bringing new life to the Lowell Street Bridge area.

Contracts Up for Approval

The council will vote on five contracts. Here’s what each one is for:

C-26-82: Boiler Replacement ($796,689)

View contract -- The city needs to replace the aging Marsh boiler. This contract with the Rise Group covers equipment, labor, materials, and a 5-year warranty for a new high-efficiency condensing boiler. The cost is split between this year’s and last year’s capital improvement budgets. This project previously had problems and is LONG overdue as the Marsh has been running on one ancient boiler for a long time.

C-26-83: Two New Lawn Mowers ($48,888.60)

View contract -- The DPW’s Environmental Division is getting two new zero-turn mowers with baggers to maintain city green spaces. Fully funded in this year’s budget.

C-26-84: Old Ferry Road Culvert Engineering ($144,000)

View contract -- The city is hiring Woodard and Curran to design the replacement of a culvert (a pipe or channel that carries water under a road) on Old Ferry Road. This is an engineering and planning contract… the actual construction comes later. This project is to be funded through the FY24 CIP, which currently has $1,331,600 available. This has been a major pain point for the businesses up on the hill.

C-26-85: Community Development Office Renovation ($73,454.63)

View contract -- Ten new workstations, partitions, and filing cabinets for the Community Development office, designed to match the look of other city offices. This project is to be funded through the FY24 CIP, which currently has $100,000 available.

C-26-86: Assistant Fire Chief Contract (Daniel Donahue)

View contract -- A new employment contract for Assistant Fire Chief Daniel Donahue. His base salary will be approximately $238,889 in FY26, rising to roughly $246,056 in FY27 and FY28. He also receives up to two weeks of annual vacation buyback and six weeks of vacation per year. The cost for the remainder of this fiscal year is already covered in the existing budget.

Resolutions Being Voted On

Resolutions are formal positions or actions taken by the council. Here’s what’s on the table:

Returning Items (Previously Discussed)

TR-26-32: Exploring Health Insurance Options

View resolution -- This allows the city to look into alternative health insurance plans for employees. No immediate changes is coming from this as it just opens the door to potentially saving money down the road. However, there are mixed opinions if the City would need to bargain the change in insurance with the unions.

TR-26-35: $1,700 for Memorial Day Parade Band

View resolution -- A small grant from the Castle Fund (a trust the city manages) to help the American Legion Post 122 pay for a band at the Memorial Day Parade. The Castle Fund currently has over $435,000 in it.

TR-26-36: Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month

View resolution -- A proclamation officially recognizing motorcycle safety awareness in Methuen -- a symbolic gesture to promote road safety as riding season kicks off.

TR-26-37: Transferring Currier School to City Government

View resolution -- The School Department no longer needs the Currier School building. This vote would hand control of it over to the city government as opposed to the School department. The city will take on maintenance costs. Last year, those ran about $16,111 but let’s not forget this is not a new cost as its all ONE BUDGET.

TR-26-38: Transferring Pleasant Valley School to City Government

View resolution -- Same situation as above, but for the Pleasant Valley School which is a teardown. There is no saving this building. But it is worth noting that it is currently the storage facility for many of the artifacts the City and the Gate House Museum hold and there is no current plan on where to move these items.. Last year’s maintenance costs for that building were about $29,886.

TR-26-39: Accepting a $250,000 Green Energy Grant

View resolution -- The state’s Department of Energy Resources awarded Methuen $250,000 for energy efficiency projects across city buildings. The required 25% match is covered through utility rebate incentives, so no extra cost to the city.

TR-26-40: Handling Unclaimed Property

View resolution -- This allows the city to legally close out old funds sitting unclaimed for years, like contractor deposits and developer bonds. The city is currently holding about $700,000 in these kinds of dormant funds. The money would eventually become city property after the required waiting periods and public notices. Much like the findmassmoney run by the state.

New Items

TR-26-41: Naming Burnham Road Field After Mary McDonough

View resolution -- A resolution to officially name the athletic field on Burnham Road in honor of Mary McDonough. Backed by Councilor Pesce and State Rep. Ryan Hamilton. The only cost is a small sign or plaque (under $500).

TR-26-42: Restroom Policy at City Athletic Fields

View resolution -- The council is asking the city to create a formal policy ensuring that organizations using city-owned fields have restroom access during the spring and summer seasons. This ties into the public health concerns raised earlier about youth baseball fields.

TR-26-43: Moving $42,500 for Grant Writing Services

View resolution -- The city originally budgeted this money to hire a full-time grant writer. They’ve decided to hire an outside contractor instead. This vote just moves the money to the right budget line -- no new spending.

TR-26-44: $40,000 for Payroll Processing

View resolution -- The city needs an extra $40,000 to cover payroll software and service costs through the end of the fiscal year. Money would come from free cash (the city’s savings account), which currently has over $20 million. Also worth noting that this implementation has been pretty poorly handled since inception (long before the current mayor) and this has been routinely made clear by repeated questioning from the Council.

TR-26-45: $850,000 for Trash Disposal Costs

View resolution -- Methuen’s trash tonnage came in higher than expected this year, meaning higher tipping fees (what you pay to dump trash at a facility). The city needs $850,000 to cover the overage through June. Money comes from free cash. This makes you stop and think that wasn’t the new trash system supposed to stop this?

TR-26-46: Accepting $75,000 for Environmental Testing at Searles Estate

View resolution -- The state awarded Methuen a $75,000 grant to test the soil and groundwater at the Searles Estate property for contamination. No matching funds required.

TR-26-47: Supporting the State Audit of the Legislature

View resolution -- Councilor Pesce wants Methuen to officially send a letter supporting the Audit of the Legislature to Attorney General Campbell. In the last election, the people voted heavily (72%) in favor of State Auditor DiZoglio auditing the legislature. The legislature, with the help of AG Campbell, has continued to block this.

Ordinances (Law Changes)

TO-26-12: Rezoning Land on Arcadia Street for Commercial Use

View ordinance -- A developer (K & K Realty Trust) wants to rezone a piece of land on Arcadia Street from residential to a neighborhood business district. This item will be tabled for a joint public hearing with the Community Development board -- no vote tonight, but it’s coming.

TO-26-13: Updating the Nepotism Policy

View ordinance -- Chair Soto is proposing a change to the city’s anti-nepotism rules (the law that prevents city officials from hiring family members). No financial impact, but an important good-governance measure. It will be interesting to see how this ties back to the last meeting’s debacle related to the City Assessor.

After the meeting we will do a recap.

Still have questions? Ask them, let’s discuss the issues!

Link:

The Mayor walked into the Methuen Senior Activity Center tonight and made one thing clear right off the bat: he wasn’t there to tell people what they wanted to hear.

“I’m not going to give you a speech full of platitudes and political BS,” he told the crowd. “This is going to be a straightforward look at where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re headed as a city.”

And that’s pretty much what he delivered.

He went straight into the economic condition and didn’t sugarcoat the financial reality heading into this budget season. He recapped the bleak conditions he inherited upon entering office with the schools highlighting that we are now investing more than ever in our schools.

This is where he sets the stage for the looming budget season that is undoubtedly going to be horrendous.

He pointed to Lexington and Brookline, two of the most well-off communities in the state, both staring down multimillion-dollar deficits driven by out-of-control healthcare costs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, he said, calls it “a perfect storm.” Methuen isn’t immune, but Beauregard argued the work done over the past year puts the city in a better position than most. The point he failed to make here is that these communities, even with the deep cuts to their budgets, are cutting from fat since they have systematically invested well above net school spending (state-required minimum education funding), while Methuen has historically treated it as a game of Limbo.

Next, he got into our electric bills. “If you’ve talked to anyone in Methuen lately, you know electric bills are the number one frustration”. Beauregard reminded the room that back in December 2024, the city launched its Community Choice Power Supply Program, locking in a supply rate about 20 percent below National Grid’s for three years. In 2025, the first full year of the program, participating households saved nearly $1.9 million compared to what they would have paid under National Grid’s basic service rate. “That’s real money back in people’s pockets,” he said. He’s also calling on the state to explore similar programs for natural gas. … I wouldn’t hold my breath on Beacon Hill making that move any time soon.

He recounted that when SNAP disruptions hit families late last year, the city organized a citywide food drive. Neighbors helped neighbors. Local businesses showed up. Volunteers filled boxes. “Whenever the federal government sits down, we stand up,” Beauregard said. “In Methuen, we take care of our own.”

“Citizens should expect more from their government at all levels,” fed into the improvements in transparency and he brought specifics. The city launched a real-time financial dashboard where anyone can track spending down to a “box of paper clips at Staples”. They posted the full public payroll online, something most cities won’t touch. “In Methuen, we welcome audits, and we don’t file lawsuits to stop them.” You need to love these shots at the Delegation and their bodies as a whole for hiding from the audit. He continued to outline how Methuen is investing in its employees. For starters, he recently signed an executive order creating the city’s first-ever paid parental leave program for municipal employees

“In my view, this reform-centered mindset, asking tough questions and pushing for better outcomes, has produced real results” said the Mayor in an opening to explain how the city has secured $800,000 in savings and new funding so far this year, including $200,000 from a revamped trash and recycling program and $600,000 in traffic mitigation funding from a developer, about three times what was originally on the table. He also includes a callout for the work done by the Islamic Academy and how he was able to proctor that sale to benefit both parties.

One of the sharpest moments of the night came when he addressed hiring. He laid out the choice without dressing it up: professionalize city government by hiring qualified, credentialed, politically disconnected people based on merit, or slide back into the patronage habits of what he called “Old Methuen.” “This shouldn’t be a difficult choice,” he said. “I’ve made mine.” This is all stemming from the recent rejection by the Council of a qualified and licensed candidate. Beauregard’s statements are a shot through the heart of the “old Methuen” ways. For those paying attention his comments that this shouldn’t be a difficult choice were clearly aimed at the Council members who voted down his candidate for assessor without any discussion and were (in my opinion) clearly made to challenge the Council to be more progressive and transparent to move this City forward.

The Searles Estate came up as was expected. Beauregard was honest about the scale of the problem: restoration costs are enormous, with a “sprinkler system alone running around $3 million. Private capital isn’t optional, it’s required”. “This can’t be done without private capital investment, which is why we went straight to RFP,” he said. He also had sharp words for elected officials who voted in favor of the original acquisition under Mayor Perry and are now raising questions about due diligence. “It is totally inconsistent to support a project at the time of the vote and later claim it lacked the very due diligence you were responsible for evaluating. You can’t have it both ways.” The plan going forward is to bring in an outside firm to build a comprehensive master plan and take the politics out of it entirely.

Focused on community inclusivity, mention of the celebration of Dominican Independence Day, the first St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Methuen, and our tricentennial, our summer music series. He commits to always supporting Methuen residents in deriving a sense of place and belonging.

The focus shifted to the future. First and foremost, the upcoming budget is bleak and he acknowledges that hard decisions are coming. On the policy front, he laid out an agenda that covers housing, with new development districts and plans to convert the Pleasant Valley and Currier Schools into housing for seniors, veterans, and families; infrastructure, with the Oakland Avenue Bridge repair, dangerous intersection redesigns, and an AI-assisted paving program; and education, with a push to expand early college opportunities so Methuen kids can earn an associate’s degree tuition-free alongside their high school diploma. The city is also partnering with the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission to update a zoning ordinance, Beauregard said is stuck in 1996.

He closed the way every mayor closes a State of the City, by saying the state of the city is strong. But he pushed back on the empty version of that line. “It only means something if you’re honest about why.” The strength, he said, comes from the people. The families, the kids, the seniors, the veterans, the small business owners who show up every day. But he also warned that the city is not at its strongest when divided, or when decisions get made for political cronies instead of residents. “People see it. And they’re tired of it.”

This State of the City was different. Mayor Beauregard didn’t come to the podium to read a list of accomplishments and thank everyone for showing up. He came with something to say… and he said it.

In a political climate where a faction of the City Council has made obstruction their platform, the Mayor chose not to ignore it. He addressed it directly, professionally, and without flinching. He didn’t name-call. He didn’t lose his composure. But he made it unmistakably clear that he sees what’s happening, and he’s not going to pretend otherwise for the sake of keeping the peace.

That takes a certain kind of political courage. Methuen deserves leaders who are willing to say the quiet part out loud … and tonight, that is exactly what the Mayor gave us.

The 2026 State of the City Address was held at the Methuen Senior Activity Center and streamed live on Methuen.gov/LiveStream and MCS (Comcast 22 / Verizon 33).

Updates 330pm

A Methuen High School teacher has been removed from the building pending completion of an investigation into their actions with a student. A fellow student brought attention what they saw as a red flag and reported it to another teacher who immediately escalated to administration.

The teacher was escorted off school property following an internal review of communications that raised concerns about professional boundaries. While the situation is being taken seriously, sources stress that the investigation, still in its early stages, has not uncovered any criminal activity at this time.

Methuen Public Schools is fully cooperating with the Methuen Police Department as a precaution.

A social media post circulating on Facebook, published on the "Methuen Sound Off" page, has dramatically overstated what is currently known. Notably, sources confirm the removed teacher had no connection to the separate controversy surrounding classroom reading material that has been debated at recent school committee meetings, a link the social media post implies without basis.

Residents are encouraged to wait for official information rather than rely on unverified social media claims as this situation develops.

Inside Methuen will update this story as more information becomes available.

Methuen’s arts and cultural landscape continues to evolve, and with it comes a new voice in local theatre. Black Dog Theatre Company, founded by a group of experienced artists, is bringing a thoughtful, purpose-driven approach to performance, one rooted in storytelling, connection, and community.

Emerging in a region already rich with creative energy, the company represents both a continuation and an expansion of the Merrimack Valley’s growing arts movement. For its founders, the goal was never simply to create another theatre group, but to build something more intentional.

The idea began with a conversation among theatre artists reflecting on their shared experiences, what they loved about theatre, and what they felt was sometimes missing.

“That conversation quickly became a larger one about the kind of company we wanted to build, one rooted in meaningful work, a supportive environment, and a strong sense of purpose.”

From that moment, Black Dog Theatre Company began to take shape, guided by a vision of creating work that resonates on a deeper level.

The company is led by Artistic Director Todd Coolidge, alongside a core leadership team that includes Dusty Behner, Haley Unger, and Kevin Lundy.

Each member of the leadership team brings years, in some cases decades, of experience in theatre, spanning acting, directing, design, and performance. But beyond their individual backgrounds, what defines the group is a shared commitment to creating a supportive and collaborative artistic environment.

Black Dog Theatre Company is built not only on talent, but on values including respect for artists, intentional storytelling, and a belief in theatre as a space for connection.

Choosing Methuen as the company’s home base was both a practical and meaningful decision. While its central location made it accessible to the founding members, the city itself offered something more.

“The company wanted to feel rooted in a community, and Methuen felt like the right place to plant those roots.”

With its historic character and growing creative presence, Methuen provides fertile ground for a theatre company seeking to build long-term relationships with its audience.

Although Black Dog Theatre Company has already performed in venues across the Merrimack Valley including the Nevins Library, as well as spaces in Andover, Merrimac, and Haverhill, the company continues to work toward establishing a more permanent and consistent presence within the city.

The name Black Dog Theatre Company carries both a personal story and a broader symbolic message.

Inspired in part by a rescue dog belonging to Coolidge, the name also reflects a deeper idea about perception, identity, and worth.

“In theatre and in life, many people know what it feels like to be unseen, underestimated, or defined by assumptions.”

Black dogs, often overlooked in shelters due to misconceptions, became a powerful metaphor for the company representing resilience, loyalty, and the importance of recognizing value where it may not always be immediately seen.

That philosophy is embedded in the company’s work and its approach to storytelling.

At its core, Black Dog Theatre Company is committed to producing work that is both engaging and meaningful. While audiences can expect entertaining performances, the company places equal importance on emotional depth and connection.

Its mission is to create a space where difficult conversations can unfold, where audiences can reflect, and where storytelling becomes a bridge between people.

The company embraces a wide range of theatrical styles, including contemporary plays, reimagined classics, intimate musicals, staged readings, and original works. Regardless of format, the guiding principle remains the same: to tell stories that feel authentic and relevant.

“Even when a production is funny or highly entertaining, there is always a desire for it to connect on a deeper human level.”

This commitment to depth and intention is what sets the company apart, offering audiences an experience that lingers beyond the performance itself.

Black Dog Theatre Company’s first production, It’s a Wonderful Life: A Live Radio Play, marked an important milestone. Presented in an intimate setting, the production introduced audiences to the company’s style, actor-centered, emotionally grounded, and focused on connection.

Since then, the company has continued to build momentum through performances in a variety of community spaces. This flexible approach allows Black Dog to meet audiences where they are while maintaining an intimate and accessible experience.

Each performance contributes to the company’s growing presence and reputation throughout the Merrimack Valley.

Beyond its productions, Black Dog Theatre Company is deeply committed to engaging with the Methuen community.

Members of the organization have participated in local events such as Methuen Day and community fundraisers, while also volunteering with organizations including the YMCA, local food banks, and MSPCA programs.

These efforts reflect a broader philosophy, that theatre should not exist in isolation, but as part of a larger community ecosystem.

By building relationships both on and off the stage, the company is working to create a sense of belonging for audiences and artists alike.

Accessibility is central to Black Dog Theatre Company’s mission, not only for audiences, but for those interested in participating in the creative process.

The company actively welcomes involvement from:

Local actors

Students

Volunteers

Community members

Whether on stage, behind the scenes, or in administrative and creative roles, Black Dog aims to create pathways for people at all levels of experience.

Looking ahead, the company plans to expand into workshops, classes, and educational programming further strengthening its role as a community resource and creative hub.

As Black Dog Theatre Company continues to grow, its vision remains grounded in connection, integrity, and purpose.

“Success would mean that audiences trust Black Dog Theatre Company, that artists feel supported and valued, and that the company becomes a lasting part of Methuen’s cultural life.”

In a time when community spaces and shared experiences are more important than ever, the The arrival of Black Dog Theatre Company reflects a broader momentum within the Methuen’s arts community, one that continues to expand through the efforts of local artists, organizations, and advocates.

As new creative voices emerge and connections deepen, the city is steadily shaping itself into a vibrant and supportive environment for the arts.

Black Dog Theatre Company is poised to play a meaningful role in that evolution, offering performances that not only entertain, but connect, challenge, and inspire.

Residents can learn more about upcoming productions and opportunities to get involved by visiting: www.blackdogtheatre.org

Black Dog Theatre Company on social media

This was originally posted on November 22, 2025. However, given last night’s presentation by the drafter or the report and author of Six Degrees of Corruption… it feels appropriate and timely to revisit.

For nearly two years, the STIRM investigative report sat out of public reach ... impounded by the courts and kept from residents who had long demanded answers. It briefly surfaced on Facebook earlier this year, only to be swiftly removed under a court order, fueling even more curiosity. ,

Last night that secrecy finally ended. Mayor D.J. Beauregard released the full report to the public, posting it on the City of Methuen’s website and pushing it directly to residents through the city’s text alert system, making the long-hidden findings available to everyone at last.

And the timing, it couldn’t have been better as Fountain was in Salem Superior Court Friday ready to enter his guilty plea. However, the judge has asked the city solicitor for more documentation which will likely be used to determine sentencing.

So, what is the STIRM report?

In March 2023, the City of Methuen received a detailed internal investigative report from STIRM Group regarding whether former firefighter, former City Council President, and intermittent police officer Sean Fountain had submitted a forged police academy training certificate to obtain and maintain employment with the Methuen Police Department.

The report concludes, unequivocally, that the certificate was a forgery and that the fraud could not have occurred without help from multiple individuals inside the law-enforcement training system.

Below is a clear, plain-language summary of what Methuen residents should know.

What the Investigation Was About

According to page 1, the City hired STIRM Group to determine:

1. Whether a police training certificate attributed to Sean Fountain was authentic, and

2. If fraudulent, who created or facilitated the forgery.

STIRM’s conclusion: “Sean Fountain’s Northeast Regional Police Institute ( NERPI) certificate is a forgery.” (p.108)

Who Is Sean Fountain?

The report (p.10) describes Fountain as:

• A former Methuen firefighter

• Former City Council President

• An intermittent police officer beginning July 1, 2016

• A beneficiary of “a level of preferential treatment that was so blatant that it was different from the four intermittent officers hired with him.”

The forgery allowed him to maintain status as a police officer, which—per STIRM—exposed Methuen to potential liability exceeding $400,000 (p.10).

What the Certificate Fraud Involved

STIRM found:

• Fountain presented a certificate claiming he graduated from the May 13, 1995 NERPI police academy (p.10).

• This conflicted with official academy records.

• Investigators obtained the legitimate 1995 certificate format and compared them (p.18).

• Fountain’s document “has been proven to be a forgery” (p.108).

• Multiple versions of the forged document existed, suggesting coordinated effort by insiders (pp.12–13, 16).

Who Else Was Implicated

The report identifies several individuals with varying levels of alleged involvement. Key figures include:

• Former Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon.

  The report labels Solomon a co-conspirator (p.10). STIRM states that supporting the forgery “could not have occurred” without Solomon (p.11). It also references years of concerns about his leadership from the Civil Service Commission and Inspector General (p.11).

• Former Captain Greg Gallant

  The report alleges Gallant created or distributed at least one forged version of the certificate (p.12).

• Robert Ferullo, Former MPTC Executive Director

  The report claims he submitted falsified training records indicating Fountain completed a program he did not attend (p.12).

• Additional MPTC and law-enforcement staff

Several officials are identified as supplying records, missing records, or inconsistencies—some with non-cooperative behavior (pp.13–17).

Attempts to Get Prosecutors to Act

Pages 13–16 describe repeated unsuccessful attempts to get the Essex County District Attorney’s Office and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office to take the case.

Investigators describe:

• Delays

• Lack of follow-through

• Confusion over responsibility between agencies

• Key individuals refusing interviews or declining to pursue criminal charges (pp.13–16)

One passage notes that the AG’s office “opted to remain on the sidelines” even after being told Fountain sought immunity in exchange for testimony (p.16).

How the Forgery Was Discovered

The very first red flag was raised inside the Methuen Police Department.

Duringan internal review of officer records, Methuen officials noticed that Fountain’s NERPI training certificate did not match the legitimate format normally issued by the 1995 academy class.

The report states that Fountain “created a forged training certificate” purporting to show he graduated from the May 13, 1995 NERPI Police Academy (p.10). But when Methuen command staff compared the certificate to known legitimate documents, the format immediately appeared inconsistent.

This prompted the department to seek verification.

Fountain’s personnel file contained:

• Conflicting versions of certificates

• Yellow-card records showing he wasn’t certified when he claimed to be

• Records staff at the state level confirmed discrepancies, including:

• Fountain’s yellow card being scanned at the MPTC on 24 November 2021 at 11:29 a.m. (p.17)

• MPTC staff stating they had no record of Fountain graduating the 1995 academy (pp.17–18)

Once discrepancies were confirmed, Chief Scott McNamara pushed the matter forward.

The report states that investigating and resolving the fraud became a top priority for him (p.9).

McNamara contacted outside agencies, demanded cooperation from the MPTC, and ultimately sought external investigative assistance.

Key Witnesses Who Confirmed the Fraud

Several retired police officials and NERPI instructors were interviewed, including:

• Steve Smith, whose signature was forged (pp.18, 19)

• Former instructors and coordinators who confirmed Fountain was not part of the 1995 class

• Additional officers disputing the authenticity of documents produced in his file (pp.19–20)

Conclusion of the Report

STIRM’s ultimate finding (pp.108–132):

The certificate was not real.

Multiple individuals across Methuen PD, MPTC, and other agencies enabled the fraud.

The lack of prosecutorial movement was notable and documented in detail.

Methuen’s police oversight systems were inadequate to detect or stop the misconduct.

They further recommend administrative and criminal actions (pp.180–187).

Why This Matters for Methuen

The report suggests:

• A breakdown of state and local oversight

• A culture of internal preferential treatment

• Risk to public safety and city finances

• Damaged public trust

• Potential long-term civil liability for the city

This was not merely a paperwork problem but a systemic failure across several institutions.

Bottom Line...

The STIRM Report concludes that Sean Fountain’s police training certificate was a proven forgery, supported by a network of individuals and enabled by breakdowns in accountability at the local and state level.

Despite the strength of the evidence, no criminal prosecution occurred during the time period covered by the report.

For Methuen residents, the document raises serious questions about oversight, leadership, and the culture within parts of the law-enforcement community during the years these events occurred.

A lot has changed inside the Methuen Police Department since the period covered by this report. New leadership, modernized oversight practices, and a far more transparent internal culture have taken root largely because these revelations forced the city to confront the cracks that allowed this mess to happen in the first place.

As for the individuals at the center of the scandal, the legal fallout is finally coming into focus. Sean Fountain is preparing to plead guilty, an acknowledgment that the forged certificate and the benefits he gained from it were not misunderstandings, but deliberate acts. We will hear from a judge soon what consequences he will face.

Former Chief Joseph Solomon, meanwhile, still awaits trial. And while every defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, logic suggests that Fountain’s guilty plea will make Solomon’s defense significantly more difficult. If Fountain admits the certificate was fraudulent and identifies those who helped him, it becomes harder for any co-defendant to distance themselves from the scheme.

For Methuen residents, this is another chapter in a long-running story, one that deserves close attention. The report may finally be public, but the consequences of what it documents are still unfolding.

To view the original press release and the entire 202 page STIRM Report, click here.

Why does the Methuen City Council have an Unaccepted Roads Task Force? The phrase “task force” suggests an urgent crisis — as if the world’s about to go to hell in a hand basket unless we launch a full-blown review.

Enter the Methuen City Council’s Unaccepted Road Task Force. This group, led by Chair Marsan and Vice Chair Soto has met 4 times since February 2025. Their agendas, minutes, and recordings are here: https://www.cityofmethuen.net/333/Unaccepted-Ways-Task-Force-Committee

But why, what is the crisis?

Do you know whether the road in front of your house is accepted, unaccepted, private, or a paper road? Most people don’t — and why would they? You look out the window, you see a road, it gets plowed in winter, there’s water and sewer under it, and your driveway connects to it. Who cares what it’s called?

Well, you should. But do we need a task force? Absolutely not.

Most streets labeled “unaccepted” are generations old — often named for the original property owner through whose land the road ran (think Nelson Way, Brown Court).

You show up at City Hall, or call your councilor, hoping your little ol’ street was just forgotten and you’re doing your civic duty by reminding them it needs paving…Boom. That’s when you learn the road is unaccepted, and, unbeknownst to you, you’re the proud owner of XYZ Way — at least to the centerline.

The good news: your property taxes won’t automatically go up.

The bad news: major maintenance of the road may be on your dime.

Now that you’re hyperventilating and counting down the hours until City Hall opens, let’s start with the basics — some key definitions:

Paper Street

A “paper street” is a roadway shown on a recorded or approved plan that was never actually built — or was never finished or formally accepted by the city. In other words, it exists on paper, not on the ground. Think of it as a ghost street. In Massachusetts, paper streets are common in older subdivisions where plans were recorded but roads were never built or accepted. Under MGL Ch. 41 §81L and related case law, simply being shown on a plan does not make it a public way

Private Way

Then: Many private ways began generations ago as paths over family land to reach a house set back from the main road. They didn’t connect two public streets, served only a few properties, and stayed private because there was no reason to make them public.

Now: Private ways also show up in modern developments. Sometimes entire subdivisions are designed with privately maintained roads — no city plowing, no municipal trash pickup, and road upkeep funded by the development residents (often through a homeowners’ association).

Unaccepted Way

Exactly as it is apply named, it’s a street or way that, for one reason or another, was not designated as a private way and was never formally accepted by the City. The reasons vary case by case, but common ones include: a developer went defunct before the project was completed or accepted; the road was not built to City specifications; there are title or easement defects; or other unresolved conditions. To make things trickier, some streets are only partially accepted — one segment is public, while another remains unaccepted.

Accepted Street

Take a breath — this is where heads start to pop.

An accepted street is a public way… but not every public way is an accepted street.

Okay, let’s get this out of the way: an accepted street is always a public way.A street becomes “accepted” when it meets the City’s standards and the City Council votes to accept it. Once accepted, the city holds title to the property, recorded in the registry of deeds.

There are three ways a road becomes a public way, in Massachusetts:

1. Statutory acceptance — the formal layout and vote (the “accepted street” route).

2. Prescription — the general public has used it openly, notoriously, adversely, and continuously for 20+ years (yes, “notorious” is the actual legal word).

3. Pre-1846 common-law dedication — long-ago owner dedication plus public acceptance.

Bottom line: every accepted street is public. Some public ways got that status without a council vote (paths 2 or 3), so they’re public — but, and this is key, they are not “accepted.” The big misconception? That “public way” = the City must maintain it forever. Nope. Being public by use or ancient dedication doesn’t magically hand the DPW a plow-and-pave obligation. Maintenance follows who’s legally obliged to repair—and if it isn’t the City, then one snowplow pass or a past patch job doesn’t lock them into perpetuity. M.G.L. c. 82, §§ 21–24 and Hay v. Commonwealth, 253 Mass. 537, 540 (1916).

Ok, let’s get back to the mic drop moment when a City worker just told you they won’t fix your street — even though it swallowed three VW Beetles, a Fiat, and (allegedly) three dogs last week. If you don’t want to play road-frogger anymore, you and your neighbors may have to pay for it, because it’s your road.

“WHAT DO I PAY TAXES FOR?!”

Hard truth: this isn’t about your tax bill — just like people without kids still help fund schools. It’s about how your road was designated when it was born. As frustrating as it is, it is what it is.

If you squeak loud and long enough, the Council might take up your cause — especially in an election year. That’s what happened with one resident. Taking advantage of his right to speak at public participation, he became a familiar face, consistently advocating to have his road paved and questioning the accuracy of the City-maintained street-acceptance list which is arguably less than perfect.

Voilà — the task force was born.

Classic politics: appease a constituent by sending their gripe to “committee.”

Fast-forward three years: there’s now a resolution before the Council for the City to pave five unaccepted streets using whatever funds the Mayor has at his disposal. The resident persistence paid off: his unaccepted road made the cut.

Okay, let’s deconstruct this.

What’s wrong with this resolution?

1. Public money on private property — hard stop. You can’t spend public funds to pave unaccepted/private ways except through very narrow legal channels — translation: this basically means PATCHING POTHOLES, folks. Even the CAFO spelled it out to the Council in the last meeting. You can see that here:https://methuentv.cablecast.tv/internetchannel/show/7622?site=2

2. Nelson Ave reads as a private way.A good part of the street is owned by one or two abutters, and it wasn’t built to be accepted. The deed language ties access to an easement over Nelson Avenue — the city does not own it in any way shape or form:

3. Conflict of interest — participation barred.The persistent resident is an abutting owner and a member of the Unaccepted Streets Task Force, is a municipal employee for ethics purposes. He cannot participate in any matter where he has a financial interest — like selecting or even talking about his own street for paving. At minimum, a written disclosure is required; in practice, he should recuse. Having the City pave his road saves him real money; taking part in the discussion or selection is not lawful.

4. Paid, not volunteer. Salt in the taxpayer wound: They are not just a task-force member — they are a paid consultant. According to City records online, from Dec. 2024 to Feb. 2025 they collected $12,675 in “consulting” fees — paid by you, the taxpayers. So they might get their street paved, and they are getting paid while the decision is teed up.

Moving the Goalposts

Watch the October Task Force meeting (linked above): the persistent resident flat-out says the road-acceptance rules won’t work for their street because three of nine abutters won’t sign on. One even likes the road in disrepair to slow traffic; the other two barely use the street to access their homes, so they don’t want to pay to upgrade it and have it accepted.

Later on the Council agenda, an ordinance to change the acceptance rules. If the first resolution to pave the five streets falls through — Plan B. The proposal drops the City’s abutter buy-in from 75% (to fund bringing the road up to standard) down to 51%. Convenient when you know at least three neighbors won’t agree.

Now, instead of needing 7 out of 9 signatures — which they know they can’t get — they only need 5.

If you live on one of the City’s 200 unaccepted streets in town, we’d be concerned - that’s not consensus: that’s engineering the outcome.

The onus for acceptance should be on the abutters, not the City. And to the councilor who claimed “we’ve let these poor people down”: no. If a street’s residents want acceptance, they petition the City — the City shouldn’t strong-arm for them. Stop burning taxpayer money and staff time on something City Hall has should have no business spearheading — and stop shoving the bill into residents’ pocketbooks who never asked for it.

We’ll leave you with food for thought: why the hard push to accept these roads right now?

All we know is the five streets the committee picked are all in either the East or West district. The committee includes three councilors; two from the East and one from the West. Two of them are realtors, and one is a developer/contractor. Do with that what you will. I’

Watch for part two of the series – You want to petition the City for street acceptance, now what?

TL;DR

The Massachusetts House just passed a bill that would ban phones in schools and block kids under 14 from social media entirely. If it becomes law, Methuen Public Schools is already exceeding the requirement but may need to take a stricker approached based on inside reports.

The Massachusetts House voted 129 to 25 on Wednesday to pass legislation that would ban cellphone use in schools and restrict social media access for minors. The bill requires social media companies to implement age verification systems to prohibit users under 14, and requires parental consent for users aged 14 and 15. It also prohibits the use of cell phones from school arrival through dismissal. (https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=359) The measure now heads back to the Senate before it can go to Governor Healey’s desk.

Read the full House press release: https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=359

Read the full bill text (S. 2581): https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S2581

What the bill actually does

There are two separate pieces here, and it helps to think about them separately.

The social media piece targets the platforms. Platforms would be required to terminate accounts of users under 14 and delete their personal data, effective October 1, 2026. Users aged 14 and 15 could stay on platforms only with verifiable parental consent, while those 16 and older face no restrictions. (https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=359) Platforms that don’t comply face civil fines. The bill also prohibits platforms from sharing information about a minor’s LGBTQ+ status or other characteristics protected under state law. (https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=359)

The school phone piece puts the burden on districts. Districts must implement a policy prohibiting personal electronic devices during the school day and during school-sponsored activities. They are required to notify parents, ensure parents can still reach their children in an emergency, and file their policy annually with DESE no later than September 1st. (https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=359) How districts comply is up to them, within limits. Options include secure storage or technology that renders devices inoperable.

Methuen already has a policy. The problem is enforcement.

Methuen already has a policy prohibiting cell phone use in school. This bill would not create a new obligation out of thin air for the district. What it would do is raise the stakes for actually following through on it.

Reports from inside Methuen schools, including from students themselves, suggest the existing policy is enforced inconsistently. Some teachers hold the line. Others don’t. The result is a patchwork where some classrooms are phone-free and others effectively aren’t. That is the real issue this legislation forces the district to confront. The benefit of the bill is that it takes the teacher out of the role of decider and enforcer.

School Committee member Keegan is already thinking about how to close that gap. Keegan said she “would like to see Methuen explore the Doorman app that Watertown is using that blocks personal devices except for the ability to make phone calls while in the building.” More on that below.

There is more too it though. The bill requires districts to prohibit personal electronic devices during the school day and during school-sponsored activities. NBC Boston Read that carefully. The restriction applies to school-sponsored activities that occur during the school day. Not after it.

That means a field trip during school hours is covered. An in-school pep rally is covered. But a Friday night football game, a school dance, or an after-school theater performance almost certainly is not, at least not under this bill’s language. Those events happen outside of school hours and would fall outside the scope of what the bill mandates.

That said, Methuen’s current policy does not appear to address school-sponsored events at all, which is a gap worth noting.

The bill as written does not force that issue. But if Methuen is going to be required update its policy to comply with this legislation, it is a good moment to address school-sponsored events directly and be transparent with parents about what is and is not covered.

A few other things parents should know. The bill requires accommodations for students with IEPs or disabilities that require personal electronic devices, documented medical needs, and language access or translation needs. Suspension or expulsion cannot be imposed solely for violating the device policy. malegislature That last piece matters. In a district where disciplinary equity deserves ongoing attention, it is a meaningful guardrail.

What is Doorman?

Doorman is a smartphone app being piloted at Watertown High School and a handful of other Massachusetts schools. The idea is straightforward: instead of physically confiscating phones or locking them in pouches, the technology handles enforcement automatically.

When students enter a classroom, they tap their phone on a small device called a DoorTag located near the door. That tap simultaneously logs attendance and activates restrictions on the phone, preventing texting, distracting apps, and other web-based functions while still allowing phone calls in and out. Watertown

The app is synchronized with the school’s class schedule and automatically restores full phone functions once the class period ends. Teachers and administrators have a dashboard where they can track student tap-ins and monitor any attempts to circumvent the policy. Watertown

The enforcement gap that plagues informal policies is kind of the whole point of the product. Watertown’s principal switched to Doorman after students figured out how to game the old pouch system, using calculator cases, dead phones, and other substitutes to fool teachers while keeping their real phones on them. WBUR News

The principal described it as “the best middle ground between completely taking a student’s phone or locking it away.” Yahoo!

Early results from Watertown have been encouraging. Since starting the use of the app, students have become more engaged in the classroom. The principal noted that kids are talking more and feel it is a healthy balance, and that the technology gives staff the ability to focus on instruction rather than monitoring phone use. Yahoo!

Doorman also has built-in flexibility that matters in a district like Methuen. Teachers can allow approved apps like Google Classroom to remain accessible, and the app does not engage automatically. It only activates when a student physically taps in. Watertown Students who choose not to use the app would be required to leave their phone in the main office for the day.

The company reports a 93 percent compliance rate across schools using the system and estimates it saves teachers more than 40 hours per year in phone enforcement time. Doorman

As for cost, Watertown’s first year of the pilot was free, with subsequent use priced at roughly five dollars per student. Watertown News For a district the size of Methuen, that would be a meaningful but not prohibitive budget item, especially weighed against the instructional time currently lost to phone distraction.

The geo-fencing pilot: could Methuen apply?

One provision is worth flagging for anyone following this closely. The bill creates a DESE-run pilot program for 10 districts to test technology that would render students’ personal electronic devices inoperable on school grounds during the school day.

(https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/massachusetts-lawmakers-plan-vote-social-110628311.html)

The pilot includes privacy safeguards: providers cannot collect data for advertising or profiling, and the technology must allow communication between parents and students and allow students to reach emergency services. (https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=359) Methuen could potentially apply to participate. Whether the district or School Committee pursues that is worth keeping an eye on.

My question is would that mean DESE/the State funds the tech behind the pilot? We could use all the freebies we can get!

What happens next

The bill passed as S. 2581, as amended by the House, on a 129 to 25 vote. (https://www.statehousenews.com/news/legislature/house/reps-pass-youth-social-media-ban-over-privacy-big-tech-concerns/article_e11a3b59-deec-4f71-99bc-f2cc4f0441cf.html) Because the House added social media provisions that were not in the Senate’s original version, the two chambers will likely need a conference committee to reconcile the differences before sending anything to the governor (https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/04/06/massachusetts-house-cellphone-ban-bill-social-media-kids)

There is also a real possibility of legal challenges. Sponsors have acknowledged the social media provisions closely follow Florida’s law, which has been challenged in court on First Amendment grounds since 2024. They say they think they are on solid legal ground, but they are not ruling out litigation. (https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-youth-social-media-ban-phones-schools/)

For Methuen families and school officials, the practical clock is running. If the conference committee moves quickly and Healey signs the bill in the coming weeks, districts will have roughly three months to develop, adopt, and file a phone policy before the September 1 DESE deadline. That is doable, but it is not a lot of runway.

The School Committee should already be thinking about this one.

Sources:

Massachusetts House Press Release, April 8, 2026 (malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=359)

Bill S. 2581 (malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S2581)

WBUR, “Mass. House set to vote on bill to ban cellphones in schools, limit teen social media use” (wbur.org)

GBH News, “Mass. House passes bill to ban kids under 14 from social media” (wgbh.org)

Boston Globe, “Mass. House approves bill limiting social media use for children under age 14” (bostonglobe.com)

State House News Service, “Reps pass youth social media ban over privacy, big tech concerns” (statehousenews.com)

Watertown Cable Access Corp., “Watertown High School First in Nation to Pilot Phone-Blocking App” (wcatv.org)

Watertown Public Schools District News (watertown.k12.ma.us)

Watertown News, “Watertown High School to Pilot App That Would Disable Student Cellphones During Class” (watertownmanews.com)

WBUR, “Tap into class: Watertown High will be first in country to test new cell phone-limiting tech” (wbur.org)

CBS Boston, “New app limits cellphone distractions at Massachusetts high school” (cbsnews.com/boston)

Doorman product site (doorman.school)

On Tuesday evening, March 24^th, The Methuen Literacy Partnership held a launch event at the newly-refurbished library space at the Timony Grammar School in Methuen. Over forty interested residents and community members gathered to learn more about the developing plans for the Partnership. Since the introduction of the Partnership last September, the group’s founding steering committee has been conducting surveys and research, gathering support, and spreading the word about this new effort to involve our community in a campaign to support grade-level reading in our Methuen Schools.

The Partnership was founded last year by Mary Beth Donovan Grassi (retired Tenney School Principal), Krista McLeod (Retired Nevins Library Director), State Representative Ryan Hamilton and Amy Dorsheimer (Head of Youth Services at the Nevins Library), with strong support from consultants Dr. Jessica Kallin and Jessi Magee. Dr Kallin was formerly the Executive Director of Haverhill Promise, a similar organization promoting literacy skills for children. The Partnership was formed under the umbrella leadership of the Nevins Library and the Methuen Public Schools, and is now reaching out to other individuals and organizations in the community to launch programs and grow the local commitment to helping improve children’s reading and support their love of books.

Through early research, the Partnership has decided to focus on three program areas,

• Early Childhood Literacy

• Stopping the Summer Reading Slide

• Community & Family Engagement in Reading

The March 24^th Launch event was held to gather more ideas and input from the community to build programs around these three focus areas, and to recruit volunteers to help with organizing sub-committees. Breaking into small groups to brainstorm, attendees came up with many innovative ways to develop programs to enhance childhood literacy in Methuen. Among these ideas were the following:

• Community wants neighborhood-focused events

• Multilingual materials are a top priority

• Excitement for pen pal programs and summer reading challenges

• Engaging a variety of volunteers to help with projects, especially Senior Citizens

• Best ways to reach the whole community

• Kids need books at home as well as library access

The Partnership will be forming subcommittees in April and May to organize activities beginning this summer and next school year. If you are interested in participating on a Committee, let us know by emailing contact@methuenreads.org

Keep up with the Partnership’s efforts by checking the website at www.methuenreads.org or liking us on FaceBook at Methuen Literacy Partnership.