Links to original agendas

• City Council Regular Meeting Agenda, August 10, 2026

I’m a little wait this week but that doesn’t stop the world from spinning. Council is back in the Great Hall at the Searles Building Monday at 6:00 P.M. We are kicking off the fun an hour earlier to cover everything they’ve packed into this agenda… 23 contracts, six resolutions carried over from last time, seven new ones, two ordinances, and an executive session to close it out. +

Grab a coffee or mix your drinks… here we go, section by section so those playing along at home can follow.

Roll Call / Acceptance of the Agenda

This should be pretty typical and uneventful. However, given the recent preference to move our friends up the agenda so they don’t have to wait in wings of the Great Hall, it’s fun to guess who the golden ticket receipt may be tomorrow night.

Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Moment of Silence, Public Participation

Standard open with public participation as usual. There is so much on the agenda that people may want to talk about.

Organizational Business

None.

Reading and Acceptance of Minutes

Minutes from the Monday, July 6, 2026 Regular Meeting.

Proclamations and Correspondence

A citation for Victor Rivera, Jr.

This is the carry over from the last meeting where he was unable to attend. The Methuen native and Marist Social Work major was recently named the university's first-ever Truman Scholar, one of 55 picked nationwide this year for a career track aimed at policing informed by clinical mental health training.

Consideration of Appointments

• Pamela Bertheim – Constable (re-appointment) - Back up

• Bryan Chase – Licensing (re-appointment) - Back up

• Douglas Cairnie – Registrar of Voters (re-appointment) - Back up

• David Veit – Historical Commission - Back Up

• Approval of the 2026 Poll Workers List for the September 1, 2026 State Primary (backup attached)

Why it matters: Three of the four appointments are re-appointments, so this is mostly a check-the-box exercise. The poll workers list is the one with a hard deadline attached since the State Primary is three weeks out.

I’ve attached the back up from the agenda so you can see what the Council will see on each individual.

Presentations, Projects, Department Updates

Nothing listed this week.

Mayor’s Report

As usual, this section is blank but will cover many of the items listed below in Requests of Councilors plus whatever else the Mayor has to share.

CAFO Report

You can view the actual report here.

• Update on trash barrel fees and fines (Req. of Clr. DiZoglio)

• Five-year list of revenue from fees and fines (Req. of Clr. DiZoglio)

Why it matters: DiZoglio has been pushing on trash and fee revenue for a while now. This is the kind of recurring-line-item accounting that doesn’t make headlines but shapes next year’s budget fights. The problem is his complete blind eye to the City’s historical incompetence as he consistently lables every resident as purposelly withhold their extra barrel fees.

Requests of Councilors

• Update on Searles Estate expenses and revenues (Req. of Clr. Soto)

• Cost breakdown and tonnage for the Methuen Housing Authority’s trash collection through the city’s municipal trash contract (Req. of Chair Soto)

Worth watching — if MHA is riding on the municipal contract, this is really a question of who’s subsidizing whom.

• Request to the City Solicitor and DPW to build a dedicated section of the city website walking residents through the process for accepting unaccepted ways — application, eligibility, fees/betterments, timeline, contacts (Req. of Clr. Valley)

This is a real gap. Unaccepted ways are one of the more opaque processes in city government, and right now there’s no public roadmap for how a resident actually gets one accepted. The question to watch for here is how hard some Councilors push to use City money do offset the cost to residents… keeping in mind it is illegal to use public money on private property.

• Buildings Audit RFP status update (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• City employee email signature standardization (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• HHSI permit fee review and update status, following up on the FY2027 budget workshop discussion (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• Update and implementation plan for the Trash App that Harvey is contractually required to deliver, plus a correction path to get them into compliance (Req. of Clr. Drew)

This has been outstanding long enough that “correction path to get them in compliance” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

• Update on the Methuen 9/11/01 Memorial Service (Req. of Clr. DiZoglio)

• Boards and Commissions appointment/reappointment status update — vacancies, expired terms, members serving past their allowed term, and the administration’s timeline for filling seats (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• Request that the City Solicitor update the council on ownership of the Depot Overhang associated with the Laborers Union building, including whether any title or deed information has been identified (Req. of Clr. Valley and Clr. Drew)

Inside Methuen actually did a pretty detailed story on this that may save the City some time. You can read it here: The Saga Continues: The Story of the Depot Overhang

• Boards and Commissions appointment/reappointment status update — vacancies, expired terms, members serving past their allowed term, and the administration’s timeline for filling seats (Req. of Clr. Drew)

This is the same request listed twice on the posted agenda, word for word. Either a drafting error or Drew really wants an answer.

Public Service

A. Grants

• Public Service Grant 301043582 — Temple Drive, Westgate Circle, Jewel Circle: National Grid will replace existing direct-buried cable with a conduit system (removed from the table)

Why it matters: This had been sitting on the table. Taking it off doesn’t mean it’s approved… it just means it’s back in play for a vote.

B. Licenses

Nothing listed this week.

C. Contracts

Before we get into the Contracts on the docket for this evening, I think it’s important to note how fundamentally flawed procurement law is for cities and towns. Granted, we have no control over this, but it’s worth noting that while cities and towns are generally bound to award to the lowest responsible bidder under M.G.L. c. 30B for supplies and services, and M.G.L. c. 149 for public construction… the state itself, under 801 CMR 21, operates on a “Best Value” standard: a weighing of price and performance and not just whoever comes in cheapest.

To be fair, c. 30B does give municipalities an RFP track that can weigh criteria beyond price, but in practice, Methuen and most of its peer communities default to the lowest-bid IFB process for the bulk of what shows up on a contracts list like tonight’s. The state carved out more flexibility for itself than it extended to the cities and towns actually spending the money.

Why does this matter? Because “cheapest” and “best” are not the same thing, and a council voting on 18 contracts tonight has almost no legal room to weigh a vendor’s track record, reliability, or long-term value against a lower number from someone else. It’s a structural issue, not a Methuen issue, but it’s the water this whole Contracts section swims in, and it’s worth keeping in mind every time we hit a line that reads like the lowest bid won by default. Again, when you look around and ask yourself “we paid for that" with disgust in your voice.

Ok, off my soapbox and back to the agenda…

(Also, you can click the C-##-# for the backup on each contract.)

• C-27-6 – TEC, Inc. (Lawrence) — FY26–FY27 Paving Program construction administration services with DPW — $190,000.00

• C-27-7 – Water Safety Service, Inc. (Woburn) — Backflow prevention device testing and cross-connection program, one year plus two one-year extension options for the Water Treatment Plant — $137,637.00 total across all three years (FY27: $42,627.00; FY28: $45,825.00; FY29: $49,185.00, extensions subject to appropriation)

• C-27-8 – Holland Company, Inc. (Adams) — Aluminum sulfate for the Water Treatment Plant — $150,000.00 ($1.78/gallon)

• C-27-9 – Borden & Remington Corp. (Fall River) — Sodium hypochlorite, 3,000 gallons for the Water Treatment Plant — $90,000.00 ($0.1509/wet pound)

• C-27-10 – Energy Source, LLC (Smithfield, RI) — Energy conservation project through National Grid/Eversource’s Project Expediter Program under M.G.L. c. 25A, § 14, for attic insulation at the North End Fire Station — $25,221.00

• C-27-11 – Corolla Contracting, Inc. (Winthrop) — Shingle roof replacement at the North End Fire Station, 250 Howe Street — $37,130.00

Why it matters: C-27-10 and C-27-11 are both North End Fire Station work in the same meeting… one’s weatherization, one’s the roof. Makes sense to bundle the read: this station is getting a real capital push this cycle.

• C-27-12 – Providence Capital Network (Charlotte, NC) — Tax-exempt lease-purchase financing for 1,045 Chromebooks and licenses for education — $124,358.00 annual payment, 48-month term, 4.98% interest, $1.00 buyout

• C-27-13 – Apple Financial Services (Scottsdale, AZ) — Financing for 550 iPads, AppleCare, and STM DUX Ultra cases for the Class of 2030 — $63,016.85 annual payment, 48-month term, 1.90% lease rate factor, four-year total $244,722.50

Why it matters: With the school year starting in a few weeks, losing a week on this hurts. These are machines issued to students. Teachers plan around these machines and now we run the risk of them being late.

• C-27-14 – International Dioxide (North Kingston, RI) — Sodium chlorite, 1,500 gallons for the Water Treatment Plant — $70,000.00 ($0.82/wet pound)

• C-27-15 – BETA Group, Inc. (Norwood) — Engineering services for pavement management — $88,650.00

• C-27-16 – BETA Group, Inc. (Norwood) — Engineering services for sidewalk and curb ramp inventory / ADA compliance plan — $42,900.00

• C-27-17 – ESO Solutions, Inc. (Austin, TX) — EHR fax, fire incident, and CAD integration software for the fire department — $27,071.28

  With the back up provided, this appears to be new software requiring real integration. Anyone fimailir with software will tell you that integration is the hard part (just look at our integration of Munis…). There is nothing to talk about who is going to manage this intergration. Hopefully, someone asks…

• C-27-18 – Systems Electrical Services, Inc. (Chelsea) — LED lighting installation at the MHS stadium lower turf field — $169,000.00

• C-27-19 – Carahsoft Technology Corp. (Reston, VA) — First Platform cloud-based occupancy/inspection software renewal via COMMBUYS contract ITS60 — $31,133.77

• C-27-20 – UNIVAR — Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), 4,000 gallons for the Water Treatment Plant — $90,000.00 ($0.1681/wet pound)

• C-27-21 – D & J Landscaping (Merrimac) — Landscaping maintenance for Charles Street, Osgood Street, and Grey Court parks — $86,658.00 for a three-year term, with two optional one-year extensions at the city’s sole discretion

  In typical municpal contracting fashion, this contract is up for approval to the lowest bidder without a single word of how we measure success. There is nothing in the attached contract to say how we determine if this vendor is doing a good job. Oddly, Question 6 on the Intent to Award form says "Does the item require a service contract to guarantee proper performance? YES" but nothing in the actual agreement functions as a performance guarantee beyond the general "failing to perform to the satisfaction of the CITY" language in the termination clause. That's a checkbox that doesn't match the document behind it. This is just a piece of the reason we spend so much on legal bills.

• C-27-22 – The Stepping Stones Group (Boston) — Educational and behavioral services — $2,555,280.00

• C-27-23 – Trane U.S., Inc. (White Bear Lake, MN) — Replacement of three rooftop AHUs at Marsh Grammar School with Trane Performance Climate Changer units — $399,402.00

Why it matters: Hold onto C-27-22 and C-27-23… both come back later tonight under New Business, funded by resolutions that specifically reference these dollar figures. This is the contract, and later you’ll see the money.

D. Election

• Order calling for the 2026 State Primary Election on Tuesday, September 1, 2026 (backup attached)

Other Officers and Committee Reports

Nothing listed this week.

Unfinished Business

Resolutions

• TR-26-67, As Amended — Declaring the Pleasant Valley School property, 180 Pleasant Valley Street (Parcel #1109-78E-45), surplus and authorizing sale/redevelopment

• TR-26-68 — Declaring the Currier School property, 36 Boylston Street (Parcel #914-105-63), surplus and authorizing sale/redevelopment

Why it matters: That’s two former school buildings up for surplus and sale in the same meeting. Worth watching what “redevelopment” actually means for each parcel and whether there’s already a buyer or developer in the wings. The highlight is that the Mayor has openly committed to these funds being used to update the school facilities. Before you push for them to be used elsewhere, by law they need to be used on facilities.

• TR-26-69 — Accepting $15,795.31 in FY2027 state 911 Emergency Medical Dispatch grant funding

• TR-26-70 — Accepting $168,186.09 in FY2027 state 911 department training grant funding

• TR-26-73 — Declaring the property at 30 Railroad Street (Parcel #716-14-16) surplus and authorizing sale/redevelopment

That’s a third surplus-property resolution this meeting. This reads less like disposing of odd lots one at a time and more like the city working through a backlog systematically… which isn’t a bad thing, but it’s worth naming as a pattern rather than three unrelated items.

• TR-26-74 — Transferring funds from the Edwin J. Castle Fund to the Methuen Literacy Project/Nevins Library and to Methuen Public Schools’ CTE Early Childhood Care program

I’ll save you some time. This is for $10,000 to launch a pilot early learning initiative for Methuen families who have children entering kindergarten in Sept 2027.

What does that mean in action? Wish I could tell you but that is all the documents give us.

Ordinances

• TO-26-18 — Amending Section 8-5A of the Municipal Code to increase ambulance rates and charges and establish a new lift-assist fee

Why it matters: This is the second read. For those that missed the first… this DOES NOT impact residents. This is a fee for nursing homes and the like when they call in MFD to lift a fallen patient because they don’t want the liability of doing it themselves.

• TO-26-16, as amended — Amending “Section 9-52. Trash and Recyclables Collection” of the Municipal Code (sponsored by Councilor Ryan DiZoglio), removed from the table

This is DiZoglio’s trash ordinance coming back off the table the same night he’s also got two CAFO Report requests in on trash fees and fines. Consistent focus, at minimum.

The original fined a first overflow or contaminated-barrel violation $50 outright; the "clean" version softens that into a warning-only first offense (a sticker on the barrel, a written notice, no fine) before the $50/$150/$300 ladder kicks in on the second, third, and later violations. The amendment also gives residents four more days to appeal a citation (14 instead of 10) and drops the ordinance's own bespoke late-fee schedule in favor of a cross-reference to the standard late-fee rules already in the Municipal Code. Net effect: a bit friendlier to a first-time violator, a bit less specific about what happens if you don't pay.

New Business

Resolutions

• TR-26-75 — Amending the city’s Traffic Rules and Regulations to allow parking only on the even-numbered side of Elmwood Road (sponsored by Clr. Ryan DiZoglio; EPA requested)

Why it matters: This is being pitched as a safety issue since the street isn’t wide enough to be lined with cars and allow a fire truck to pass safely.

• TR-26-76 — Abandoning the balance of the FY26 Capital Improvement Plan for the Methuen High School water heater project and transferring $295,500 of the remaining borrowed funds to cover the Marsh Grammar School air handler replacement project (EPA requested; requested by the Mayor and CAFO)

Why it matters: This is the funding mechanism for C-27-23, the $399,402 Trane contract for Marsh Grammar’s rooftop units. $295,500 of it is coming from money originally borrowed for a different project,the MHS water heater, that’s apparently no longer moving forward. That’s a real reallocation of borrowed capital funds, not new money, and it’s worth asking what happens to the water heater project now.

• TR-26-77 — Appropriating $2,555,280 from the General Stabilization Fund to the FY27 General Fund’s Methuen Public Schools expenditures line for the Constellations Behavioral Services program (EPA requested; requested by the Mayor)

Why it matters: This is the ongoing Constellations conversation that has been ongoing for months now. This is a great use of Stabilization Funds, esepcially if this systematically transforms the way MPS delievers special ed services going forward. The trick here is going to be tracking spend which will be tricky because every student is different.

• TR-26-79 — Declaring surplus equipment and authorizing its auction (sponsored by Mayor and CAFO)

• TR-26-80 — Accepting and spending a $1.7 million Green School Works Program grant from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center for energy efficiency infrastructure at Donald P. Timony Grammar School (EPA requested; requested by Mayor Beauregard)

Why it matters: $1.7 million in outside grant money for Timony is a real win if it comes through clean… worth watching whether there’s a local match requirement buried in the grant terms.

• TR-26-81 — Accepting the gift of a Polish American Veterans monument from the Julian J. Stopyra Veterans Post (requested by Mayor Beauregard)

• TR-26-82 — Transferring $1,000 from City Council Personal Services to City Council Other Expenses (Req. of Clr. Soto)

Why it matters: Remember the hot dispute over the Youth Summer Program that was ultimately reduced in the budget hearings? Well, now Chair Soto is asking to move the the remaining $1,000 from that program to “Food & Related Items, Etc.”. For the record, that line doesn’t exist in the published budget.

Ordinances

• TO-26-19 — Amending Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code to eliminate certain fees for new business registrations (requested by Mayor Beauregard and Chair Soto)

This is a nice start but this only $25 removed from the Zoning Clearance for New Business. We need to keep working if we want to attract business.

Any Other Business for the Good and Welfare of the Community

Executive Session

Council will vote to enter executive session under Exemption 7, M.G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(7), to discuss and vote on the acceptance/disclosure of executive session meeting minutes from a stack of old dates: July 13, 2020; June 10, 2021; June 23, 2021; September 8, 2022 (listed twice); October 17, 2022; and December 19, 2022.

Why it matters: By the sounds of it, the last executive session didn’t go so well. These are old meeting minutes that should be released if the need for secrey is gone. If there is still a need, the council should say what that need is… otherwise, this looks like more historical Methuen style politics.

That’s all she wrote. See you after the meeting with a recap.

Watch live:

• methuen.gov/livestream

• Channel 8 (Comcast) or Channel 32 (Verizon)

• YouTube: youtube.com/@MethuenMeetings

I may need to update this if anything changes between now and Monday — this is a preview based on the agenda as posted.

Monday, August 3rd, 7:00 p.m. That's when the Methuen City Council was scheduled to gavel in at the Great Hall, per the calendar the Council itself published at the start of the year.

This is a screenshot from the city website just moments ago (Wednesday night at 8:15). No asterisk, no "TBD," no fine print. Just a date, a time, and an address. Same as always.

August 3rd came. August 3rd went. As far as I can find, there was no meeting, and just as importantly, no notice telling residents why.

It's worth being precise about what that does and doesn't mean legally...

Massachusetts' Open Meeting Law, General Laws Chapter 30A, Sections 18 through 25, requires a public body to post notice, including date, time, place, and anticipated topics, at least 48 hours before a meeting (Massachusetts Attorney General's Office; Digital Media Law Project). That notice requirement attaches once a specific meeting is actually being noticed. The Council's published annual calendar is a courtesy to residents, not itself a legal notice under the statute. So if no agenda was ever filed with the Clerk for August 3rd, there was, strictly speaking, no legally noticed meeting to cancel, and no cancellation paperwork the Council was obligated to file.

That's a real distinction, and it's fair to the Council to draw it. But it doesn't fully answer the question residents are left with.

The Council told the public, in a document it produced itself, that it would meet on August 3rd. Then nothing happened, no agenda, no meeting, no word to residents who might have planned around it or had something to bring before the body. Whether or not that clears the bar of a statutory violation, it's a gap between what the Council said it would do and what it did, with silence in between.

Keeping that gap from opening, whether by holding the meeting, formally standing it down, or just telling residents what changed, sits with the person who runs the body: Council Chair Neily Soto. A published schedule that residents can't actually rely on isn't much of a schedule.

If there's an explanation I've missed, an agenda filed somewhere I haven't checked, or a decision made earlier in the summer to skip this date, I'd like to know, and I'll update this post. But as it stands, August 3rd looks like a date the Council promised residents and then quietly let pass.

And, here we sit wondering when the next meeting will take place.

Sources:

Massachusetts Attorney General, Open Meeting Law Guide and FAQ, mass.gov

Digital Media Law Project, "Open Meetings Laws in Massachusetts," dmlp.org

City of Methuen, 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule

The Methuen Youth & Community Center has a busy stretch ahead, with two free events that put local young people front and center.

First up is National Night Out on Tuesday, August 4, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM at the center, 10 Ditson Place.

Billed as a night built for teens, the event mixes a little bit of everything under the banner "Play. Create. Eat. Connect." Attendees can compete in a pickleball tournament or a knockout basketball tournament, get creative at a painting station, and refuel with free pizza, snacks, and drinks. In keeping with the National Night Out tradition, teens will also have the chance to meet local police officers and firefighters in a relaxed, community setting. Organizers encourage teens to bring their friends and best of all admission is free.

Looking ahead to the fall, the center will mark a major milestone with its Official Ribbon Cutting on Saturday, September 26, 2026, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, also at 10 Ditson Place.

Under the theme "A New Chapter Begins," the morning will feature the ribbon cutting itself, youth-led tours of the facility, special guests, and light refreshments. The center describes itself as a space where young people can connect, create, learn, and lead — and this event invites the whole community to celebrate that mission.

RSVPs for the ribbon cutting can be made by scanning the QR code on the event flyer. For more information, contact Executive Director Kelly Ford at kellyf@methuenyouthcc.org, or visit methuenyouthcc.org.

Starting in August, most Massachusetts households on National Grid's standard electricity plan will see the supply portion of their bill climb again. Methuen residents enrolled in the city's Community Choice Power Supply Program won't… their rate is locked, and has been for a while.

Mayor Beauregard's office put out the reminder this week, and the headline number is real: participants are paying about 25 percent less for the supply part of their electricity than neighbors on National Grid's new rate. But 25 percent of what, exactly, is the part worth slowing down on — because it's smaller than it sounds, and there's a catch worth understanding before you decide it's a win.

Here's the plain-English version.

What actually changed

Your electric bill has two big pieces: supply (the cost of the electricity itself) and delivery (the cost of moving it to your house over the wires). They're listed separately on your bill.

The city has no control over delivery. It can shop around for supply on behalf of residents, which is what the Community Choice program does. Right now:

National Grid's Basic Service supply rate rises from 15.568¢ per kilowatt-hour to 17.185¢ in August.

Methuen's Community Choice rate stays put at 12.83¢ per kilowatt-hour — locked through December 2027 under a three-year deal the city signed.

So the gap between the two is about 4.4¢ per kilowatt-hour. That's the "25 percent less" figure — and it's accurate, as far as the supply line goes.

What it means for your wallet — the honest math

A typical Massachusetts home uses somewhere around 600 kilowatt-hours a month. At that usage, here's the difference the locked rate makes versus National Grid's new rate:

About $26 a month, or roughly $310 a year, in supply savings.

Of that, about $10 a month is brand new — that's the piece created purely by August's increase. The rest is savings the program was already delivering.

That's genuine money, and over a full year it adds up. But notice what it isn't: it's not 25 percent off your whole bill. Because delivery charges (which nobody's cutting) often run as large as supply, a $26 supply savings on a $160–$180 monthly bill works out to more like 14 to 17 percent off the total — real, but not the number that grabs the eye.

Bigger homes, electric heat, or heavy summer AC push the savings higher. A small apartment pushes it lower.

Municipal aggregation — the formal name — lets a city bundle all its residents together and negotiate one electricity supply rate, the way a big employer negotiates group health insurance. More buying power, better price. Roughly 200 Massachusetts communities now do it.

A few things people get wrong about it:

It's not a different power company. National Grid still owns the wires, still reads your meter, still sends the bill, and still handles outages. Only the supply line changes.

You can leave anytime, with no penalty, and you can join anytime if you're currently on Basic Service or a third-party supplier.

It's opt-out, not opt-in for eligible households — which is why about 2,800 residents recently got a mailer reminding them the program exists and how to enroll if they'd landed on Basic Service or a private supplier instead.

The catch worth knowing

A locked rate is a bet, and it's fair to say so. Right now the bet is paying off handsomely, because National Grid's rate jumped well above Methuen's 12.83¢. But Basic Service resets every six months and moves with the market. If it ever drops below 12.83¢ in some future stretch — which has happened in past low-price periods — aggregation customers would briefly be paying more than Basic Service customers during that window.

That's the trade-off with any fixed rate: you give up the low lows to avoid the high highs. Given how volatile Massachusetts energy prices have been, locking in below 13¢ through the end of 2027 looks like a smart hedge. It's just not a guarantee of being the cheapest option every single month.

The bigger picture

The mayor's office points to a recent Boston Globe analysis finding aggregation programs save Massachusetts consumers around 10 percent on supply statewide, on average. Methuen's current rate beats that — more than double it against National Grid's August rate. The city says the program returned nearly $1.9 million in supply savings to participating households last year.

"Government should look for every opportunity to lower the cost of living," Beauregard said, while being candid that the city can't fix affordability by itself: "The reality is that electric bills are still too high." That's a fair way to frame it. This doesn't rescue anyone from a painful bill. It shaves a few hundred dollars a year off the one line the city can actually touch.

What to do

Pull out your most recent electric bill and find the "Supply" section. It tells you who's actually supplying your electricity:

• If it says Colonial Power Group / Community Choice, you're already in — the locked rate is yours, and you don't need to do anything.

• If it says National Grid Basic Service, you'll get the August increase unless you enroll. You may be able to do better by joining.

• If it lists a third-party supplier, compare their rate to 12.83¢. Some private supplier deals start cheap and then balloon after an introductory period, so check the actual per-kWh number

To check eligibility or enroll, visit www.colonialpowergroup.com/methuen or call Colonial Power Group at (866) 485-5858, ext. 1.

Five minutes with your bill is the only way to know which side of this you're on — and for a lot of Methuen households, it's the difference between paying the August increase and skipping it entirely.

Original press release:

https://www.cityofmethuen.net/m/newsflash/home/detail/295

At the end of its July 6 meeting, the Methuen City Council excused those of us in the Media Center for the meeting and slipped into executive session for one specific job: to go back through a pile of its own old sealed minutes and vote on whether any of them can finally be made public. The dates on the list are not from this year. They run from February 2017 through September 2019. Some of these records have been locked away for the better part of a decade.

That raises a simple question worth asking out loud. Why?

To get there, it helps to understand how this actually works.

The basics: open is the rule

Massachusetts runs on a law called the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, Sections 18 through 25. The idea baked into it is that the public gets to watch its government make decisions. The state’s highest court said as much a long time ago, explaining that the law was written to strip away the secrecy around the decisions that shape public policy. That fun little idea was brought to us be the case of Ghiglione v. School Committee of Southbridge, 376 Mass. 70 (1978). The exception to the rule or the closed door meetings, called executive sessions, are the narrow exception, and courts read those exceptions strictly. McCrea v. Flaherty, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 637 (2008).

A council can only go into executive session for one of ten specific reasons spelled out in the law. These are the ten purposes in Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a)) that let a public body meet in executive session. A body has to pick one of these every time and state it out loud before closing the doors.

1. To discuss the reputation, character, health, or discipline, dismissal, or complaints against a specific person (a named officer, employee, or individual). That person has the right to be notified and to ask that the discussion happen in open session instead.

2. To conduct strategy sessions or contract talks with nonunion personnel.

3. To discuss strategy for collective bargaining or litigation, but only if the chair declares that talking about it in public would hurt the body’s bargaining or legal position.

4. To discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices, or strategy around them.

5. To investigate charges of criminal misconduct or to consider filing criminal complaints.

6. To discuss buying, selling, leasing, or valuing real estate, but only if the chair declares that an open discussion would weaken the body’s negotiating position.

7. To comply with, or act under the authority of, another general or special law or a federal grant requirement. (This is the one the Methuen council used on July 6 to review its old minutes, since the Open Meeting Law itself requires that review.)

8. To interview applicants for a job or appointment through a preliminary screening committee, if the chair declares that meeting in the open would make it harder to attract qualified candidates.

9. To meet with a mediator about litigation or a decision involving another party.

10. To discuss trade secrets or confidential, competitively sensitive proprietary information tied to a body operating as a municipal utility or energy supplier.

On July 6 the council cited Purpose 7, which covers acting under the authority of another law. Here, that other law is the Open Meeting Law itself, which requires the council to review its old executive session minutes. So this part was routine. The council was doing a thing the law tells it to do.

The part people miss: secret does not mean forever

Here is the piece that matters for this story. When a public body meets behind closed doors, it still has to keep minutes. Those minutes can be withheld from the public, but only, in the words of the statute, “as long as publication may defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session.” G.L. c. 30A, Section 22(f). The very next words in the law are “but no longer.”

Read that again… out loud for those sitting near you to hear too.

The secrecy is supposed to have a shelf life. Once the reason for keeping something quiet is gone, the minutes are supposed to become public. If a 2018 session was about, say, a lawsuit or a land deal, those minutes stay sealed until the lawsuit or the deal is finished, and then they are supposed to open up.

To make sure that actually happens, the law hands the council a chore. It has to go back and review its sealed minutes “at reasonable intervals” to check whether the reason for secrecy still holds. Whatever it decides then has to be announced at its next meeting and written into the minutes. G.L. c. 30A, Section 22(g). In plain terms, the public is entitled to learn what the council did with those records.

So here is the accountability question

The minutes the council took up on July 6 are from 2017, 2018, and 2019. The law asks for review “at reasonable intervals.” Six to nine years is a long interval by any plain reading of those words.

That opens up a handful of fair questions for the chair, the mayor, and the city solicitor, and Inside Methuen intends to ask them.

Were these minutes reviewed at any point before July 6, or had they simply been sitting sealed since the day they were written?

If they were held this long, what was the justification, and does that reason still exist in 2026?

And most concretely: on July 6, what justification is the council using to keep the items secret, and why?

That last one is not optional information. Under the law, the council’s decision on these minutes has to be announced at its next public meeting and recorded in the minutes. So a straight answer should be available to anyone who asks.

And what if a councilor just tells us what happened?

Here is a question that comes up any time a body meets in private. What actually stops a councilor from walking out and telling a reporter, or a neighbor, exactly what was said and how everyone voted? The answer is not what most people expect.

The Open Meeting Law itself does almost nothing to a member who talks. That law was built to pry government open, not to punish people for revealing what happened inside. Its penalties are pointed at a body that wrongly shuts the public out, not at an official who lets the public in. So a leak, oddly enough, falls outside the law entirely, and the state office that enforces the Open Meeting Law has no authority over it.

So, why even do it if the body won’t respect its own rules?

The real exposure, if there is any, comes from a separate law, the state conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A. It bars a public official from improperly disclosing confidential material picked up through the job. An elected councilor counts, and sealed executive session material can fall under that umbrella, so a leak could draw a complaint to the State Ethics Commission. Two things soften it, though… the penalty is a civil fine, not jail, and the disclosure has to be “improper,” which the Commission weighs case by case rather than treating every slip as a violation.

In the real world, the consequences are almost always political rather than legal. Unfortunately, Methuen politics is about popularity and nothing else so this is not a deterent here. A council can censure one of its own, pull their committee assignments, and quietly stop trusting them with anything sensitive. What it cannot do is throw an elected colleague out of office over a leak. That call belongs to the voters.

What you can do

If you want to follow this yourself, a few doors are open…

Start with the council’s next set of minutes. Whatever it decided about those old sessions on July 6 has to be announced at the next public meeting and written into the record, so that is the first place a straight answer should surface.

You can also go to the source.

Anyone can file a public records request with the city clerk, asking for the executive session minutes the council voted to release along with the record of the July 6 decision. The city generally has ten business days to respond, and it cannot bill you just for the time it spends reviewing those minutes.

If the city stalls, or keeps records sealed without pointing to a clear legal reason, you can file an Open Meeting Law complaint.

It goes first to the council itself, then, after a 30 day window, to the Attorney General’s Division of Open Government. The form is free and lives on the state website at mass.gov. Three or more registered voters can also take the matter straight to Superior Court.

None of this means anyone did anything wrong. Reviewing old minutes is exactly what the council is supposed to do, and better late than never. But records that sat untouched since 2017 are worth a few questions, and the people of Methuen are entitled to the answers. We will be asking, and we will let you know what we hear.

Hopefully we see the School Committee do the same soon with the stockpile of old executive session minutes.

Sources:

Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, Sections 18 through 25, with the minutes review requirements at Section 22(f) and (g);

Office of the Attorney General, Division of Open Government, guidance on reviewing executive session minutes under Purpose 7, G.L. c. 30A, Section 21(a)(7);

Ghiglione v. School Committee of Southbridge, 376 Mass. 70 (1978);

McCrea v. Flaherty, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 637 (2008); Methuen City Council agenda, July 6, 2026.

Word came out of City Hall yesterday that Captain Jamie Moore will take over as Methuen’s Acting Police Chief once Chief Scott McNamara retires on August 24. Mayor Beauregard made it official Thursday afternoon.

Moore’s been around a while and done it all which makes him a great choice to help steady the department in this time of transition. He signed on back in 1993, started out working dispatch, and eventually made the jump to patrol. Thirty-plus years later he’s one of the more familiar names in the building. He currently runs the Special Services and Professional Standards Bureau… the accreditation, training, and policy side of things that most folks never see but that keeps the whole operation on the rails. He earned his Captain’s stripes just last year, and topped the state Civil Service list on the way to the promotion.

The Mayor didn’t hold back on the praise, calling Moore a leader who’s earned respect both inside the department and out in the community, and someone he trusts to keep things steady through the changeover. He also took a minute to thank McNamara, who announced his retirement earlier this year, for a long run of service to the city.

One thing worth flagging: Moore is the acting chief, not the permanent one. The city says it’ll run a full search for McNamara’s replacement, open to candidates from inside and outside the department, with more details expected in the coming weeks. So this definitely won’t be the last word on who’s leading MPD.

Original Press Release: Here

This was a long one. The displaced council took up residence in the Media Center last night for their first summer session meeting. The regular meeting gaveled in at 6 on a and it did not let up until well past 10. Despite several members at the table being well aware that the School, due to contractual obligations with the Janitorial Union, closes at 10 PM, that time came and went before the meeting even went into executive session. But, on a positive note, it started the way the good nights do … with the room there for its own.

The media center was packed with firefighters, on hand to watch a couple of their own get called up: a new Deputy Chief and a new Lieutenant. These guys always show up for brothers and sisters. It’s kinda nice.

Before the meeting, there were two public sessions, linked above. They were 15 minutes each with little to no fanfare.

Now, let’s get into it…

Roll Call

All members were present. Councilor Pesce joined remotely by Zoom with her camera on… for a bit. Note for later: Councilor Pesce dropped off the Zoom partway through the meeting, which is why several later votes show one member absent. I’m not exactly sure what time she decided she was all done with this meeting since nobody announced her depature like they did when Councilor Simard left for work shortly after 10.

Acceptance of the Agenda

As is the going trend now, Councilor Santos asked to move the appointments up so they would be heard right after public participation. Councilor DiZoglio seconded. Councilor Drew asked for the reason and since none of them used their microphones last night, the response could not be heard clearly from the audience. The motion to reorder passed, with Councilor Drew voting no. The agenda as amended then passed unanimously.

The argument could very easily have been made that the move was to free of the collection of FD personnel in the room. …But it was never made.

Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, and Moment of Silence

There was no invocation. The Council held a moment of silence for Jim Dawe, a longtime member of Methuen Community Studios who for years produced the recordings of council meetings at City Hall and had a strong history of community involvement, and who recently passed away.

Public Participation

This is the part of the meeting where any resident can step to the microphone and speak. Three people did:

Joseph MacDonald … on the MeVa bus strike

Mr. MacDonald spoke about the strike affecting MeVa, the regional bus service, and the toll it takes on people who rely on the bus to get to work, school, the grocery store, and other services. He urged that it be resolved soon.

Tim Vermett … on the Rail Trail depot

Mr. Vermett said he is leading an effort to repair the depot along the Rail Trail and wants to bring the Union, the City, and the VFW together to figure out how to fix it. He explained that the rail trail committee has fundraising and other efforts underway to address the structure.

Alejandro Baez … on the solar panel contracts

Mr. Baez made a point of noting he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of his position on the School Committee - good on him. He spoke in favor of the solar contracts, pointing to cost savings and a long term vision. He also praised the citation for Victor Rivera Jr. that appeared later on the agenda, noting that the scholarship Mr. Rivera received goes to only one student from each state and reflects the kind of civic participation the community hopes to see.

Consideration of Appointments

Lieutenant Michael Ferris … Deputy Chief

Moved by Councilor Simard, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. Fire Chief Toto spoke to the quality of the two men up for promotion and confirmed, in anticipation of Councilor Drew’s two standard questions, that the positions tonight are both budgeted and contractually required. He read the supporting materials into the record. Councilor Simard asked the Chief to clarify what “non-discretional” means and to explain the duties, especially given that the city is carrying out furloughs (temporary unpaid time off for some employees). The Chief laid out the details. Passed unanimously.

Firefighter Eric Moreau … Lieutenant

Moved by Councilor Drew, seconded by Councilor Santos. Chief Toto again provided the key information and read the backup into the record. With no questions, Councilor Soto commented on how effectively Firefighter Moreau has advocated for his union and his department and built relationships with past and present administrations. Passed unanimously.

Jordan Normandia … Veterans Service Officer

Moved by Councilor Marsan, seconded by Councilor Simard. The Veterans Service Officer, or VSO, is the city staff member who helps local veterans access benefits and services. The hiring committee, which was comprised of Councilor Simard, State VSO Fransisco Urena, and one other person, selected former Mayor’s Office Constitutent Services Director Jordan Normandia. The Mayor spoke briefly about Mr. Normandia, noting he is a member of the veterans community (a Marine), and said the appointment was not taken lightly voicing his connection to the armed services through family and close friends. Councilor Simard described the process the subcommittee followed and noted that eight people applied. The state VSO, Urena, was invited to speak and praised the transparency of the process and the work of the city’s HR department. Mr. Normandia thanked the Council, noting his veteran status and lifelong residency in Methuen, and described his time in the Marines working in Administrative Services helping Marines transition to retirement and civilian life.

Councilor DiZoglio raised questions about Mr. Normandia’s handling of the city’s trash barrels during his time in the Mayor’s office. The Mayor responded that trash services and veterans services are completely separate, and later said the barrel program should never have been run out of the Mayor’s office, adding that he, as Mayor, should be held responsible rather than Mr. Normandia. He closed with his full support for the appointment. Councilor Drew spoke about his own family’s military connections and shared a story about his father’s experience with a VSO, expressing hope that Mr. Normandia would serve in a similar spirit. Councilor Simard noted that Councilors Drew and DiZoglio sat on the subcommittee with him but did not take part in the interviews. Councilor Soto said there were mixed opinions and some concern about optics, and noted she was concerned about Mr. Normandia’s shyness. The roll call was unanimous.

The Council then recessed briefly for photographs before returning to session.

Organizational Business

Reading and Acceptance of Minutes from Previous Meetings

The Council took up the minutes from the Special Meeting of May 26, 2026 (the second read of the FY2027 municipal budget) and the Regular Meeting of Monday, June 8, 2026. (“FY2027” refers to fiscal year 2027, the city’s budget year.) Although missed in order, they were eventually approved.

Proclamations and Correspondence

The Council was to recognize Victor Rivera Jr., the scholarship recipient mentioned earlier during public participation, but he was unable to attended.

Presentation: Trash Coordinator Update

This was an update on the new Trash Coordinator position and the progress made toward fixing the city’s solid waste and “tipping fee” shortfall. (A tipping fee is what the city pays to dispose of trash at a facility.)

The Mayor introduced Carina Pappalardo, a longtime Department of Public Works employee who is the new Trash Coordinator, tasked with straightening out the program. DPW Director Pat Bower credited her strong performance and attitude, and said he hopes to return to the Council to discuss updating the transfer station where she previously worked as they have suggestions. Harvey, the city’s trash vendor, was in the room and has, by both Bower’s and Pappalardo’s account, been cooperative and great to work with.

Mr. Bower reported that currently we ahve 250 trash barrels and 25 recycling carts in stock and 305 warnings or rejections issued in the 60 days since Ms. Pappalardo started. He explained that a warning leads to a conversation, while a rejection means the barrel is left at the curb, which then triggers a call to Ms. Pappalardo and has taken up much of her time. On the carts themselves: every household received one trash and one recycling cart for free, and additional trash carts cost $100. Because both Harvey and the city were delivering carts, Mr. Bower acknowledged, in his words, that “it could have been handled better,” and said Harvey will now track the number of carts at each address. He said the annual cart fee is going up to $250 a year (this will need council votes), that new software is coming to manage fines, and that additional outreach and education will go out by mailer. It was even noted that some residents were mistakenly delivered multiple carts. No fines have been issued to date.

Ms. Pappalardo then took the microphone and showed examples of trash conditions she has seen on the streets. She said she has ridden along with Harvey to learn the routes and process, and that Harvey photographs each property along the way. She noted that crews have gone back for residents who forgot to put their trash out even when not required to, and that Harvey will provide an extra trash truck to improve speed. She also described her frequent illegal dumping pickups, explaining that her city assigned SUV often ends up holding trash bags containing old food scraps and other material she has picked up off the side of the road, that she cannot fit larger items, and that she lacks the right tools for the job. The trash smells in the car. While discussing the fines, she said “its almost unethical to ticket without education,” which I think was the smartest thing said last night.

Councilor DiZoglio, who has appointed himself the savior of the trash program and tipping fees, wanted Pappalardo to start tracking the barrel serial numbers at each home… hopefully with the help of Harvey. The rep from Harvery explained that requiring Ms. Pappalardo to collect identification numbers from carts is not workable given the scale and, in his experience, that tracking serial numbers is difficult and suggested simply counting the carts instead. Councilor DiZoglio confirmed Harvey can support that approach, which would let the city hold everyone accountable, and noted that 41% of barrel fees have been collected. He held firmly to the notion that the rest of the extra barrel holders are purposely going against the rules by not paying their fees.

Councilor Drew said he requested the presentation because of disorganization in the See Click Fix system (the app residents use to report issues) and truck breakdowns. He asked about a resident app that had been expected on July 1st per the contract we have with Harvey. The representative said it is coming soon and “needs tweaks,” without a firm date. He also asked why recycling bins are being denied; Ms. Pappalardo explained the 25 recycling carts in stock are reserved for new construction and that she has asked for more to be ordered. She explained she hadn’t denied any in her tenure but they were placed on hold pending a new order of carts. Councilor Drew raised a broader point that the city has historically struggled to manage contracts and asked the Mayor to create a checklist to ensure the trash vendor is meeting the terms of the contract.

Councilor Santos asked about communication with the Hispanic community in the central district. Ms. Pappalardo, noting “I’m from Lawrence” and speaking a few words in Spanish to show she communicate the needs of her new job, said she wants to use every available tool, from Methuen TV to classroom visits to social media, but is limited by time, resources, and money. Councilor Soto suggested using AI to help with translation. Councilor Simard urged the Council to give Ms. Pappalardo and the DPW the resources they need, warning that otherwise they “all fail.”

Councilor Soto asked which properties the city picks up from, such as the housing authority, and requested any written agreements (called MOUs, or memoranda of understanding) showing who else the city collects for. Councilor Santos asked why the DPW is paying to pick up bulk items; the Mayor explained this is a historical practice the city is moving away from and shifting to Harvey. Councilor Drew asked what resources Harvey is providing, and Ms. Pappalardo said she generally receives what she asks for.

Mayor’s Report

The Mayor covered a wide range of updates:

He shared his condolences for Jim Dawe and some kind words.

He revisited the agreement by the Public Employees Committee (PEC), the body that negotiates health insurance for city employees and retirees, to move to the state’s Group Insurance Commission (GIC). He said the move is expected to save the city about $11.2 million between now and FY2030, while providing high quality health plans and even reduced deductibles. He added that reduced stop loss costs and administrative fees already account for $1.9 million in savings for January through June 2027. (Where is that money going?)

He highlighted a projected $3.9 million net in energy savings over 20 years from the solar contracts, and pointed to efforts to use surplus city property to help seniors, veterans, and working families.

Mike Sarno and Mass Cabinets received tax credits to expand in the city, investing more than $8.5 million in their Cross Street facility and adding 25 new jobs.

The Mayor said he is in communication with MeVa and trying to help given the impact of the strike on residents.

He reminded residents that on Friday, July 10, City Hall begins a closure program as part of the city’s budget reductions. It does not affect Fire, Police, DPW, or the Library, so the impact is limited to City Hall. Impact bargaining with the unions is ongoing.

The summer meal program for youth 18 and under is back, with four sites: Gill Ave Park, the library, Tenney Street Park, and the Haverhill Street Y.

He congratulated Chief McNamara and the Methuen Police Department on earning state reaccreditation, and said the city is beginning the process of selecting its next chief using a professional search firm and a committee. The city’s new grant writer starts the following day, and a kickoff meeting with Weston and Sampson to plan the Police, Fire, and DPW facilities is set for Wednesday.

On the community calendar: Saturday brings the July 4th quintessential celebration at the Loop; next Thursday at 11 a.m. is the grand opening of Namaste Bazaar, an authentic Indian grocer and prepared food shop in the former Joann’s on Broadway; and an upcoming Disability Pride Fair will feature vendors, games, music, and more.

CAFO Report

The CAFO is the Chief Administrative and Financial Officer, essentially the city’s top finance official.

Request for Update on Searles Estate Expenses and Revenues (Req. of Clr. Soto)

The CAFO said an update on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the city’s multi year plan for major projects, was shared by email. An accounts payable posting has been issued, and a revenue stream is expected in the future. Significant work has gone into payroll, with a go live date of January 1, 2027, chosen because it makes year end W2 tax forms cleaner. Councilor Drew asked about the cost of delaying from October to January and whether an October date would save money. The CAFO said the change is already budgeted and advised against the earlier date; she noted the relevant budget is roughly $60,000 for the year, so it is not a meaningful savings opportunity.

Requests of Councilors

Several councilor requests were noted as already answered in the Mayor’s Report:

Whether the Methuen Housing Authority receives trash collection through the city’s contract (Chair Soto); an update on the city’s adoption of M.G.L. Chapter 200A, Section 9A on abandoned and unclaimed property, known as “tailings” (Clr. Valley); an update on the Rail Trail depot overhangs, including possible acquisition and grant options (Clr. Valley); the feasibility study for the public safety buildings and DPW (Clr. Santos); and the first report from the Sanitation and Zero Waste Coordinator on fines and tonnage (Clr. DiZoglio and Clr. Drew).

Other requests and their status:

Buildings Audit RFP status (Clr. Drew): Councilor Drew is working with Steve Angelo to complete it, and the Mayor said it can now be a priority.

City employee email signature standardization (Clr. Drew): not discussed, no changes.

Fire Department fees update, covering lift fees and ambulance rate adjustments (Clr. Drew): up for a vote tonight. The Mayor stressed this does not affect residents; it applies to fees charged to facilities.

Update on Tyler Financial’s MUNIS implementation date, the city’s financial software system (Clr. Drew): covered by the CAFO.

HHSI permit fees review: ongoing.

Formal presentation on the Trash Coordinator position and progress since the Council approved the $850,000 free cash request for the solid waste and tipping fee shortfall (Clr. Drew): done, as covered in the presentation above.

See Click Fix cleanup and follow up (Clr. Drew): the Mayor said he will talk with Director Bower about better record keeping in the tool.

Boards and commissions appointment and reappointment status, including vacancies and expired terms (Clr. Drew): a lot has moved, some updates remain, and it is scheduled to be addressed in the coming weeks.

Update on ownership of the Depot Overhang tied to the Laborers Union building (Clr. Valley and Clr. Drew): discussions are ongoing. The Mayor deferred to the City Solicitor, who noted previous legal opinions exist and will be shared.

The Mayor also mentioned that the Marsh Grammar School received its new boiler that day, that the Human Trafficking task force is back up given an uptick in local incidents, with the state being looped in, and that new carpeting at the Marsh, on the agenda tonight, is long overdue and matches the work done at the Timony.

Councilor Valley asked the Solicitor about the depot overhang. He explained that outside counsel did an analysis in 2019 and that he will share it. Nothing has changed. Councilor Drew raised concern that staff at nursing homes will avoid calling for lift assistance because of the new fee and asked that it be explained clearly, and pressed for a firm date on the permit fees; the Mayor shared a quick real time update from his phone. Councilor Drew returned to See Click Fix, arguing the records are not being managed and asking how the tool helps if it is not maintained; the Mayor said he will begin bringing See Click Fix data to his meeting. Councilor Drew also noted that 43 members on the boards and commissions have expired terms, 29 have no term listed, and some seats are vacant, and asked whether the underlying data is simply inaccurate.

Public Service

Grants

Public Service Grant 301043582 … Temple Drive, Westgate Circle, and Jewel Circle

National Grid would replace existing direct buried cable with a conduit system. Moved by Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor MacLaren. The Solicitor advised the Council to check whether any residents wished to participate, noting the mailed notices had been confusing; no one came forward. Councilor Drew asked whether this was a multiple read item and raised questions about curb to curb road repair. After discussion, Councilor Drew moved to table the item to ensure curb to curb repair, seconded by Councilor Valley. (By this point Councilor Pesce was no longer on Zoom.) Councilors Simard and Marsan voted no. The motion to table passed 6 to 2, with one member absent. (Sometime before this is when Pesce left.)

Licenses

Solar Project License Agreement … Tenney Grammar School, 75 Pleasant Street

An agreement with Solect Energy Development LLC. Moved by Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Santos. Councilor Marsan asked about warranties on the school’s roof, which NOBODY at the table seems to have the ages on. After an awkward moment of silence, the Mayor joked that he would defer to legal, and the Solicitor said, “I have no idea,” adding that the agreement guarantees the installation will not void the warranty that exists… if it exists. There was extended discussion about the roof warranty. Councilor DiZoglio, a former School Committee member, said he did not recall any such discussion and recommended reaching out to the school. Councilor Marsan asked about load calculations, and the Mayor brought a company representative to the podium, who explained that they work with the warranty company to confirm any existing warranty is maintained and that an independent engineer performs load calculations so the building permit can be pulled properly. He described the deal as a fixed rate contract at $0.03 per kilowatt hour. Councilor Drew asked who would pay if the panels ever needed to be removed, and the representative said that cost would fall on the city. The roll call showed Councilors Santos and Drew voting no. Passed 6 to 2, with one member absent.

There was a lot of talk about the ages of the roofs for the CGS and Tenney. Unfortunately, nobody knew how old they were or that nobody thought to ask the current School Committee member who did know and was sitting in the room. It just showed a lack of preparedness.

Solar Project License Agreement … Comprehensive Grammar School, 100 Howe Street

Also with Solect Energy Development LLC. Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. No additional discussion. Councilors Santos and Drew voted no. Passed 6 to 2, with one member absent.

Contracts

C-27-1 … Brox Industries, Inc. … $111,425.00

For bituminous concrete (asphalt) and cold patch, delivered for the city’s FY2026 paving season, through the DPW, with a winter rate of $55.00 for December 1 through March 31. Moved by Councilor Simard, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

C-27-2 … Kitchen and Floor Décor, Inc. … $83,375

For removal of carpets and cove base and installation of VCT tile and cove base at the Marsh Grammar School (amount provided at the table). Moved by Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Santos. Councilor Marsan asked about asbestos testing, and the Mayor explained the timing of the asbestos work. Councilor Drew said he spoke with Ian at the schools and that this matches the work done at the Timony, with no issues projected. Again, with the Mayor as School Committee chair, a former school committee member in DiZoglio who dealt extensively with this in his last two years (I know he did as I was with him doing it) and a Current School Committe member in the room, all the talk about asbetos was unnecesary as it was already tested and that could have been made clear had the communication and prep been better. This passed unanimously.

C-27-3 … Valerio, Dominello & Hillman, LLC … Legal Services for Fiscal Year 2027

Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. Councilor Drew asked what the firm does; the Solicitor explained the firm assisted with the GIC health insurance move and so many other things over the years (including the Gallant case) , that it is John Foskett’s firm, and that he may return to the Council if new issues arise. Councilor Soto asked whether councilors could contact Mr. Foskett directly; the Solicitor advised requests should go through his office. Passed unanimously.

C-27-4 … Power Purchase Agreement … Tenney Grammar School, 75 Pleasant Street

With Solect Energy Development LLC. Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor Marsan. No discussion. Councilor Drew opposed. Passed 7 to 1, with one member absent.

C-27-5 … Power Purchase Agreement … Comprehensive Grammar School, 100 Howe Street

With Solect Energy Development LLC. Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. No discussion. Councilor Drew opposed. Passed 7 to 1, with one member absent.

Other Officers and Committee Reports

None at this time.

Unfinished Business

Resolutions

TR-25-75 … Lay Out and Accept Cooper Lane as a Public Way

The item was removed from the table (moved by Councilor Marsan, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio, passed unanimously). On the main motion, moved by Councilor Marsan and seconded by Councilor MacLaren, Councilor Marsan said he verified the required check was received and everything is in order. Councilor DiZoglio raised trash pickup. Councilor Soto, with such confidence, explains to DiZoglio that trash will now be picked up. A conversation ensued until the Solicitor explained that accepting a street has nothing to do with trash and recycling collection, and that this street’s trash pickup is funded by the condo association, as with any condo complex. The measure passed unanimously.

TR-26-53 … Insurance Review and Competitive Quotes (Sponsored by Councilor Yanilda Santos)

This resolution asks the Mayor and CAFO to review city insurance coverage and obtain competitive quotes. Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. The Mayor said the RFP will be online no later than the next meeting date and noted the city has been with the same company, Borislow Insurance, since 2005, calling the review long overdue. Passed unanimously.

Ordinances

TO-26-12 … Rezone Land Fronting on Arcadia Street for Commercial Improvement

Removed from the table (moved by Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Santos, passed unanimously). On the main motion, moved by Councilor Santos and seconded by Councilor Simard, Councilor Marsan said, “this is a sad piece of property,” and welcomed the redevelopment. A developer representative showed a board of future plans for 298 Merrimack Street and said the plan is to return to the Zoning Board to propose changes. Councilor Drew asked whether the developer had spoken with neighbors about concerns; the representative said all legal notices went out. Passed unanimously.

TO-26-16 … Amend “Section 9-52. Trash and Recyclables Collection” (Sponsored by Councilor Ryan DiZoglio, as amended)

Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor Valley. The ordinance sets a fee schedule and a proration plan based on when a resident receives a barrel, and adds late fees for unpaid barrel fees of $100 a month. After several months, unpaid amounts would be added to the property tax bill. It also lays out an annual renewal process, with no mid year cancellation or refunds. The Solicitor said the Mayor had not yet reviewed it and that some of it, “this is unconstitutional,” pointing specifically to the $100 a month late fee, and noted other language changes the Council should review. The Mayor said he had been concerned about the lack of a warning step, which has since been added back, and suggested bringing the new sanitation coordinator, Ms. Pappalardo, into the discussion.

Councilor DiZoglio said that, “being really honest,” he is going “after the people who don’t pay their fee” and added, “Fine, I’ll be the bad guy.” Councilor MacLaren pushed for an “obvious middleground,” saying she does not believe 60% of residents are intentionally abusing the system and wants to focus on education. Councilor Santos said she supports the ordinance “100%” after education but wants to reduce the late fee. Councilor Drew asked about amending the late fees, and the Solicitor offered to review the language on the floor. The item was tabled on a motion by Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Santos, so the Mayor and lega can review it and bring back changes. Passed unanimously.

TO-26-17 … Amend “Section 8-7. Municipal Charges Lien” (Sponsored by Councilor Ryan DiZoglio)

This companion measure allows certain unpaid city fees to be placed on a property tax bill. Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. Councilor Drew asked whether it is legal; the Solicitor said yes. He also asked about a right to appeal before a charge hits the tax bill; the Solicitor said there is no right to appeal because it is a fee, not a tax. Passed unanimously.

New Business

Resolutions

TR-26-67 … Declare the Pleasant Valley School Property Surplus for Sale and Redevelopment

The property is at 180 Pleasant Valley Street. Declaring it “surplus” means the city no longer needs it and can sell it. Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor Valley. The Mayor said the city is casting a wide net through an RFP to develop new “affordable housing” for seniors and veterans, and intends to use the proceeds from the school properties to fund capital projects for the schools. Councilor Drew said he does not want a “joke of an offer” on the RFP but nobody acknowledged the city cannot control what bidders offer. Councilor DiZoglio, recalling his School Committee years, said he had hoped the building could become a fire department or something else to avoid traffic, and said he would not vote yes until he sees a traffic study. The Solicitor explained both properties sit in a conservancy district that does not currently allow residential use, so a zoning change would be required, and reminded the Council the sites will need major capital investment. PV is a complete tear down. Councilor Soto asked Councilor Marsan what the market might bear; he estimated about $1 million which carries no weight as he isn’t a professional in this field. The Mayor noted the lot is much larger than it looks from the street.

Councilor Drew proposed an amendment setting a minimum bid of $125,000, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. On the roll call, Councilors Santos, Simard, Valley, MacLaren, Marsan, and Soto voted no, and the amendment failed. Councilor Santos then asked for an appraisal; the Mayor explained this differs from a residential sale, that there are no obligations after the RFP, and that the process amounts to a market appraisal in real time, adding that the city also has the assessed value used for taxes. Councilor Soto moved to require the Mayor to clearly state the assessed value in the RFP; that amendment passed unanimously. The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously.

It was about the middle of the last agenda item that the clock ticked past 10 PM. The build was officially closed and the staff on duty were supposed to be going home. They are now being paid overtime and could possibly bring a labor grievance. I’d like to know who pays for this?

Several of the Councilors and the Mayor were very much aware and nobody even bothered to say it out loud. … Just so disappointing.

The other concern is the children running the cameras. How old are they, did the council violate child labor laws too?

TR-26-68 … Declare the Currier School Property Surplus for Sale and Redevelopment

The property is at 36 Boylston Street. Moved by Councilor Marsan, seconded by Councilor Santos. (For the record, Councilor Soto noted that Councilor Simard had to leave at 10:08 p.m.) The Solicitor pointed out this resolution does include a minimum bid. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-69 … Accept $15,795.31 State 911 Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) Grant

For Fiscal Year 2027. Moved by Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Drew. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-70 … Accept $168,186.09 State 911 Department Training Grant

For Fiscal Year 2027. Moved by Councilor Drew, seconded by Councilor Santos. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-71 … Transfer Between Various FY26 General Fund Budgets (EPA Requested)

Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor MacLaren. No discussion. Passed unanimously. The EPA (an emergency preamble, a step that lets the measure take effect immediately rather than after the usual waiting period) also passed unanimously.

TR-26-73 … Declare 30 Railroad Street Surplus for Sale and Redevelopment

Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. The Mayor said this is a vacant lot the city wants to put out to RFP, with the assessor’s information included as with the other properties. Councilor DiZoglio asked about zoning; the Solicitor confirmed it is zoned for multi family use but is small, so it will need zoning approvals. Passed unanimously.

TR-26-74 … Transfer Funds from the Edwin J. Castle Fund

To the Methuen Literacy Project at Nevins Library and to Methuen Public Schools for CTE Early Childhood Care (CTE stands for Career and Technical Education). Moved by Councilor Drew, seconded by Councilor Santos. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

Ordinances

TO-26-18 … Increase Ambulance Rates and Establish a New Lift Assist Fee

This amends Section 8-5A of the Municipal Code. Moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. The Mayor explained it is a revenue assumption for the year. Councilor DiZoglio asked the Chief whether these charges were always allowed; the Chief said yes, and that they have become more common. The Mayor stressed, “THIS IS NOT A FEE FOR RESIDENTS,” and that it is “SPECIFICALLY GEARED TOWARDS BUSINESS ENTITIES LIKE NURSING HOMES AND ASSISTED LIVINGS” that often cannot lift a resident who has fallen and rely on the city instead. The Solicitor confirmed it must be structured as a fee, not a fine. Councilor Santos asked how the amount was set; it was based on other communities’ actual costs to make the runs. Passed unanimously.

Executive Session

The Council voted to enter executive session (a closed door portion of the meeting allowed by law) under Exemption 7 of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 21(a)(7), to discuss past executive session minutes. If it entered session, the Council would discuss and vote on releasing executive session minutes for the following dates: February 21, 2017; June 11, 2018; September 24, 2018; October 29, 2018; July 26, 2019; August 14, 2019; September 25, 2019. Following the executive session, the Council would adjourn and not reconvene in open session.

What Happens Next

A few items are set to return in the coming weeks: the trash and recyclables ordinance (TO-26-16) comes back after the Mayor and the new sanitation coordinator review it, the National Grid conduit grant (301043582) remains tabled pending questions about curb to curb repair, and the boards and commissions status is scheduled to be addressed soon. City Hall’s closure program begins Friday, July 10, and the summer meal program for youth 18 and under is running at four sites.

And that’s all she wrote.

We interrupt “Hot Girl Summer" to bring you some serious City business. Monday is a busy night for the council and it is not happening at the usual spot. This meeting is at the Methuen High School Media Center, not the Great Hall in the Searles Building where the Council normally meets, due to a broken elevator.

There are two public hearings scheduled before the regular meeting even begins, so the night starts earlier than usual. The first hearing is set for 5:30 p.m., the second for 5:45 p.m. The regular meeting agenda itself lists a 6:00 p.m. start in the body of the document, though someone didn't update the entire document before posting so there is a discrepancy in the text.

Public Hearing One, 5:30 P.M.

This public hearing is your chance to give your opinion on the acceptance of Cooper Lane as a public way.

TR-25-75. A Resolution Ordering the Methuen City Council's Intent to Lay Out Cooper Lane as a Public Way. The layout plan is on file in the City Clerk's office. View the resolution

Why it matters: When a road gets laid out and accepted as a public way, the city takes over responsibility for maintaining it, including plowing, repairs, and eventual repaving. Cooper Lane is currently a private way, which usually means the people living on it are responsible for its upkeep. Anyone who lives on or near Cooper Lane, or anyone interested in how private roads become public ones, has a reason to attend this hearing. The same item returns later in the meeting, under Unfinished Business, for a Council vote.

Public Hearing Two, 5:45 P.M.

Public Service Grant #31043582, Temple Drive, Westgate Circle, Jewel Circle. National Grid is requesting permission to replace existing direct buried cable with a conduit system. The project involves a directional drill installing 1,073 feet of 2 inch by 2 inch conduit and 1,716 feet of 1 inch by 2 inch conduit, along with 6 pull boxes and 3 handholes across Temple Drive, Westgate Circle, and Jewel Circle.

Why it matters: Utility companies need the City Council's approval, called a grant of location, before digging in or working within a public street. If this is approved, residents on these three streets should expect construction crews and some disruption in the coming months. This is routine but necessary work to upgrade underground electric infrastructure in that neighborhood.

Regular City Council Meeting

Now, we get into the main event.

It starts as they all do… roll call and Acceptance of the Agenda. Typically, this would be irrelevant and mundane, but lately this has proven more controversial as Councilor Santos has used it to help friends “jump the line” to avoid waiting for their item to come up on the agenda.

Next, we have the Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, and Moment of Silence, followed by Public Participation. This is your chance to speak on anything, whether it is on the agenda or not. If any item in this preview concerns you, this is the moment to say so in person or by signing up in advance through the city’s usual public comment process.

With no Organizational Business, they will head straight into Reading and Acceptance of Minutes from Previous Meetings. The Council will accept minutes from the May 26, 2026 special meeting on the FY27 municipal budget, second read, and from the June 8, 2026 regular meeting. This is a formality that makes those meetings part of the official record.

Now, into the real stuff…

7. Proclamations and Correspondence

A citation for Victor Rivera, Jr. It doesn't say who the councilor is nominating him as it has in the past. It doesn't say why he is deserving, whether he is a City Employee or a local business owner. There is no further detail listed on the agenda which is kind of disappointing when it comes to transparency.

8. Consideration of Appointments

Lieutenant Michael Ferris, nominated for Deputy Chief.

Firefighter Eric Moreau, nominated for Lieutenant.

These two are procedural. They are going to be contractually required and a continuation of the shift of titles left by the passing of Jimmy Mac. I expect these to go without much push back at all.

Jordan Normandia, nominated for Veterans Service Officer.

Until close of business Tuesday, Jordan was the Mayor’s Constitutive Services Director (although the title was/is a point of contention for the council). I was alerted shortly after the posting of this agenda by an anonymous source that there is a FIOA delayed for the internet history of Jordan’s computer. It may be nothing. It may be the City protecting it’s friends. This one will be interesting to watch.

9. Presentations, Projects, Department Updates

By request from the last meeting. we will get an update and presentation on the Trash Coordinator position and the progress made to address the solid waste and tipping fee shortfall.

Why it matter…

The city has been working through a budget gap tied to trash collection and tipping fees, the cost of disposing of waste at the landfill or transfer station. The Council previously approved $850,000 in free cash to help close that gap. This presentation should show what that money and that position have accomplished so far.

10. Mayor's Report

The Mayor typically uses this time for updates, announcements, and upcoming events. No specific topics are listed on the agenda in advance.

11. CAFO Report

Request for an update on Searles Estate expenses and revenues (requested by Chair Soto).

12. Requests of Councilors

This section is a running list of information requests from individual councilors to city staff. None of these are votes. They are questions, but they often preview what may come back as formal Council action later.

• Does the Methuen Housing Authority currently receive trash collection services through the city's municipal trash contract? (Req. of Chair Soto)

This was addressed at the last meeting. Not sure why it’s back.

• Update from the CAFO and City Solicitor regarding the implementation and status of the city's adoption of M.G.L. Chapter 200A, Section 9A, relating to the disposition and recovery of abandoned and unclaimed property, known as tailings. (Req. of Clr. Valley)

Why it matters: Tailings are unclaimed funds, such as uncashed checks, held by the city. This law allows the city to recover and use money that would otherwise sit unclaimed indefinitely.

• Request that the Mayor and City Solicitor provide an update regarding the Rail Trail depot overhangs, including the status of potential acquisition or transfer of ownership to the city, available legal options, and whether grant opportunities may be pursued to preserve and repair these historic structures. (Req. of Clr. Valley)

Things to remember here. The Laborors Union puts money into elections. They want their building fixed but they don’t want to do it. These overhangs were to be destroyed decades ago. Since nobody wants to do the research… we did. You can read about it AND see the supporting doc here… Depot Article. This is a waste of time and the City should be embarrassed it’s even come this far.

• Update on the feasibility study for the public safety buildings and DPW. (Req. of Clr. Santos)

• Request for the first report from the Sanitation and Zero Waste Coordinator, including trash related fines and tonnage. (Req. of Clr. DiZoglio and Clr. Drew)

This is connected directly to the Trash Coordinator update earlier in the meeting, asking for actual numbers on enforcement and how much trash the city collects. Liekly to be duplicative.

• Request for information regarding a non residential use operating at 4 Alderbrook Lane. (Req. of Clr. DiZoglio and Chair Soto)

This suggests a possible zoning or land use concern at that address but I think what the Council is going to find is that this is a residence for clergy and nothing more.

• Buildings Audit RFP status update. (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• City employee email signature standardization. (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• Fire Department fees update, covering lift fees and ambulance rate adjustments. (Req. of Clr. Drew)

Connects directly to TO-26-18 later in the meeting, which would formally raise these fees.

• Update on Tyler Financial and the MUNIS implementation plan date. (Req. of Clr. Drew)

MUNIS is the city's financial and accounting software system. This tracks progress toward getting it fully operational. It’s a massive project and these never go on schedule. Esepcially when you understaff.

• HHSI permit fees review and update status. (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• Request for a formal presentation and discussion on the Trash Coordinator position and progress made since the Council approved the $850,000 free cash request for the solid waste and tipping fee shortfall. (Req. of Clr. Drew)

This covers the same subject as item 9's presentation, requested here as a follow up discussion item.

• SeeClickFix clean up and follow up. (Clr. Drew)

SeeClickFix is the app residents use to report potholes, illegal dumping, and similar issues. This asks the city to review how those reports are being closed out. Personally, this app has proved useless. Items go in and die there or are closed without action. Someone should ask what we are paying for this.

• Boards and Commissions appointment and reappointment status update, including current vacancies, expired terms, members serving beyond their allowed term or maximum service time, and the administration's timeline for filling or replacing those positions. (Req. of Clr. Drew)

• Request that the City Solicitor provide an update on the ownership of the Depot Overhang associated with the Laborers Union building, including current ownership status and whether any title or deed information has been identified. (Req. of Clr. Valley and Clr. Drew)

A second, more specific overhang ownership question tied to the Rail Trail item above. Why… just ask the questions once. This seems like a pressure push fromt he Laborers Union.

13. Public Service

Grants

Public Service Grant, Temple Drive, Westgate Circle, Jewel Circle. Same National Grid project covered in Public Hearing Two above. This is where the Council discusses the projects, hopefully, before voting.

Licenses

• Solar Project License Agreement, Tenney Grammar School, 75 Pleasant Street, between the City of Methuen and Solect Energy Development LLC.

• Solar Project License Agreement, Comprehensive Grammar School, 100 Howe Street, between the City of Methuen and Solect Energy Development LLC.

Why it matters: These license agreements allow a solar company to install and operate solar panels at two Methuen schools. Paired with the Power Purchase Agreements listed under Contracts below, this is a common way for a city to get solar power without paying upfront construction costs, agreeing instead to buy the electricity the panels produce over time.

Contracts

C-27-1 Brox Industries, Inc. Bituminous concrete for the city's FY26 paving season, $111,425.00, with a winter months rate of $55.00 for December 1 through March 31.

C-27-2 Kitchen and Floor Décor, Inc. Removal of carpets and cove base and installation of VCT tile and cove base at Marsh Grammar School.

So long overdue.

C-27-3 Valerio, Dominello & Hillman, LLC. Legal services contract for fiscal year 2027.

Simple renewal for overflow work.

C-27-4 Power Purchase Agreement between the City of Methuen and Solect Energy Development LLC for Tenney Grammar School.

C-27-5 Power Purchase Agreement between the City of Methuen and Solect Energy Development LLC for Comprehensive Grammar School.

Why it matters: This was a project that start back when I was on School Committee. The goal is to reduce the electricity bill. By all projections this should be a big win over the next 20 years for the schools so long as the City Solicitor covered our bases.

14. Other Officers and Committee Reports

No specific items are listed under this heading on the agenda but I am sure someone will chime in.

15. Unfinished Business

Resolutions

TR-25-75. Resolution for the City Council to lay out and accept Cooper Lane as a public way. Removed from the table.

Why it matters: This is the vote that follows Public Hearing One. If the Council votes yes, Cooper Lane officially becomes a city maintained public way.

TR-26-53. A Resolution Requesting that the Mayor and Chief Administrative and Financial Officer Conduct an Insurance Review and Obtain Competitive Quotes and Options for City Insurance Coverage to Promote Transparency, Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability. Sponsored by Councilor Yanilda Santos.

Why it matters: This asks the city to shop around for insurance coverage rather than automatically renewing with its current provider. Competitive quotes can reveal whether the city is paying more than it needs to for coverage, which affects the budget that taxpayers ultimately fund.

This is a check the box exercise. The Mayor and PEC already announced they plan to move to GIC. This is just the council approving those efforts. Now that the PEC, which means the the unions, are on board.. everyone should be a yes.

Ordinances

TO-26-12. Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to rezone a parcel of land fronting on Arcadia Street for commercial improvement. Removed from the table.

A few things merit a raised eyebrow. The petition dresses up what is essentially a private benefit, expanding a liquor store from roughly 2,000 to 4,200 square feet, as a "valid public purpose," and its spot-zoning defense leans heavily on the parcel being tiny and at a district border, which is exactly the kind of framing applicants use when the public rationale is thin. Notably, the applicant concedes the rezoning won't actually cure the setback non-conformities and will still require further ZBA relief for a larger building sited close to residential abutters, so this reads less like fixing an odd lot and more like assembling entitlements step by step. It's also worth flagging that K&K/Patel owns both the Merrimack and Arcadia parcels, which conveniently lets them characterize impacts on residential abutters as minimal while shuffling their own lot lines, and the attached exhibits (survey fragment, murky renderings) don't really let a reviewer verify the shape, scale, or buffer claims independently.

TO-26-16. An Ordinance Amending Section 9-52, Trash and Recyclables Collection, of the Methuen Municipal Code. Sponsored by Councilor Ryan DiZoglio, as amended.

Why it matters: This is the ordinance that sets the actual rules for how trash and recycling collection works in Methuen. Given the tipping fee shortfall discussed earlier in the meeting and over the last few months, changes here could affect collection rules, bin limits, or enforcement for every household in the city.

TO-26-17. An Ordinance Amending Section 8-7, Municipal Charges Lien, of the Methuen Municipal Code. Sponsored by Councilor Ryan DiZoglio.

Why it matters: A municipal lien is a legal claim the city can place on a property when a bill, such as trash fees or a code violation, goes unpaid. This changes how and when the city can collect unpaid charges by placing a lien on a property. This is to ensure we collect for trash bins, plain and simple.

New Business

Resolutions

TR-26-67. Resolution Declaring the Pleasant Valley School Property, 180 Pleasant Valley Street, Parcel ID #1109-78E-45, as Surplus Property and Authorizing the Same for Sale and Redevelopment.

TR-26-68. Resolution Declaring the Currier School Property, 36 Boylston Street, Parcel ID #914-105-63, as Surplus Property and Authorizing the Same for Sale and Redevelopment.

Why it matters: Declaring a former school building surplus is the first legal step toward selling it or opening it up for redevelopment. These are two more former school properties heading toward a new use, and residents near either site will want to follow the process as it continues. Both properties are in great disrepair and need to be gutted if not demolished. This is a great decision. I just hope Councilor DiZoglio doesn’t say anything illegal when discussion things again.

TR-26-69. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of $15,795.31 for Fiscal Year 2027 Commonwealth of Massachusetts State 911 Emergency Medical Dispatch Grant.

TR-26-70. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of $168,186.09 for Fiscal Year 2027 Commonwealth of Massachusetts State 911 Department Training Grant.

Why it matters: Both are state grants funding training and equipment for the people who answer 911 calls in Methuen. Accepting them brings outside money into the city instead of relying on local tax dollars.

TR-26-71. Resolution Authorizing Transfer Between Various FY26 General Fund Personal Services and Other Expenses Budgets. EPA Requested.

Why it matters: Budget transfers move already approved money from one line item to another to cover shortfalls or unexpected costs before the fiscal year closes. This is the risk we run by level funding electric and fuel. This was just poor budgeting the first go around. Although, systematic to avoid layoffs, we are no stuck covering it. It’s a hopeful game we play annually.

TR-26-73. A Resolution Declaring the Property at 30 Railroad Street, Parcel ID #716-14-16, as Surplus Property and Authorizing the Same for Sale and Redevelopment.

Why it matters: A third surplus property declaration on this agenda, this one for a non school parcel. Same effect: it clears the way for the city to sell or redevelop the site.

TR-26-74. Resolution Transferring Funds from the Edwin J. Castle Fund to the Methuen Literacy Project at Nevins Library and to Methuen Public Schools' CTE Early Childhood Care program.

Why it matters: The Edwin J. Castle Fund is a city held trust fund. This resolution directs some of that money toward literacy programming at the library and an early childhood care program in the schools' career and technical education track.

Ordinances

TO-26-18. Ordinance to Amend Section 8-5A of the Municipal Code of the City of Methuen to increase ambulance rates and charges and establish a new lift assist fee.

Why it matters: This ordinance does two things to the Methuen Fire Department’s ambulance fee schedule under Section 8-5A of the municipal code.

First, it raises the base ambulance transport rates across all three service tiers while leaving the mileage charge unchanged at $50. Basic Life Support Emergency goes from $1,489.24 to $1,750.00 (about a 17.5% increase), Advanced Life Support Emergency goes from $1,768.48 to $2,125.00 (about 20%), and the higher ALS tier (”Emergency 2”) goes from $2,559.64 to $2,975.00 (about 16%). The stated rationale is simply that the cost of running the EMS program has risen and the city wants the fee structure to offset those costs.

Second, it creates a brand-new $500-per-incident “lift assist” fee. This targets a specific situation: when the Fire Department is called to help lift someone who has fallen but doesn’t need to be transported to a hospital. Importantly, the fee is narrowly scoped to assisted living and nursing home facilities and explicitly excludes private residential requests, so a resident who calls because a family member fell at home would not be billed, but a nursing home that repeatedly calls for lifting help would be.

A couple of things worth noting for the review. The ambulance rate hikes are largely academic to residents with insurance, since Medicare, MassHealth, and private insurers pay a negotiated or federally set allowed amount regardless of what the city “charges,” so raising the sticker rate mostly affects the ceiling for reimbursement rather than what a typical patient pays out of pocket. The lift assist fee is the more substantive policy change and the one that deserves discussion: it is essentially a decision to bill commercial elder-care facilities for a service the department currently absorbs, which is defensible as cost recovery, but $500 flat with no tiering and the “not to include private residential requests” carve-out invites questions about how staff will consistently distinguish a billable lift assist from an emergency call, and whether facilities might hesitate to call for help to avoid the charge. One drafting note also stands out: the ordinance text labels the new fee “List Assistance” in the operative clause even though the table and title call it “Lift Assist,” which is the kind of typo worth fixing before adoption since it’s the actual code language.

That’s all she wrote… well except for the Execution session to approve old minutes and release them.

Executive Session

The Council will vote on whether to enter executive session under Exemption 7 of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. Chapter 30A, Section 21(a)(7). If it does, the Council will discuss and vote on the acceptance or disclosure of past executive session minutes from the following dates: February 21, 2017; June 11, 2018; September 24, 2018; October 29, 2018; July 26, 2019; August 14, 2019 (listed twice on the agenda); and September 25, 2019.

Why it matters: Executive session minutes are kept confidential when they are created, usually because they cover legal, personnel, or negotiation matters. Councils periodically review old executive session minutes to decide whether they can now be released publicly. The agenda notes that if the Council enters executive session, it will not reconvene in open session afterward, meaning the meeting ends there.

And that is really it now. See you after the meeting!

Watch live at methuen.gov/livestream

Channel 8 (Comcast) or Channel 32 (Verizon)

YouTube: youtube.com/@MethuenMeetings

*I may need to update this if it changes due to the location change.

The Methuen Police Department just released its 2026 through 2030 Strategic Plan, a document that lays out where the department wants to be by the end of the decade. Chief Scott McNamara and Director of Strategic Planning and Crime Analysis Dawn Reeby put the plan together after months of surveys, focus groups, and public meetings with residents, officers, and community groups (Strategic Plan, p. 7 to 8).

Here is what it actually says, broken down in plain terms, including the parts worth applauding and the parts worth watching closely.

How the Plan Came Together

The department did not write this alone. Between February and April of 2026, it ran an internal command staff focus group, a department wide staff survey, a focus group with residents of the Emerald Pines Over 55 Community, a session with union representatives and professional staff, a stakeholder meeting with MAN Inc. and Coolidge Street groups, and a live public Q and A hosted by Methuen Community Studios (Strategic Plan, p. 8). That is a real attempt at public input, and the department says it shared survey results and common themes back with staff to keep the process transparent (Strategic Plan, p. 8).

The plan is organized around nine goal areas: community engagement, staffing, people and culture, infrastructure, technology, specialized roles and domestic violence, leadership development, the mental health clinician program, and accreditation (Strategic Plan, p. 9).

That process is worth scrutinizing on its own terms. Every engagement session named in the plan happened in a tight three month window, February through April 2026, to shape a document meant to guide the department for five years.

The named participants are also a fairly narrow slice of the community: internal staff, one senior community, union and professional staff, two named stakeholder groups, and a single public Q and A session. The plan states results were shared back with staff, but it does not describe any public comment period or draft review by residents before the plan was finalized and released. It is also worth noting that the plan’s two principal authors have limited stake in carrying it out: Chief McNamara is retiring within weeks, and Director Reeby’s position was cut from the 2027 budget, leaving an open question about who owns accountability for the plan’s nine goal areas over the next five years.

The Good

Community engagement gets real attention. The department wants more officers out talking to neighborhood groups, senior centers, and nonprofits, and it wants to build a public data portal so residents can see crime trends and prevention tips for themselves (Strategic Plan, p. 10). That kind of transparency is a genuine improvement if it happens.

Wellness is finally a formal priority, not an afterthought. The plan calls for peer support programs, critical incident debriefing, cardiovascular and metabolic health screenings for all personnel on a rolling three year basis, and a formal policy letting officers and dispatchers attend therapy (Strategic Plan, p. 13). Officer burnout and stress are real problems in policing nationally, so building this into the department’s structure is a meaningful step.

The mental health clinician program is being protected. Methuen currently pairs officers with mental health clinicians to respond to crisis calls, but that program runs on grant money that will eventually run out. The plan commits to building a sustainability strategy so the program does not disappear once the grant ends, including a HIPAA compliant data plan and a real staffing structure (Strategic Plan, p. 18).

A civilian Domestic Violence Victim Advocate is coming. This is a dedicated, trained civilian whose job is supporting DV victims rather than a sworn officer juggling it alongside patrol duties. The plan also wants a sworn DV officer role down the line (Strategic Plan, p. 11, p. 16).

Staffing is set to grow, at least on paper. Budgeted positions would rise from 102 to 107, and the department plans to keep developing its cadet pipeline program to build a homegrown pathway into the force (Strategic Plan, p. 11).

The Bad

A lot of this plan is written in soft, non binding language. Words like “explore,” “evaluate,” and “pursue” appear constantly, for things like a drone program, a regional training hub, a fraud specialist role, and even the shift schedule change officers have been asking about for years (Strategic Plan, p. 15 to 17). None of that is a guarantee. It is a wish list with no attached deadline or dollar figure in most cases.

The drone program is not actually happening yet. The plan says the department wants a drone as first responder program, but only “pending availability of compliant, American made technology,” and it still needs to test how drones perform in cold weather (Strategic Plan, p. 15). That is a program that exists only in concept right now.

Some numbers are eye opening without much context. Carpet replacement at headquarters is estimated at $150,000 (Strategic Plan, p. 14), and that is just one line item among a long list of facility upgrades that includes HVAC work, an evidence room overhaul, and new bathrooms. The plan does not lay out a total price tag for all of this or where the money is coming from.

Cost is the biggest blind spot in the plan, and in this breakdown so far. Dollar figures show up piecemeal: $150,000 for carpet alone, a staffing increase from 102 to 107 budgeted positions, and a potential new headquarters building tied to national accreditation. None of it is added up into a total price tag, and the plan does not say how much would come from the existing budget versus new borrowing, grants, or a tax impact. Residents asked to weigh in on the plan’s priorities are effectively doing so without knowing what any of it costs them.

The Ugly

The organizational chart shows real staffing gaps right now. Each of the department’s three patrol platoons is budgeted for 15 officers but currently has only 12 filled, meaning 9 open patrol positions across the department today. The narcotics unit has 2 of 4 positions filled, and the gang unit shows 2 openings with no one currently assigned (Strategic Plan, p. 12). Growing the department from 102 to 107 positions does not mean much if existing budgeted slots are not being filled first.

National accreditation could mean a brand new building. The department is already accredited at the state level and wants to pursue CALEA, the national accreditation standard. But the plan includes a blunt footnote: meeting national infrastructure requirements “may necessitate either the construction of a new facility or significant upgrades to the existing building” (Strategic Plan, p. 19). That is a massive, unbudgeted capital project hiding inside a bullet point, and residents deserve to know what that could cost before it becomes a done deal.

The current headquarters sounds like it needs serious work. Between the evidence room upgrade, new unisex bathrooms with showers, HVAC problems significant enough to need “ongoing evaluation,” and a request for a project manager just to keep contractors organized, the plan paints a picture of a building that has been neglected for a while (Strategic Plan, p. 14). Officer wellness initiatives will only go so far if the building itself is part of the problem.

The Bottom Line

This plan reflects real community input and sets priorities that most residents would probably support: more engagement, better officer wellness, a protected mental health response program, and a path toward national accreditation. The honest gaps are in the details.

Big items like the drone program, the regional training hub, and the potential new headquarters building are still just ideas without funding plans attached. Whether this becomes a real transformation or a document that mostly sits on a shelf will depend on what gets funded, and when.

None of that changes the underlying math for Methuen. This plan is landing on top of a city with a track record of deferring major investment, and the bills are stacking up elsewhere too: aging school buildings, overdue DPW infrastructure work, and the ongoing liability of the Searles Estate are all likely to get expensive over the next several years, on top of whatever this plan ends up costing. A recent change to the city’s insurance arrangement has not altered that picture by much. Methuen’s budget still runs largely on residential property taxpayers, and nothing here suggests that structure is about to change. Whatever this plan costs will be competing for room with everything else the city has already put off.

The full plan is available through the Methuen Police Department at 90 Hampshire Street, Quinn Public Safety Building, Methuen, MA 01844, or by calling 978 983 8801 (Strategic Plan, p. 21).

Source

Full Report: MPD 2026 - 2030 Strategic Plan

Methuen Police Department, 2026 to 2030 Strategic Plan, created by Chief Scott McNamara and Director of Strategic Planning and Crime Analysis Dawn Reeby.

Down the road in Dracut, cannabis tax money has paid for a fire truck, a fleet of police cruisers, new classroom computers and a wheelchair lift at an elementary school. In Methuen, where voters have twice said no to allowing legal marijuana sales, school officials this spring were drawing up layoff lists and city departments have leaned on furloughs to balance the budget. Those two facts sit right next to each other on a map, and they are worth examining together and saying outloud that this is a mess we created.

A Question Methuen Has Asked Twice

Massachusetts voters legalized recreational marijuana statewide in November 2016 through Question 4, approving it by a margin of about 54 percent to 46 percent. The law let any city or town that voted no on the statewide question hold its own local vote later and opt back in, but it also meant that communities which rejected Question 4 could not host marijuana businesses unless they voted to allow it themselves.

Methuen was one of the communities that voted no. According to reporting in The Eagle Tribune, 11,050 Methuen voters supported the statewide measure while 11,869 voted against it. That's a difference of 819 votes out of roughly 23,000 cast…in a city of (at that time) about 50,000 people. That single, narrow margin set the course Methuen has followed ever since.

City Hall did not let the issue rest. In 2018, then Mayor James Jajuga formed a Cannabis Policy Working Group to study how marijuana might fit into Methuen if attitudes changed. In 2019, that group surveyed more than a thousand residents and found that 57 percent strongly agreed or agreed with allowing licensed marijuana retailers to open in the city. The working group drafted an ordinance that would have allowed medical marijuana cultivation and retail in limited areas, but the City Council amended it so heavily that, by January 2020, it would have been functionally impossible to open any marijuana business anywhere in Methuen, and the chairman withdrew it.

The question came back one more time. In May 2021, the City Council voted eight to one to place a binding local question on the November ballot, asking voters directly whether to allow the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana for all purposes legal under state law, including adult recreational use. Supporters pointed to neighboring Haverhill, which had approved the 2016 statewide question and was already collecting substantial fees from cannabis sellers. Opponents argued the matter had already been settled in 2016 and that the new question was confusingly written.

Voters decided again. On November 2, 2021, Methuen rejected the local cannabis question by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent, according to results reported by The Eagle Tribune and the cannabis industry trade outlet MJBizDaily. As of today, marijuana retail, cultivation and delivery businesses remain prohibited in our city.

What the Money Has Done Next Door

Dracut sits directly across the line from Methuen, has roughly 32,600 residents (compared with Methuen's roughly 53,000), and voted to allow cannabis businesses. A summary graphic that circulated on the City of Dracut's official Facebook page lays out, in plain dollar figures, what that decision has meant for the town's budget. The graphic carries a disclaimer noting it is not an official town document but rather a summary of free cash capital purchases, stabilization fund transfers and school bond items approved at town meetings between 2020 and 2027, and it is treated here as illustrative rather than as audited financial data.

According to that summary, Dracut's cannabis excise tax revenue has tracked as follows:

Year Cannabis Revenue Received

2021 $533,932

2022 $2,627,408

2023 $2,732,695

2024 $1,924,198 (declined after the Commonwealth eliminated local cannabis impact fees)

2025 More than $1.5 million (estimated, not yet disclosed)

That comes to roughly nine million dollars flowing into Dracut's town accounts over five years, money raised entirely from a product Methuen has chosen not to sell. Dracut put that money toward thirteen capital projects valued at more than one hundred thousand dollars a piece, among them a fire department pumper truck for $830,000, extra road resurfacing and hardscape work for $700,000, replacement police vehicles for $652,000, a Department of Public Works roof replacement for $300,000 and a multi purpose DPW truck for $250,000. The schools benefited too, with cannabis and free cash funds covering a $200,000 roof design, $200,000 in classroom computers, a $200,000 network switch and router upgrade and a $140,000 wheelchair lift to make the Brookside School accessible. Surplus cannabis revenue has also gone toward yearly deposits into the town's stabilization funds, averaging about $250,000 a year between 2021 and 2027, plus partial debt service on a new fire station and ADA and roof projects at two more schools.

None of that is money Dracut had to raise through an override, a new fee or a layoff. It is money a legal industry generated and handed to the town in tax revenue, on top of what residents already paid in property taxes.

Graphic circulated on the City of Dracut, Massachusetts Facebook page, summarizing cannabis and free cash funded capital projects approved at town meetings from 2020 through 2027.

What That Could Have Meant for Methuen

Methuen is roughly one and a half times the size of Dracut. Scaling Dracut's five year cannabis revenue total to Methuen's population is a rough exercise, not a budget projection, since revenue depends on how many shops open, how much they sell and how local fees are structured. But even a conservative, population adjusted estimate puts the number somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to fourteen million dollars over five years, money that simply does not exist in Methuen's accounts because the product is not legal to sell here.

That number lands differently this year than it might have in 2021. This spring, Methuen school officials were finalizing layoff notices while state aid uncertainty squeezed the district's budget by more than two million dollars with district leaders hoping to recall as many positions as possible once funding firmed up. City departments have turned to furloughs to stretch thin budgets further. None of this is unique to Methuen this year, but it is the backdrop against which the city's third rejection of cannabis revenue should be read.

To be clear, nobody can promise that legal cannabis sales would have closed Methuen's budget gap on their own, or that the city would have spent the money exactly as Dracut did… this is Methuen after all and we routinely screw up a the proverbial free lunch. But Dracut's own figures, fire trucks, police cruisers, school technology and roof repairs paid for without new taxes or layoffs, are a real example of what that revenue stream is capable of funding in a community of comparable size and character, fifteen minutes up the road.

We aren't even getting into what Haverhill has done…!

Anticipating the “Gateway Drug” Argument

Opposition to cannabis sales in Methuen has often returned to a single claim: that marijuana is a gateway drug that leads users toward harder, more dangerous substances. It is worth looking at what the primary research actually says, rather than relying on the slogan alone.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse, the federal government's lead research agency on substance use, addresses this question directly. NIDA notes that some animal studies show early cannabis exposure can prime the brain for stronger responses to other drugs later, a pattern that is consistent with the gateway idea. But the agency is equally direct that the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, harder substances, and it offers a competing explanation: people who are already more prone to drug use may simply start with whatever substance is easiest to get, whether that is alcohol, tobacco or marijuana, and it is their social environment afterward, not the marijuana itself, that increases the odds they try something else.

The federal government's own National Institute of Justice reached a similar conclusion in a 2018 literature review that examined 23 peer reviewed studies on the subject. The review found that the existing statistical research on the gateway hypothesis has produced mixed results, and stated plainly that no causal link between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs can be claimed at this time.

That finding is not new. As far back as 1999, the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, studied the same question for a congressionally requested report on medical marijuana and concluded there was no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to a person's later use of other illicit drugs. Two decades and dozens of additional studies later, federal researchers still describe the question the same way: an association worth studying further, not a proven causal chain.

None of this means cannabis is risk free, particularly for teenagers, whose developing brains are more vulnerable to any psychoactive substance, including alcohol and nicotine. They can't legally buy it even if we were to vote to allow sale. But the specific claim that legal, regulated, adult use cannabis sales function as a pipeline to heroin or methamphetamine is not supported by medical research and the federal government's own research arms. Lawmakers and voters are entitled to weigh that research alongside other concerns, but the gateway slogan deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets in a council chamber or a campaign mailer.

A Question Worth Asking a Third Time

Methuen voters have said no twice, first in 2016 and again in 2021, each time by a margin under fifteen points. That is not overwhelming opposition. It is a city closely split on a question whose financial consequences have grown clearer with each passing year that a neighboring town banks fire trucks, school computers and stabilization fund deposits from a product Methuen does not sell.

As Methuen works through another budget cycle marked by layoff notices and furloughs, the figures sitting in Dracut's town accounts are a useful reminder that this is not a hypothetical revenue source. It is money a neighboring community is spending right now, on the same kinds of fire trucks, cruisers and school repairs that Methuen has had to fund some other way, or has gone without.

Sources

Ballotpedia, “Massachusetts Question 4, Marijuana Legalization (2016).”

WBUR News, “Mass. Votes To Legalize Recreational Marijuana,” November 9, 2016.

The Eagle Tribune, “Methuen City Council OKs pot ballot question,” May 19, 2021.

The Eagle Tribune, “Residents to vote on bringing cannabis to Methuen: Locals sound off,” October 24, 2021.

MJBizDaily, “Election night fallout for marijuana industry,” November 2021.

The Eagle Tribune, “Methuen school officials expect more jobs will be saved,” May 29, 2026.

City of Dracut, Massachusetts, official Facebook page, cannabis revenue and capital projects summary graphic.

National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Is marijuana a gateway drug?”, research report, accessed 2026.

National Institute of Justice, “Is Cannabis a Gateway Drug? Key Findings and Literature Review,” 2018.

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” 1999.

U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Methuen city and Dracut town, Massachusetts.

This article is intended for general community discussion. Revenue comparisons between Dracut and Methuen are illustrative estimates based on population scaling, not official projections, and actual results would depend on local licensing, zoning and tax decisions Methuen has not yet made.

After more than a decade of false starts, deficits, and at least one very public fight at City Hall, Methuen is leaving its self-funded health insurance system behind. Mayor Beauregard and Public Employee Committee (PEC) President Kara Blatt announced this week that the City has ratified a deal moving employees, retirees, and their families into the state’s Group Insurance Commission (GIC) starting January 1, 2027.

It’s the first formal health insurance agreement between the City and its unions since 2013. That alone tells you how long this fight has been simmering.

How We Got Here

Methuen has run its own self-insured health plan for decades… meaning the City, not an insurance company, has been on the hook for paying out employee and retiree medical claims directly. That model can work fine in good years. In bad years, it leaves the City holding the bag.

The bad years were more common. The City’s Health Insurance Trust Fund ran into a shortfall projected at $4.4 million for FY25, forcing officials to transfer millions from free cash and stabilization funds just to keep the lights on. Beauregard has said the problems go back further than that: the City’s outside consultants at National Financial Partners (NFP) flagged structural problems with Methuen’s self-funded plan all the way back in 2019, under a previous administration, and recommended changes the City didn’t make at the time. Beauregard has put the cost of that inaction at as much as $28 million.

When Beauregard brought NFP back this year to dig into the numbers again, the firm reportedly found something blunter than “rising costs are a problem everywhere.” Methuen’s own internal premium rates had been set too low for years, underpricing the actual cost of claims. That’s a different problem than bad luck. That’s a pricing problem, baked in year after year, that eventually comes due all at once.

Along the way, scrutiny also turned to the cost of running the self-funded plan itself, including roughly $400,000 a year in broker fees and commissions tied to managing it. Whether that oversight changes as part of this transition, and how, is worth watching as the City finalizes its move to the GIC. Fewer moving parts in plan administration is one of the natural side effects of joining a state-run pool instead of managing your own.

The Union Fight That Almost Wasn’t

This deal didn’t arrive quietly. Back in the spring, Kara Blatt, who chairs the PEC and co-leads the Methuen Education Association, told the City Council she’d been blindsided by an emergency Council resolution pushing the City toward GIC exploration through a process that limited the unions’ bargaining leverage. The unions had been asking for a formal seat at the table on insurance for months and felt sidelined when the move came as a Council resolution instead.

It got testy. Councilors ultimately tabled that resolution after hearing from employees. But the underlying message from Blatt and the PEC was consistent: they weren’t against GIC on principle, they wanted to negotiate the move rather than have it imposed particularly because once a city joins the GIC, unions lose the ability to bargain over which health plans are offered (the GIC sets that), even though they keep the ability to negotiate how premium costs are split between the City and employees.

That’s exactly what eventually happened here. The agreement just announced is a negotiated PEC deal, not a unilateral Council move which is a meaningfully different outcome than where this started, and likely why both sides are using words like “collaborative” in their statements this week.

Why This Took So Long

Here’s the question worth sitting with: if the City knew about this back in 2019, why are we only fixing it in 2026?

Because this kind of reform isn’t sexy, and it never was going to be.

There’s no version of “I moved municipal health insurance to a state-run risk pool” that fits on a campaign flyer next to a ribbon-cutting photo. It’s not a new park, a new fire truck, or a tax cut. It’s plumbing (sorry, Councilor Drew). Nobody runs for re-election on plumbing. They run for re-election by pointing at things people can see. And worse, this particular piece of plumbing meant taking something away from a group of people who had it good for a long time: City employees and retirees who’d grown used to a locally-run plan, locally negotiated, with the City absorbing the bad years so they didn’t have to. Telling the unions, the same unions who help you get elected, that you need to take away their “Cadillac” insurance plan is not a popular conversation to start, let alone finish.

That’s the real reason this sat untouched for the better part of a decade.

Somebody had to be the one to walk into a room full of union leadership and city employees and say, essentially, “the way we’ve been doing this isn’t working, and the fix is going to look like a loss before it looks like a win.” That’s a genuinely risky thing for an elected official to do. It can cost votes. It can cost endorsements. It can absolutely cost a re-election campaign if it goes sideways or if the savings don’t materialize the way the spreadsheets promised.

Previous administrations apparently looked at that trade and decided it wasn’t worth making and in fairness to them, it’s an understandable, if costly, instinct. It’s a lot easier to let a structural problem compound quietly than to be the name attached to disrupting people’s health coverage.

It’s also worth saying plainly: the mess didn’t appear out of nowhere. Years of underpriced premiums, deficits absorbed after the fact, and apparently loose oversight of the broker relationship managing the self-funded plan all happened on someone’s watch, actually, multiple someones. That mismanagement is exactly what made this current fix so necessary… and so overdue.

So credit where it’s due: Beauregard and Blatt along with the rest of the PEC both deserve real recognition here, and not just for the $11.2 million. Beauregard chose to be the “bad guy” on an issue that had nothing politically upside about it and a lot of downside if it didn’t land well. Blatt and the PEC, after legitimately being blindsided this spring, came back to the table and negotiated a deal that protected their members rather than digging in or walking away. Both of those are harder, less rewarded choices than the easy version of this story, which was always going to be: do nothing, let the next administration deal with it.

And that’s the bigger Methuen story underneath this one. This city has a long list of things that have been kicked down the road for years precisely because fixing them wasn’t politically advantageous. This deal is a rare example of someone actually picking up the shovel. That alone is worth noting, regardless of how the savings numbers ultimately shake out.

The Good

• Real money saved. The City is projecting at least $11.2 million in savings through FY2030 for the City, employees, and retirees combined.

• Lower deductibles. GIC deductibles are expected to come in more than 50% lower than what employees and retirees pay now which is a tangible, immediate difference for anyone who’s hit a deductible wall mid-year.

• No more deficit roulette. Joining a pool of 460,000-plus members across the Commonwealth means Methuen is no longer exposed to the kind of single-city bad-claims-year that created this mess in the first place.

• More plan choice. The GIC offers a marketplace of plan options rather than the City picking one design for everyone.

• This was negotiated, not imposed. After a rocky start this spring, the final deal is a ratified PEC agreement and a meaningfully different process than the Council resolution that started this fight.

The Bad (or at Least, the Watch-List)

• It took too long, and it cost real money to get here. If the 2019 recommendations had been acted on, the City says it could have avoided tens of millions in costs. That’s not a savings story… that’s a decade of delay with a price tag attached.

• GIC means the City and unions no longer choose the plans. The PEC retains the ability to bargain how premium costs are split, but plan design itself now lives with the state, not local negotiation. For unions, that’s a real trade of local control for stability.

• The transition itself is a logistical lift. Open enrollment runs this fall, with informational sessions planned in the meantime. Any time families have to relearn provider networks, drug formularies, and plan rules, there’s a real risk of confusion — especially for retirees on fixed incomes who’ve had the same plan for years.

• Savings projections are projections. $11.2 million through FY2030 is the City’s current estimate, not a guarantee. Healthcare costs, especially prescription drug costs, have been volatile, and GIC premiums aren’t frozen either.

What Happens Next

The City will spend the coming months running informational sessions for employees, retirees, and families to walk through plan options. Open enrollment happens this fall, with GIC coverage taking effect January 1, 2027. If you’re a City employee or retiree, that’s the window that actually matters to you, not this week’s press release.

For now, both sides are calling it a win. Beauregard is framing it as fixing “a broken system.” Blatt is calling it proof that the City and unions can still get something done at the bargaining table when they actually sit down at it, a notably different tone than the “blindsided” comments from her back in the spring. Time, and the fall enrollment numbers, will tell whether the savings materialize the way the City is projecting.

View the Mayor’s press release here: Official Press Release

Full agenda with attachments: Here

Recording of Meeting on YouTube: Here

The night actually started before the regular meeting, and it started the right way.

The School Committee held its annual Teachers of the Year recognition ceremony, and the media center was full of family, friends, students, colleagues who were all there to celebrate the educators who show up for Methuen’s kids every single day. It was positive in the best way. It was the kind of room that reminds you why any of this matters.

Each school honored one teacher. Each teacher had a story. And for a few minutes, the politics and the budget fights and the dysfunction that too often define how people talk about this school district faded into the background. What was left was a room full of people who genuinely love what they do and a community that, when given the chance, shows up to say thank you.

Congratulations to all of them. These recognitions matter.

At the same time this was wrapping up, the public hearing on An Act Relative to the Reinstatement of Positions in a Departmental Unit According to Seniority for the City of Methuen (Requested by Chair Soto, Clr. DiZoglio, and Clr. Valley). The Fire Chief explained that when rehiring, the city needs to bring back staff based on time in rank, not time on the job. He noted many other communities have adopted this approach and that the issue traces back to pre-COVID. Jill Stacklin and Councilor Simard both spoke in support of the home rule charter.

Then the regular meeting got underway.

Roll Call

Councilor Pesce was absent. She’s on a family vacation and will also miss the next meeting as well from the sounds of it. Councilor DiZoglio got the call up to the big chair as acting Vice Chair.

The whispers from the Council is that Soto promised DiZoglio the chair in January. So, that will be something to watch to see how it evolves.

Acceptance of the Agenda

Moved by Santos, seconded by MacLaren. Two notable additions before the main motion passed:

Valley moved to shift the summer meetings to 6 p.m., so the July 6 and August 3 meetings will start at 6. Councilor Drew correctly noted this belonged under Organizational Business, but it passed unanimously anyway. The reason is valid. The agendas are going to be longer, they will need the time. They can’t risk letting anything interfere with “Hot Girl Summer.”

Santos moved to pull her item (TR-26-63) to the top of the agenda. Drew asked why. Santos said a constituent requested it and Soto corrected her that it was requested by the Castle Fund. Drew’s pushback was fair: everyone in the room wants their item first, and giving special treatment based on who asks sets a bad precedent. He was the sole no vote. It’s not the first time this has happened and it won’t be the last.

Main motion passes as amended.

Pledge / Invocation / Moment of Silence

Another invocation heavy on integrity and selfless service from Santos. The irony was not lost on anyone paying attention.

A moment of silence was held for a local resident who recently passed whose name DiZoglio unfortunately stumbled. Out of respect, we’ll leave it theren so I don’t get it wrong.

Public Participation

Mike Welch, a local resident and former paid consultant of the Unaccepted Way Task Force, has spent three years working to align state and city accepted road lists. His findings: 47 streets are accepted by the state but not the city, meaning we get money for them but don’t pave them. Another 17 the city treats as accepted, but the state doesn’t. The big issue … 105 streets are currently unaccepted. This is important work and deserves a real response.

Ann DiBeneditto, a retired Methuen teacher, returned with questions about health insurance, specifically the overage situation, the new broker selected by the mayor, and the request that the Public Employees Committee return to meeting in person as it once did. She reminded the room that GIC is a multi-year (three-year) commitment and that getting out is hard. She has been around long enough to remember people pleading not to go GIC in the first place. Her best line of the night: “Mayors and councilors come and go but employees stick around.”

Donna Gongas, a retired teacher and representative for Methuen retirees on the PEC, reiterated the financial pressures retirees face and how the recent increase has not kept pace.

Jim Toff, originator of the PEC and member of the Retirement Board, said the changes imposed on retirees were illegal and placed that on the shoulders of the Mayor. He also called out the CAFO for lack of oversight of the health insurance trust fund and explained that the COLA for retirees exists specifically to cover insurance. Pointed remarks for sure.

Steve (last name not caught) is the representative for the neighborhood adjacent to the pickleball courts. Through a public records request, he uncovered a letter from the community of Falmouth warning about noise issues, a letter the prior city solicitor, the police chief, and others were aware of before construction began. The warning came in May of 2024. Construction started anyway, with a plan to deal with complaints later. Three hundred thousand dollars was spent on beautification instead of soundproofing. He had a sound study conducted and confirmed the levels exceed the city’s own noise ordinance. He quoted some texts he obtained from the mayor that he viewed as dismissive at best. He wants the Council to act. They knew this was coming.

Councilor DiZoglio read two statements into the record. One questioned school leadership and urged the city not to fund the schools further. The second opposed the drone purchase on tonight’s agenda, calling it frivolous. Worth noting: the first letter appears to be the same one Councilor Pesce declined to read aloud at the last meeting, choosing instead to submit it silently into the record.

TR-26-63 — Resolution Authorizing Expenditure of $22,500 from the Castle Fund to the Methuen Youth and Community Center

(This was the item Santos moved to the top of the agenda.)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. No discussion. Passes unanimously. EPA also passes unanimously.

Organizational Business

Minutes from the May 18, 2026 Regular Meeting, the May 21 FY2027 Water & Sewer Public Hearing, the May 21 FY2027 Municipal Budget Public Hearing, and the May 21 FY2027 Municipal Budget 1st Read were all approved.

Appointments

Firefighter Craig Langlais to Lieutenant

The hall was packed with firefighters. Soto asked why the city is promoting people when furloughs are on the table. The Chief explained it’s contractual: four shifts, every ladder needs a Lieutenant and two firefighters. The passing of Lieutenant Jimmy Mac is what set this whole chain of movement in motion. DiZoglio added that if we can’t fill the role with overtime, we’d have to close a station. Roll call passes unanimously. Brief recess for photos. Congratulations to Lt. Langlias.

Presentation: City of Methuen’s Health Insurance Program

(Presentation from Ken Lombardi of NFP, Requested by Mayor Beauregard)

The Mayor opened by addressing the elephant in the room: he hasn’t broken any laws. The reason the CAFO wasn’t aware of the broker fees is because they were commissions paid by the carrier. For those new to the administration of health insurance side of the house… that is simply how health insurance brokerages work. He then recounted that in 2019, this same firm recommended the city explore GIC. The city didn’t, and the Mayor put the cost of that inaction at $29.9 million since 2019. The prior local broker, he argued, had a fiduciary duty to give better advice. The broker recommended a 6% increase when the market was calling for closer to 19%. That gap is part of what the city is now dealing with.

Ken Lombardi walked the Council through the three models for how a city can offer health insurance: self-funding, GIC, or joining a cooperative with other communities. He confirmed the earliest the city could join GIC is January 1, 2027, and it would be a three-year commitment. He got deep into coverage details and plan options. For the community collective option, he was pretty blunt in the fact that nobody would want to partner with Methuen due to our claims and makeup (being so heavily on retirees).

DiZoglio said what everyone was thinking: this is a lot of information and it needs to be presented in a less dense way. He also made a substantive comment for someone who is a user of a similar plan in another community where he is employed: this kind of review should have been happening regularly, not rushed at the end of the year.

The Mayor acknowledged he can’t kick the can down the road. The 19.3% increase is what it takes to keep the current structure solvent for the next fiscal year.

Santos took a shot at the Mayor, was told she wasn’t listening, and then complained about being asked to vote without seeing the presentation in advance. The Mayor clarified there is no vote tonight. It was a rough night for Santos.

Simard offered a sensible suggestion: stop beating this tonight and set up a dedicated Q&A session with the unions. … Sensible but unlikely.

The Mayor closed with an important point: if the Council doesn’t approve use of free cash to address the health insurance trust fund shortfall, the alternative is putting it on the tax bill.

Mayor’s Report

A new cell tower in the Howe Street area will bring in additional revenue. Several grant items are on tonight’s agenda. A new partnership to help residents with student loan debt. The Board of Health will be voting on fee changes next week. Groundwork Lawrence may be establishing a Methuen branch. Constellation will be coming to the Council next meeting with a funding request. The Mayor wants to see Methuen become a school choice community. Alderbrook Lane is not a concern. Teacher of the Month recognition. Pride flag ceremony was held today. Friday is Concert in the Park. Sunday is the Firefighters’ Memorial. The full schedule for the Fourth of July celebration is coming.

CAFO Report

Request for Update on Searles Estate Expenses & Revenues (Req. of Chair Soto)

The monthly regulars, electric, gas, and utilities, were reviewed. The bigger issue is the financing structure: a one-year interest-only renewal rather than a long-term bond, which means a roughly $260,000 interest-only payment. Drew asked if we’d have to do this again next year. The CAFO confirmed a decision needs to be made at this time next year. Drew pressed on why a long-term bond wasn’t explored instead of rolling one-year notes. The CAFO can’t explore those options until we know if we are keeping it or not.

Requests of Councilors

Does the Methuen Housing Authority currently receive trash collection services through the city’s municipal trash contract? (Req. of Chair Soto)

The Mayor didn’t have the answer and will get it for the next meeting. Soto’s position is that if they do, they should be paying for their own.

Request for paving list to be submitted on the Methuen Website (Req. of Chair Soto)

It’s already online.

Update regarding implementation of M.G.L. Chapter 200A, Section 9A — unclaimed property (Req. of Clr. Valley)

Being advertised per the rules.

Update regarding the Rail Trail depot overhangs (Req. of Clr. Valley)

The Mayor passed it to the City Solicitor. Valley noted the union head is willing to transfer the building to the city. The Solicitor pushed back hard, pointing out that an outside counsel letter was sent to the building owner eight years ago to fix the structure, and nothing has happened. Drew noted the building has split ownership between the union and the VFW which may or may not be the actual case. His follow up suggestion was sensible: get all the parties in a room. Valley mentioned grants from Senator Payano could fund repairs. DiZoglio was interested in that path. The Solicitor’s more pragmatic observation: it’s still a privately owned building.

Update on the feasibility study for the public safety buildings and DPW (Req. of Clr. Santos)

Contract was signed at the last meeting. Work is in progress.

First report from the Sanitation/Zero Waste Coordinator (Req. of Clr. DiZoglio and Clr. Drew)

Director Bower reported the new coordinator has issued 100 citations so far and is also working on resident education.

Request for information regarding operation at 4 Alderbrook Lane (Req. of Clr. DiZoglio and Chair Soto)

Covered in the Mayor’s Report.

Parks Audit RFP status update (Req. of Clr. Drew)

As expected: nothing new.

Buildings Audit RFP Status update (Req. of Clr. Drew)

Same.

City employee email signature standardization (Req. of Clr. Drew)

Being looked into.

Fire Department fees update — lift fees and ambulance rate adjustment (Req. of Clr. Drew)

Fee increases coming at the July meeting.

Update on Tyler Financial MUNIS implementation plan (Req. of Clr. Drew)

CAFO is in discussions with the contractor to figure out timing.

HHSI permit fees review and update (Req. of Clr. Drew)

Covered in the Mayor’s Report.

Contracts

C-26-94: Tread Milling Co. Inc. — $28,800

Cold planing and profiling of bituminous surfaces funded through Chapter 90 for paving season FY2026. Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. Valley asked how many streets this covers; DPW clarified this is patchwork for pipe work and other infrastructure issues, not street-level paving. Passes unanimously.

C-26-95: Murray Paving & Reclamation, Inc. — $648,071

Bituminous concrete pavement reclamation funded through Chapter 90. Moved by Santos, seconded by MacLaren. DiZoglio raised ADA compliance at curb cuts when streets are paved; DPW confirmed the department addresses that before paving and noted the obligation does not extend to utility companies when they repave. Soto asked for the street list; DPW noted it’s posted but changes. Passes unanimously.

C-26-96: EJ Prescott, Inc. — $191,850

Manhole frames, covers, catch basin frames, gate boxes, and service boxes funded through Chapter 90. Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

C-26-97: McGovern MHQ, Inc. — $136,307.33

2026 Ford F350 with service body and crane for the Water Treatment Plant. Moved by Drew, seconded by DiZoglio. Drew asked what vehicle is being replaced and confirmed it will go through the surplus process. Passes unanimously.

C-26-98: Torromeo Industries, Inc. — $85,603

Purchase of sand, stone, and gravel for paving season FY2026. Moved by MacLaren, seconded by Santos. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

C-26-99: Safeware, Inc. — $24,999.82

One Skydio Night Sense Drone purchased through state contract HLS06. Moved by Santos, seconded by Drew. Soto asked why it was on “her agenda” since its under the necessary $25k threshold. The Mayor explained it was a transparency move since the contract came in 18 cents under the $25,000 threshold and he didn’t want anyone to think it was being hidden. Drew noted public concerns about drone surveillance. The Chief reminded the Council that Methuen has had drones since 2017 and explained data retention policies and usage. Passes unanimously.

C-26-100: Island Tech Services — $60,546

Outfitting of five police vehicles. Moved by Valley, seconded by DiZoglio. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

C-26-101: McGovern MHQ, Inc. — $82,747

One 2026 Ford Explorer and one Chevy Equinox for the Police Department. Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Valley. Valley asked about the budget line. CAFO explained it spans two lines. Drew confirmed replacements will be surplused. Passes unanimously.

C-26-102: Energy Source, LLC — $56,151

Replacing the oil burner at North Station Fire Department, funded in part through National Grid. Moved by Valley, seconded by Valley. Drew asked about the ROI. Mayor confirmed roughly $2,000 in annual savings with National Grid covering a portion. Passes unanimously.

C-26-103: Energy Source, LLC — $122,581

Installing a Building Management System to efficiently control HVAC at MHS. Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

C-26-104: Energy Source, LLC — $43,227

Energy-efficient LED lighting at MHS. Moved by Santos, seconded by Valley. Drew asked about ROI. Mayor explained it’s part of an ongoing grant-funded project, with this being the city’s portion. Passes unanimously.

C-26-105: TASCO Construction, Inc. — $112,550

Manhole casting adjustments for paving season FY2026. Moved by Santos, seconded by Valley. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

C-26-106: Black Earth Composting, LLC — $39,500

Curbside collection of organic food scrap material. Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. The Mayor noted food waste is 25% of trash tonnage and this is heavily grant-funded, targeting 1,000 households to start. Drew asked for ongoing tonnage data to evaluate whether to continue. Passes unanimously.

C-26-107: Richard F. D’Ambrodis, Inc. — $1,142,843.50

On-call sidewalk repairs throughout the city for paving season FY2026. Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. DiZoglio dug back in on his long-running preference for concrete over asphalt. DPW representative Felix explained that for spot repairs, the city replaces whatever material was originally there so it matches the surrounding area. Passes 7-1, with DiZoglio voting no.

C-26-108: Waste Management of Londonderry, Inc. — $2,240,186 (three-year total)

Hauling and disposal of Transfer Station construction and demolition material for FY2027-FY2029. Moved by Santos, seconded by Valley. Marsan asked what the city charges per ton; the CAFO confirmed $250, reportedly the cheapest in the area. Valley requested recent Transfer Station revenue figures. Passes unanimously.

C-26-109: Cambire Consulting, LLC — $75,000

Professional grant writing and consulting services. Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Valley. Santos pressed on ROI. The Mayor explained the not-to-exceed contract structure and that the RFP expectation is $3 to $4 million in new grants. Santos asked the same question at least three times in slightly different ways. The Mayor did his best. Passes unanimously.

Other Officers and Committee Reports

Veterans Subcommittee: Six candidates were identified. Five agreed to move forward after being informed of the furloughs. Resumes are coming from HR.

Unfinished Business

TR-26-50: Resolution Requesting a Home Rule Petition Regarding the Reinstatement of Positions in a Departmental Unit According to Seniority

(Sponsored by Chair Soto, Councilor DiZoglio and Councilor Valley)

Moved by Valley, seconded by DiZoglio. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

TO-26-13 : An Ordinance Amending the Methuen Municipal Code, Section 4-1 (J) Nepotism (as amended)

Soto explained this is her item and asked for a motion. It’s worth a watch as people avoid eye contact. It doesn’t get off the table… again.

TO-26-14: An Ordinance Adding Chapter 9, Section 9-92D, “Self-Service Gas Stations”

Requested to be removed from the agenda by DiZoglio before the meeting.

New Business

TR-26-52: Resolution Amending Traffic Rules to Require Parking on Only One Side of Short Street

(Sponsored by Councilors Jana Zanni Pesce and Patricia Valley)

Moved by Drew, seconded by Valley. Valley explained the street isn’t wide enough for two-sided parking without blocking a fire apparatus. DiZoglio suggested referring similar streets to the Public Safety Committee; Drew asked how many streets are in this situation. DPW says they have the data, just not at hand tonight. Passes unanimously. EPA passes 7-1.

TR-26-53: Resolution Requesting that the Mayor and CAFO Conduct an Insurance Review & Obtain Competitive Quotes

(Sponsored by Councilor Yanilda Santos)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Valley. Santos wants the city to understand its options and potentially save money. The Mayor noted it’s already going out to bid. Passes unanimously.

TR-26-54: Resolution Accepting the Gift of a Black Ornamental Fence with a 12-Foot Double Arched Gate at Meeting House Hill Cemetery from the Methuen Festival of Trees

(Sponsored by Mayor Beauregard and Methuen Festival of Trees)

Moved by Santos, seconded by MacLaren. The Mayor noted it’s a gift. The rules were suspended to include the EPA, needed by July 1. Passes unanimously. EPA also passes unanimously.

TR-26-55: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $1,075,569 of Free Cash to Methuen Public School Budget to Cover One-Time FY26 Special Education Costs (EPA Requested)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. The Mayor described this as part one of two; the second transfer will come once free cash is certified. Passes unanimously. EPA also passes unanimously.

TR-26-56: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $850,000 of Free Cash to Compensated Absences Reserve (EPA Requested)

Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. No discussion. Passes unanimously. EPA the same.

TR-26-57: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $500,000 of Free Cash to the Unemployment Reserve (EPA Requested)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. Drew asked how many employees are affected. Approximately 10 on the city side and perhaps 50 from the schools, though the exact number wasn’t available. Passes unanimously. EPA the same.

TR-26-58: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $500,000 of Free Cash to Worker’s Compensation Reserve (EPA Requested)

Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. No discussion. Passes unanimously. EPA the same.

TR-26-59: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $150,000 of Free Cash to the Injured in the Line of Duty (ILD) Reserve (EPA Requested)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. No discussion. Passes unanimously. EPA the same.

TR-26-60: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $2,470,150 from Free Cash to DPW Other Expenses to Fund Snow & Ice Expenditures (EPA Requested)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. Soto asked how much was transferred last year; the CAFO looked it up and confirmed $960,000, for a total of roughly $1 million. Passes 7-1, with Santos voting no, though she offered no explanation. EPA passes unanimously.

TR-26-61: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $5,000,000 of Free Cash to the Health Insurance Trust for FY2026 (EPA Requested)

Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. Marsan noted this is a shock but the Council doesn’t have much of a choice. Valley raised concerns about the bond rating impact. The CAFO acknowledged she disclosed this at the last rating review but conceded it isn’t a good look. The Mayor’s argument: the cleanup, paired with structural reform, actually signals fiscal responsibility. Drew pressed on whether this was foreseeable. It was... This has been building for about a decade and was repeatedly ignored. The Mayor acknowledged it. Drew’s point was direct: we need to do better and find more revenue. Soto asked how past deficits were handled. The Mayor confirmed the city covered them with available funds; the alternative was the state stepping in and adding it to the tax bill. The CAFO clarified that the first two years of major deficits are this year and last.

A motion to extend the meeting passed 5-3, with Marsan, Santos, and Valley voting no. At this point you could see people were running out of patiences.

Passes unanimously. EPA also passes unanimously.

TR-26-62: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $1,500,000 of Free Cash to the Health Insurance Trust for FY2027 (EPA Requested)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. The Mayor explained this is the true-up for the city’s portion of the 19% increase. Passes 7-1, with Soto out of the room. EPA the same.

TR-26-64: Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of a FY2027 State 911 Department Support and Incentive Grant of $180,964 (EPA Requested)

Passes unanimously. EPA the same.

TR-26-65: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $371,000 Between Various FY26 General Fund Budgets (EPA Requested)

Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos. Passes unanimously. EPA the same.

TR-26-66: Resolution to Temporarily Rescind the Adoption of the Fourth Paragraph of MGL Chapter 40, Section 5B to Allow a Dedicated Stabilization Fund for Methuen Restaurant Meals Tax Revenues (EPA Requested)

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. The Mayor described this as an assumption built into the budget and a one-year measure before reverting to normal. Marsan pointed out the Council said “one year” last year too, and we’re voting again. The CAFO clarified the mechanics: originally all meal tax went to stabilization; it shifted to 75/25; without this annual vote it would revert to 100%, though there was notable confusion at the table about what the actual reversion rate is. Soto said this is a vote she regrets, these are meal tax dollars that could fund projects. Passes 6-2, with Santos and Valley voting no. EPA passes 7-1, with Valley voting no.

TO-26-15: An Ordinance Amending Section 9-92, Prohibiting Operation of Dirt Bikes, by Adding Penalties, Enforcement, and Impoundment Provisions (EPA Requested)

(Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio, Councilor Santos, and Chief McNamara)

Moved by Marsan, seconded by Valley. DiZoglio said he took the feedback from the gas station ordinance discussion and this was the result. Passes unanimously. EPA the same. DiZoglio was really laying into the meat of the document and the Council unaminously voted to move the question cutting him off.

TO-26-16: An Ordinance Amending Section 9-52, Trash and Recyclables Collection (EPA Requested)

(Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio)

Moved by Santos, seconded by Valley. DiZoglio worked with Health and Human Services leadership and modeled this after Peabody’s approach. Key provisions: a $100 late fee for barrel non-payment, with the balance hitting property taxes after six months, plus a formal cancellation process for residents who no longer want the barrel. DiZoglio noted that 60% of residents currently aren’t paying their barrel fees. The EPA failed on the Mayor’s suggestion as he stated this one needs more work before it’s ready to take effect immediately. The ordinance itself passes 7-1, with Drew voting no.

TO-26-17: An Ordinance Amending Section 8-7, Municipal Charges Lien (Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio)

Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. This is the companion piece that gives the city the right to place fees on the property tax bill. Passes unanimously.

Any Other Business

Chair Soto introduced Farah Kannan, a student at Massachusetts School of Law, who is serving as a free intern in the City Solicitor’s office. For those of you running through the Methuen Family tree, yes, this is Jennifer Kannan’s daughter. By all accounts thus far, she is doing a great job so those you who would pass judgment based on family name should hold judgment until you have a reason to judge. Don’t judge children on your opinions of their parents.

And two final comments for the record:

1. Soto referred to “my clerk,” “my councilors,” and “my meeting” at various points tonight. Worth remembering: this is our meeting. The taxpayers’. That kind of possessive language about a public body is telling.

2. If you’re going to vote no on a motion… why would you vote yes on the EPA?

As always, the full agenda is here. Meetings are archived at MethuenTV.

Have a tip, a correction, or something you want covered? Reach out at InsideMethuen@gmail.com

Agenda link: Agenda - 06/08/2026 https://share.google/h1ijkCPbivjDTfHJR

Monday evening will be a busy one at the Great Hall in the Searles Building. The night begins at 5:30 p.m. at Methuen High School, where the School Committee will hold its own meeting and honor the district's Teachers of the Year. From there, attention and likely the crowd shifts to City Hall.

Before the regular meeting, the council will convene a Public Hearing at 6:45 p.m. on TR-26-50, a resolution requesting a Home Rule Petition regarding the reinstatement of positions in a departmental unit according to seniority in the City of Methuen. The measure is sponsored by Chair Neily Soto, Councilor Ryan DiZoglio and Councilor Patricia Valley.

The why here is simple on its face… TR-26-50, a Home Rule Petition that would strengthen seniority protections for civil service employees tenured under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 31. Under the measure, if permanent employees of the same rank face layoffs due to lack of work, lack of funding or abolishment of positions, they must be separated and reinstated strictly by seniority, with the most senior employees retained longest and brought back first.

The risks to the city are largely operational. Strict seniority reinstatement rules can limit management's flexibility to restructure a department or bring back workers whose skills best match how a position has evolved after a period of cuts. Any deviation from the required reinstatement order, even an unintentional one, could expose the city to legal challenges from affected employees. The bill also still faces a long road, as even with local approval it must pass the state Legislature. A nearly identical version cleared a House committee in 2024 but died at the end of that session without a final vote.

The regular meeting agenda is among the most substantial of the year, touching on personnel, public safety, infrastructure, energy, finances and quality-of-life issues across the city.

Of course, it will start with all the regular stuff. It's fair to anticipate quite a bit of public participation given some of the items hitting the floor this evening.

PERSONNEL

The council will consider the appointment of Firefighter Craig Langlais to the rank of Lieutenant in the Methuen Fire Department.

This should be pretty quick and painless. I don't anticipate any issues on this one.

PRESENTATIONS

Ken Lombardi and Kevin Paicos of NFP will present an overview of the City of Methuen's Health Insurance Program, a presentation requested by Mayor Beauregard.

This is more important than it sounds. Earlier last week, the mayor released our long-standing health insurance broker of their duties. Borislow Insurance has served the city for something like 25 years. This conversation marks just the latest actions working to move the city into GIC.

If I were a betting man, I'd assume that there is a good possibility for tensions to rise during this presentation.

Mayor’s Report

The mayor will give his report which generally covers all of the things the councillors are asking for and they request below, plus some other new fun things.

CAFO Report

The council will receive the CAFO Report, which includes a request from Chair Soto for an update on Searles Estate expenses and revenues.

Requests of Councilors

Chair Soto: Whether the Methuen Housing Authority currently receives trash collection through the city’s municipal contract.

Chair Soto: Request that the city’s paving list be published on the Methuen website. …This was discussed at the last meeting. Given the time of year, I doubt we have an update.

Councilor Valley: Update from the CAFO and City Solicitor on implementation of the state’s abandoned and unclaimed property law.

Councilor Valley: Update from the Mayor and City Solicitor on the Rail Trail depot overhangs, including potential acquisition, legal options and available grant funding. …It is worth noting that these overhangs were, by deed, set for demolition years ago. They are private property that needs to be completely repaired. If we are laying off teachers and furloughing everyone else, investing in this would be an insult to everyone in this City.

Councilor Santos: Status update on the feasibility study for the public safety buildings and the Department of Public Works. … This is a recurring update.

Councilors DiZoglio and Drew: First report from the city’s Sanitation and Zero Waste Coordinator, including data on trash-related fines and tonnage.

Councilors DiZoglio and Chair Soto: Information regarding operations at 4 Alderbrook Lane involving a non-residential use. …You may recall that we reported this earlier this week after a Sunday event brought massive amounts of traffic to the small street. It was later determined to be the new home for the Church’s pastor and this was their open house. The council is well aware and this should be a dead issue.

Councilor Drew: Status update on the Parks Audit RFP.

Councilor Drew: Status update on the Buildings Audit RFP. … both of these are likely still stalled given budget and other more pressing issues.

Councilor Drew: Update on the Tyler Financial MUNIS implementation plan. … The City should invest free cash to get this outsourced and completed. It would be an investment in our future and with our chronic understaffing, we will never get this done.

Councilor Drew: Standardization of city employee email signatures.

Councilor Drew: Update on Fire Department fee adjustments for lift fees and ambulance rates.

Councilor Drew: Review of HHSI permit fees.

CONTRACTS

The contracts on tonight’s agendas fit nicely into topics, so I grouped them to show the real spend in any specific area.

Infrastructure and Paving

We should be asking where these funds are coming from (DPW budget or ch. 90 funds) and when the last time this work, every single one of these, was bid out.

C-26-94: Tread Milling Co. Inc.: Cold planing and profiling of bituminous surfaces — $28,800

C-26-95: Murray Paving and Reclamation, Inc.: Bituminous concrete pavement reclamation — $648,071

C-26-96: EJ Prescott, Inc.: Manhole frames, covers and gate boxes — $191,850

C-26-105: TASCO Construction: Manhole casting adjustments — $112,550

C-26-10: Richard F. D’Ambrosis, Inc.: On-call sidewalk repairs citywide — $1,142,843.50

Water Treatment Plant

We are always seeing new vehicles come up for vote. When was the last time we voted to liquidate a vehicle? Someone needs to ask for an accounting of our entire fleet and a review of our fleet policies. It’s long overdue and a likely spot of real savings that can be reinvested into our City. Councilor Drew hit on this a few meetings ago when he spoke about outsourced Fleet Management. It’s time to take a hard look.

C-26-97: McGovern MHQ, Inc.: 2026 Ford F350 service body truck with crane, via state contract — $136,307.33

C-26-98: Torromeo Industries: Sand, stone and gravel for the paving season — $85,603

Public Safety

Again, more vehicles are up for a vote. Why are we outfitting 5 new cruisers as we go into a hiring freeze? Why are we getting two vehicles as a Mobile Headquarters? Do we really need this? Seems frivolous given our circumstances.

The drone, on the other hand, will be instrumental in cracking down on the mopheads terrorizing Methune.

C-26-99: Safeware, Inc.: Skydio Night Sense drone, via state contract — $24,999.82

C-26-100: Island Tech Services: Outfitting five police vehicles — $60,546

C-26-101: McGovern MHQ: 2026 Ford Explorer and Chevy Equinox for the Police Department — $82,747

Energy

These are all with Energy Source, LLC of Smithfield, RI.

C-26-102: Replace oil burner at North Fire Station with a heat pump — $56,151

C-26-103: Install building management system to control HVAC at the High School — $122,581

C-26-104: Energy-efficient LED lighting at Methuen High School — $43,227

Additional Contracts

C-26-106: Black Earth Composting, LLC: Curbside food scrap collection program — $39,500

C-26-108: Waste Management of Londonderry: Hauling and disposal of transfer station construction and demolition material, three-year contract — $2,240,186

C-26-109: Cambire Consulting, LLC, Boston: Professional grant writing and consulting services — $75,000

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Resolutions

TR-26-50: Home Rule Petition regarding reinstatement of positions in a departmental unit according to seniority (subject of Monday’s public hearing, sponsored by Chair Soto, Councilor DiZoglio, Councilor Valley and Mayor Beauregard).

I expect this to be quick and painless.

Ordinances

TO-26-13: An ordinance amending the nepotism section of the municipal code, Section 4-1(J), as amended. Sponsored by Chair Soto, the ordinance rewrites the city’s nepotism rules, broadening the definition of ‘family member’ to include spouses, children, stepchildren, in-laws, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and first cousins. It bars hiring family members into the same department, prohibits family members of department heads from working in that department, and requires that if two city employees in the same department become family members after the ordinance takes effect, one must transfer out within 90 days. Police and Fire are carved out of those provisions because both departments operate under state civil service law that the city cannot override locally. The ordinance applies prospectively only; no current employee loses their job because of it. It has been tabled and amended at prior meetings since it was first introduced in April.

The problem here is I can’t tell what’s been changed. Where are the redlines? Why is this such a problem and what is she really trying to accomplish? Previously, she stated this was about summer jobs but the resolution doesn’t cover summer jobs and, as the Mayor stated, we hired every applicant for summer jobs. What’s at play here?

TO-26-14: An ordinance adding a self-service gas station section to the municipal code, as amended. Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio and Police Chief Scott McNamara. …. This is a second read. This was painful to watch last time. Chief McNamara was clearly uncomfortable having his name on this but he can’t say no to a sitting Councilor. This is a horrible idea and should be scrapped before we get some gas station worker killed.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolutions

Here’s what’s actually happening behind the resolution title…

TR-26-52: Restrict parking on Short Street to one side only. The change addresses congestion and safety on the narrow residential street. Sponsored by Councilors Pesce and Valley.

TR-26-53: Direct the Mayor and the Chief Administrative and Financial Officer to conduct a full review of the city’s insurance coverage and go out to bid for competitive quotes. The city has not formally shopped its insurance in some time and this would require a structured process to ensure taxpayers are getting the best value. Sponsored by Councilor Santos.

This one is going to be a ride for sure. We will be doing a full story on health insurance in the coming days.

TR-26-54: Accept the gift of a black ornamental fence with a 12-foot double arched gate for the historic Meeting House Hill Cemetery, donated by the Methuen Festival of Trees in honor of the city’s Tricentennial. The fence would enhance the appearance and security of one of Methuen’s oldest burial grounds. Sponsored by Mayor Beauregard and the Festival of Trees.

TR-26-55: Transfer $1,075,569 from free cash to the school budget to cover unanticipated special education costs in FY26. Special education expenses are notoriously difficult to predict and this transfer would keep the school department from ending the year in deficit on those services.

Well, to call these unanticipated expenses is a stretch but these are one time expenses so this is a good use of free cash. This will have a meaningful impact on the School budget.

TR-26-56: Transfer $850,000 from free cash into the Compensated Absences Reserve, the fund the city draws on to pay out accrued vacation and sick time when employees retire or separate. Keeping this reserve adequately funded prevents those payouts from hitting the operating budget unexpectedly.

TR-26-57: Transfer $500,000 from free cash into the Unemployment Reserve. The fund covers unemployment insurance claims filed by former city employees and needs to be kept solvent as the city navigates staffing changes. This fund will also be hit by those being furloughed on the City side and laid off on the School side in the coming weeks.

TR-26-58: Transfer $500,000 from free cash into the Worker’s Compensation Reserve. Workers’ comp claims from injured city employees are paid from this fund, and this transfer replenishes it heading into the new fiscal year.

TR-26-59: Transfer $150,000 from free cash into the Injured in the Line of Duty Reserve, which covers salary continuation for police officers and firefighters injured on the job as required by state law.

TR-26-60: Transfer $2,470,150 from free cash to the DPW Other Expenses account to cover Snow and Ice removal costs from this past winter. Snow and Ice is the one line item cities are legally allowed to deficit-spend, but the shortfall must eventually be reconciled, and this transfer closes that gap. Lets hope for a less eventful winter next year.

TR-26-61: Transfer $5,000,000 from free cash into the Health Insurance Trust Fund for FY2026. The trust fund pays employee and retiree health insurance claims, and this large transfer suggests claims have outpaced the amount budgeted for the current year.

This is why GIC is being pushed so hard by the Mayor. Simply, the City has never bothered to fund the Health Insurance Trust adequately or properly adjust premiums to ensure we cover the overages. Remember, as a self-funded entity, this is an uncapped liability which means it can go as high as it needs to since we can’t control it. No mayor before has tried to solve this problem because it’s ugly and you become the Mayor who took away the gold standard in health insurance. This is one to watch.

TR-26-62: Transfer $1,500,000 from free cash into the Health Insurance Trust Fund for FY2027, getting ahead of anticipated costs in the coming fiscal year before the budget officially turns over.

This, I believe, is to fund the health insurance trust to the level necessary for us to be admitted into GIC should that be the end result.

TR-26-63: Authorize a $22,500 draw from the Edwin J. Castle Fund to support the Methuen Youth and Community Center. The Castle Fund is a restricted trust that can be used for charitable and community purposes as defined by its terms. This will cover general programming and supplies.

TR-26-64: Accept a FY2027 State 911 Department Support and Incentive Grant of $180,964. The annual state grant helps fund Methuen’s emergency dispatch operations and offsets local taxpayer costs for running the 911 center.

TR-26-65: Authorize a $371,000 internal transfer between various FY26 General Fund personal services and expense line items. This is year-end housekeeping: moving money from accounts with surpluses to accounts that ran short, so the books close cleanly on June 30.

The request moves $100,000 from Essex Aggie and $271,000 from the Medicare line (both underspent due to enrollment) to cover the following:

• Mayor Personal Service $500.00

• City Council Personal Service $2,500.00

• Fire Personal Service $50,000.00

• Fire Other Expenses $20,000.00

• Debt Service $262,000.00

• Risk Management- Insurance premiums $36,000.00

We should be asking why? The Mayor’s office, the Council, and Debt Services are all very predictable to almost the penny. Why are we short? “Why” should be the question all around.

TR-26-66: Temporarily suspend the dedicated stabilization fund that had been set up to receive a portion of Methuen’s restaurant meals tax revenues. The meals tax money would instead flow into the general fund rather than being set aside, freeing up those dollars for immediate use.

Ordinances

TO-26-15: Strengthen the city’s existing dirt bike prohibition by adding real teeth: fines, formal enforcement authority and the ability to impound illegal off-road vehicles operating on public ways. The current ban has existed without meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio, Councilor Santos and Chief McNamara.

TO-26-16: Update the section of the municipal code governing trash and recyclables collection, aligning the rules with the city’s current waste program and contracts. Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio.

This is a necessary change to get a handle on our tonnage and management of the new(ish) cart program. It was never implemented properly or fully. This is a step in the right direction but people will be upset when they get a fine.

TO-26-17: Amend the municipal charges lien section of the code, which governs how the city places liens on properties for unpaid charges such as trash fees or other municipal assessments. Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio.

Ordinances

TO-26-15: Add penalties, enforcement and impoundment provisions to the city’s existing dirt bike prohibition ordinance, sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio, Councilor Santos and Chief McNamara

TO-26-16: Amend the trash and recyclables collection section of the municipal code, sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio

TO-26-17: Amend the municipal charges lien section of the code, sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio

WATCH MONDAY’S MEETING

Monday’s meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 8 (Comcast) and Channel 32 (Verizon), and streamed at Methuen.gov/livestream and on YouTube at youtube.com/@MethuenMeetings. Archived video will be available within one to three business days at methuentv.cablecast.tv.

Our recap will be up following the meeting.

But the formula was written in 1993. Massachusetts, education, and the world in general looked very different then. The economy was different. Inflation was different. The demographics of cities like Methuen were different. And in the more than three decades since, the formula has not kept up.

The result is a school system in Methuen facing a multi-million-dollar budget shortfall, layoffs, class size increases, and cuts to nursing, special education staff, and classroom teachers, not solely because the city is mismanaging money (although it's definitely a factor since Methuen has never cared about education)j, but because the formula the state uses to fund public education is fundamentally out of step with reality.

Problem 1: The Inflation Cap Is Too Low

The Chapter 70 formula adjusts its spending rates each year for inflation, but it caps that adjustment at 4.5 percent per year. For most of the formula’s history, that cap was never a problem because inflation rarely reached that level.

Then inflation hit… like a Mac truck.

In FY2023, inflation reached roughly 7 percent. In FY2024, it hit approximately 8 percent, according to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. The formula kept its adjustment at 4.5 percent both years. The difference between what the formula assumed and what things actually cost is now known as the “inflation glitch.”

For reference, the budget for schools years 24-25 and 25-26 were marked for inflation by the Governor well below the cap of 4.5%. To make it all worse, they were both below 2% inflation.

The damage from that glitch is not limited to those two years. Because each year’s funding is calculated as an increase over the prior year, every year going forward starts from that already-undercounted base. The gap never closes on its own. It compounds.

Methuen Public Schools directly experienced this. According to the district’s own collective bargaining documents, an unexpected adjustment in the Chapter 70 formula caused Methuen, and many other districts statewide, to receive 50 percent less than the expected increase in state funding in one recent budget cycle.

MayorBeauregard made the consequences plain in his FY27 budget address: Chapter 70 school aid is increasing by 2.3 percent while costs to maintain level services in Methuen’s schools are rising by 11 percent. That 8.7 percentage-point gap between what the state is sending and what it actually costs to run the schools is not a rounding error. For a district the size of Methuen, it represents millions of dollars of unmet need every single year.

Problem 2: Special Education Costs Are Exploding

One of the fastest-growing pressures on Methuen’s schools is the cost of special education, both for students served inside the district and for students who require placement in specialized programs outside the district.

The Methuen School Committee identified special education cost increases as a central driver of the district’s FY26 and FY27 budget crises. The committee noted an “explosion of special education cases” and highlighted that the rising costs of out-of-district tuition placements alone were contributing to a projected $20 million budget increase necessary just to maintain current services, according to Local Lens reporting from April 2025.

The Chapter 70 formula does include special education funding, but the rates have historically underestimated real costs. The state offers a reimbursement program called the Circuit Breaker to help offset extraordinary special education costs, but it has historically been underfunded relative to actual district need.

A small piece of good news arrived in June 2025 when a state supplemental budget included increased Circuit Breaker reimbursements, resulting in approximately $3 million in additional funds for Methuen, which helped reduce projected layoffs from 42 to 12 for FY26. But that was a one-time legislative fix, not a structural solution. The underlying pressure from special education costs will return in full for FY27.

Over the years, the impact of increases has not kept pace. The state, in its infinite wisdom, did not increase the chapter 70 70 year over year increases in line with the rates in which they were increasing for special ed. Shall we also not forget the increased cost put on businesses by the state that have also increased cost to the schools that have been neglected and unaddressed by chapter 70.

Problem 3: More Than Half of Districts Are Stuck and Getting Less Over Time

The Chapter 70 formula is built around enrollment. More students means more money. Fewer students means less money. This makes sense in principle, but it creates a serious structural problem in practice.

When a district loses students, its Chapter 70 aid would normally fall. To prevent a sudden funding cliff, the formula includes a “hold harmless” provision that guarantees no district will receive less aid than it received the prior year, even if enrollment drops.

In FY2025, 211 out of 360 public school districts in Massachusetts were in hold harmless status, according to the Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools. That means more than half the districts in the state are no longer receiving enrollment-driven formula increases. They are simply being held flat.

The problem is that their costs are not flat. Teachers receive contractual raises. Utilities go up. Insurance goes up. Transportation costs go up. The buildings do not get cheaper to heat just because there are fewer children inside them. Special ed, busing, supplies, and everything else increase regardless of enrollment.

Methuen is not primarily a declining-enrollment district, but the hold harmless dynamic matters for a different reason. Hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid are locked into districts that are shrinking, including wealthier suburban districts, rather than flowing toward high-need communities like Methuen. The wealthiest school districts receive approximately five times more state aid attributable to the hold harmless factor per student than the least wealthy districts, according to a 2022 Boston Chamber of Commerce analysis.

Problem 4: The Student Opportunity Act Is Running Out

The 2019 Student Opportunity Act was a genuine achievement. It injected over $1.5 billion in new funding into the Chapter 70 system over several years, with the explicit goal of directing more money to districts with high concentrations of low-income students and English learners. Methuen was supposed to be one of the main beneficiaries.

And for a few years, it was. Methuen received meaningful increases in FY22, FY23, and FY24 that allowed the district to improve staffing and expand programs. But the SOA is being phased in through FY2027, meaning the period of significant annual increases is nearly over. When the phase-in ends, Methuen will no longer be receiving those boosts. The district will be left holding the positions and programs it added, without the funding growth that made them possible.

At the same time, the inflation glitch described above has eaten into the real value of SOA funding. The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center stated plainly that the high inflation levels seen in recent years were not matched by Chapter 70, and have eroded the value of the SOA.

Problem 5: Transportation Costs Are Crushing Districts

Transportation does not count toward net school spending. That means bus costs are entirely separate from the minimum spending floor. But those costs are very real and they are rising fast.

In Massachusetts, school districts are required to provide transportation to students in certain circumstances under state law. Under M.G.L. Chapter 71, Section 68, districts must provide busing to all students in grades K–6 who live more than two miles from school, and to students in grades 7–12 who live more than three miles away. Transportation must also be provided to students whose routes to school are deemed hazardous… think about walking down Pleasant Street, Forest Street, Pelham Street or Howe Street. Districts may also provide transportation beyond these minimums at their discretion, and many do, but anything beyond the statutory requirements is optional and can be reduced or eliminated through the budget process.

Special education transportation operates under a separate and stronger mandate. If a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) identifies transportation as a related service, the district must provide it regardless of distance and unlike general ed busing, it cannot be cut for budget reasons. Out-of-district placements in particular often carry significant transportation costs, and as noted earlier, the state's Circuit Breaker program now reimburses districts for a portion of those costs. Federal law under IDEA reinforces this obligation, meaning special ed transportation is one of the few areas of school spending where districts have essentially no discretion once it's written into an IEP.

For a city like Methuen, which has students attending out-of-district special education placements across the region, transportation is not a small line item. The state reimburses some transportation costs, but the Massachusetts Teachers Association notes that reimbursements have historically only covered a fraction of actual costs, and is calling for 100 percent reimbursement.

Methuen’s mayor acknowledged this directly, noting that $1.8 million in one-time free cash transfers were used specifically to cover FY26 special education and school transportation expenses that the Chapter 70 formula does not address. That is a short-term patch, not a solution.

Here's the kicker…. You pay for the bus for the day and not the service in which it's providing for lower, upper, or high school. It has been discussed in the last two school committees (not just the meetings but the actual school committee bodies) about reducing busing for the high school. The reason that doesn't work is because you pay the same for that bus whether it does all three start times or just two.

What Needs to Change

Fix the Inflation Cap

The Massachusetts Teachers Association and Progressive Massachusetts are both backing legislation that would address the inflation glitch by ensuring the formula makes up for the years when inflation exceeded the cap. The bill keeps the 4.5 percent cap going forward but corrects the compounding shortfall from FY2023 and FY2024. For a district like Methuen, correcting this alone could mean millions of additional dollars per year.

Fully Fund the Circuit Breaker

The special education reimbursement program should be funded at a level that reflects actual out-of-district tuition costs… costs that are actually set by the same leaders who set chapter 70. One-time legislative fixes like the one that helped Methuen in June 2025 are not reliable. Districts cannot budget around surprises.

Reform Hold Harmless

Locking hundreds of millions of dollars into shrinking, wealthier districts while cities like Methuen face cuts is an indefensible outcome. Reform should redirect those dollars toward the places with the highest student need and the least local fiscal capacity. Any reform of hold harmless must include protections for genuinely struggling rural districts that have no other options.

Reimburse Transportation Costs Fully

The artificial separation between transportation and instruction creates a funding illusion. Districts are required to provide transportation. The state should fund it adequately. Pretending it doesn't exist. Does not make the cost go away.

Establish a New Foundation Budget Review Commission

Several state senators, including Senator Jo Comerford, have called for a new commission to comprehensively reassess the formula. The last such review was the Foundation Budget Review Commission that led to the SOA. Given how much has changed since 2019, another comprehensive review is overdue.

What This Means for Methuen Right Now

Methuen is a perfect storm. Decades of neglect coupled with the failing chapter 70 system has us in tough spot. Still, the Schools followed the formula, expanded programs when funding came in, served one of the most complex student populations in the Merrimack Valley, and is now being squeezed from every direction at once.

Methuen ranks 388th out of 395 districts in per-pupil administrative spending and has zero instructional coaches. There is no administrative bloat to trim. There are no easy cuts left. Methuen faces a shortfall approaching $9.6 million for FY27, and the school committee is already looking at reductions in nursing staff, special education support, and classroom teachers.

A student at Northampton High School testified at a 2025 state hearing that the funding formula is older than she is. The same is true for students in Methuen. They are attending schools funded by a formula that was designed for a Massachusetts that no longer exists. Until the state fixes Chapter 70, Methuen’s children and their teachers will continue paying the price.

Sources

MassBudget, Chapter 70 Local Contribution Study Written Comments, December 2025: massbudget.org

Massachusetts Teachers Association, Fiscal Crisis Campaign: massteacher.org

Progressive Massachusetts, Funding Our Schools: progressivemass.com

Boston Globe, “Methuen mayor, School Committee divided,” June 13, 2025: bostonglobe.com

Inside Methuen, “Built to Fail,” April 23, 2026: insidemethuen.com

City of Methuen, FY27 Budget Presentation and FY26 Budget Update: methuen.gov / cityofmethuen.net

Methuen Public Schools, Collective Bargaining Updates: methuen.k12.ma.us

Local Lens, “Methuen School Committee Faces Budget Constraints,” April 2025: thelocallens.org

Statehouse News Service, “Methuen teachers decry budget cuts,” June 2, 2025: statehousenews.com

NBC Boston, “Shortfalls Fuel Growing Call for Mass. Education Funding Overhaul,” March 2025: nbcboston.com

Boston Chamber of Commerce, “Missing the Mark,” 2022: bostonchamber.com

Hoodline, “Methuen Scrambles to Close $9.6M School Funding Gap,” April 2026: hoodline.com

Citizen Portal, “Methuen School Committee Debates Steep FY27 Cuts,” April 28, 2026: citizenportal.ai

Athol Daily News, “Pioneer Valley educators push for Chapter 70 reform,” November 2025: atholdailynews.com

What Is Chapter 70?

Chapter 70 is Massachusetts state law. It is the primary way the state distributes money to public schools. The law was passed as part of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, and its goal has always been the same: make sure every school district in the state has enough money to give every child an adequate education, regardless of whether they live in a wealthy suburb or a working-class urban city like Methuen.

The formula does three things. It calculates how much each district needs to spend. It figures out how much the local city or town can afford to contribute. Then the state covers the rest.

Well, it's supposed to…but that's part 2 of this series.

Step 1: The Foundation Budget

What Does It Cost to Educate Methuen’s Kids?

The first thing the state does is calculate what it should cost to run Methuen’s schools. This number is called the foundation budget. Think of it as the state’s best estimate of the minimum needed to provide a quality education to every student in the district.

It's important to understand that at no point during any stage of this law do they define “quality”…

The foundation budget is not one flat number per student. The formula recognizes that different students cost more to educate. A high schooler costs more than an elementary schooler. A student in a vocational program costs more than one in a standard classroom. The state assigns specific dollar rates to eleven categories of school spending, including classroom teachers, specialist teachers, guidance counselors, administrators, and building costs, and multiplies those rates by how many students fall into each category.

On top of those base costs, Methuen gets extra funding for students who need more support. The law provides additional money for low-income students, English Language Learners, and students receiving special education services. The more students a district has in those categories, the higher the foundation budget goes.

This is enormously important for Methuen. The Methuen school district serves approximately 6,500 students, and about two-thirds of them are classified as high needs, meaning they are low income, English learners, or have disabilities, according to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. That high concentration of students with greater needs pushes Methuen’s foundation budget up significantly compared to a wealthier district with fewer high-need students.

Methuen By the Numbers (FY27)

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

Step 2: Required Local Contribution

What Is Methuen Expected to Pay?

Once the foundation budget is set, the state figures out how much Methuen, as a city, should be able to contribute toward it. This is called the required local contribution.

The state does not ask every city to pay the same share. Instead, it looks at each community’s property values and residents’ income levels to estimate how much the local tax base can reasonably support. Wealthier communities with high property values and high incomes are expected to cover most of their own foundation budget. Cities like Methuen, with lower average incomes and more modest property values, are expected to cover less and receive more from the state.

For Methuen in the current budget year, the required minimum city contribution is $52,046,906.

That sounds great but it's not really working for us…more on that later.

Unfortunately, t h

Step 3: Chapter 70 Aid

The State Covers the Gap

Here is where it all comes together. Once the foundation budget is calculated and the required local contribution is determined, the state covers the difference. That difference is Methuen’s Chapter 70 aid.

The math: Foundation Budget − Required Local Contribution = Chapter 70 State Aid

For Methuen in FY27, that means the state is sending $72,676,678 in Chapter 70 aid. That is a substantial sum, and it reflects the reality that Methuen is a gateway community with a high-needs student population and a tax base that cannot fully self-fund its schools.

The Student Opportunity Act of 2019 was specifically designed to direct more funding toward districts like Methuen. Methuen Public Schools confirmed that as a result of the SOA, the district received increased Chapter 70 allocations in FY22, FY23, and FY24, allowing the district to add teaching and support positions, decrease class sizes, and expand English learner education, special education, and counseling services.

Unfortunately, the SOA hasn't held up its end of bargaining and hasn't aged well.

Net School Spending: The Legal Floor

Chapter 70 does not just hand out money. It also creates a legal requirement. Every district must actually spend a minimum amount on education each year. That minimum is called Net School Spending, or NSS.

Net school spending is the total of the required local contribution plus the Chapter 70 state aid. Methuen is legally required to spend that combined amount on education. If it does not, the state can block the city’s tax rate from being approved, the Attorney General can take enforcement action, and the city could lose state aid entirely.

Importantly, not everything a city spends on schools counts toward net school spending. Transportation, school construction, school meals, and spending funded by grants do not count. Only direct instructional and operational costs count. This distinction matters enormously in Methuen’s budget right now.

The mayor’s total proposed school allocation for FY27 is approximately $113,976,970 although it has found itself a few extra dollars during the budget cycle, but once non-net items like busing are stripped out, the actual instructional spending falls to roughly $103 million. The required NSS floor is $124,723,584. The gap between those two numbers is at the heart of Methuen’s current budget crisis. That gap is covered by chargebacks.

Methuen Public Schools has noted that its operating budget has historically exceeded the required net school spending, albeit barely, and that the city has exceeded its required contribution for at least the past decade. The district is not trying to shortchange students. It is caught between a legal spending requirement and a state funding formula that is not keeping up with actual costs.

It's also important to note that NSS is not just spend on our schools but also what we spend on GLTS, Northern Essex, school choice, and charter schools. So, net school spending is on total education and not just Methuen education.

Chargebacks

Chargebacks are a key and often misunderstood part of how Methuen funds its schools. The Methuen School Department pays a percentage of the budget for other city departments each year, covering shared expenses such as insurance, school resource officers, and other shared city resources. These costs are estimated at around $24 million annually.

Chargebacks do count toward the state's Net School Spending requirement, meaning they factor into whether Methuen meets its legal education spending obligation under Massachusetts law. However, accounting rules around chargebacks can shift whether particular line items count toward the state minimum, so the size of any funding gap can appear to change depending on how the ledger is sliced.

Why This Matters Right Now

Methuen is a city that is supposed to benefit from the way Chapter 70 works. It has a high-needs student population. It qualifies for more state aid than wealthier communities. The formula was designed with cities like Methuen in mind.

And yet the city’s mayor stated plainly in his FY27 budget presentation that Chapter 70 school aid is increasing by just 2.3 percent while costs to maintain the same level of services in Methuen’s schools are rising by 11 percent. The formula is not broken in theory. It is broken in practice. The next article explains exactly why.

Sources

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 70: malegislature.gov

DESE Chapter 70 Program: doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70

Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center: massbudget.org

Boston Globe, “Methuen mayor, School Committee divided over district budget,” June 13, 2025: bostonglobe.com

Inside Methuen, “Built to Fail,” April 23, 2026: insidemethuen.com

City of Methuen FY27 Budget Presentation: methuen.gov

Methuen Public Schools, Collective Bargaining Updates: methuen.k12.ma.us

DESE Compliance With NSS Requirements: doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/compliance.html

Tomorrow night, the City Council holds its second and final vote on the city’s $226.4 million budget for Fiscal Year 2027, which begins July 1. Once the Council votes, this budget is the law of the city for the next twelve months. There are no more reads, no more hearings.

On paper, the budget balances. But a close look at the numbers reveals a plan built on very thin margins and a real chance that several assumptions may not hold up once the fiscal year actually begins.

“ Think of it this way: the city is finishing a jigsaw puzzle where every single piece has to fit perfectly. If even one piece is wrong, an unexpected lawsuit, a bad winter, fuel prices spiking… we’re going to free cash again.”

Education Gets The Brunt… Again.

The Methuen Public Schools are receiving $114.28 million in this budget. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but it’s $9.1 million less than what the School Department said it actually needs to operate at the same level which it does currently today. .

“ To put that gap in perspective: $9.1 million is roughly the cost of 90 to 100 teacher salaries. Whether those cuts mean layoffs, program eliminations, or something else, the Council should know the specific answer before voting tonight. ”

They know, or otherwise should as it’s been quite the conversation for the last week. However, they should discuss it openly. My biggest gripe following the first read was that they spent over an hour listening to speakers call attention to the decline in educational value due to class sizes and decreased service, the increased risk to safety due to limited staffing, and when the budget came up… not a peep. Throughout the night, the mayor and the councilors who actually spoke, as some of them sat primarily silent, remarked on concern over continuity of services and focus on safety. Then it came time to discuss the school budget… crickets. Not a single word from anybody.

The Schools did pick up an extra $200k in the first read due to a surprise addition to our tax base. However, we are still gambling on the State bailing us out. It is rumored that the new budget appropriations will have about $4M for our Schools. If the State comes through and bails us out… again… we are looking at 59 positions eliminated with 32 layoffs. If the State doesn’t come and bail us out, we are looking at about 77 layoffs and 119 eliminated positions.

Meanwhile, the Greater Lawrence Technical School assessment also jumped from $5.8M to $6.4M. They’re adding several new teaching positions, continuing to pay their superintendent a disgusting amount of money, and running primarily unchecked.

A Real Focus on Overtime.

The Council cut the Police Department’s general overtime budget from $311,420 to $150,000 during the first read, a reduction of more than 50 percent. Fire overtime was trimmed from $1.8 million to $1.5 million.

“ Here’s why this matters: cutting an overtime budget line doesn’t make overtime go away. Officers still have to show up for court. Firefighters still have to cover shifts when someone calls in sick. The city still holds elections. The overtime will happen the question is just whether there’s money budgeted for it. If not, the city has to scramble to move money around at year’s end. ”

Historical spending records show these lines have run at or over budget consistently going back to at least FY22. Cutting them doesn’t save money. It just moves the problem to the end of the year.

It makes sense why it was done this way and it’s not even the only thing in the budget that we’re going to discuss in this article that’s essentially being kicked down the road for later. There will be a real focus on trying to manage OT. The mayor made that clear with an emphasis on weekly meetings to discuss status and compliance.

It’s worth noting that the challenge here isn’t simply one of poor planning,... overtime culture in municipal government runs deep. For decades, public safety employees have reasonably maximized the overtime available to them under their contracts. That is not a criticism of any individual; it is how the system works. But it is precisely why budgeting overtime at half of recent actual spending is a bet the city is unlikely to win. Mix this with the furloughs and it’s a recipe for disaster and something the city will have a hard time managing.

Utilities…

I had a quick exchange with the Mayor before writing this to confirm my understanding of Utilities and how we pay them. I learned something new and it’s worth explaining clearly because it’s not obvious from reading the budget.

The Fire Department and the Senior Center each have their own utility budget lines. Every other city building, City Hall, the police station, the library administration, all of it, has its utility costs paid from a single line in the DPW budget. That line totals $934,010 in FY27.

“ Imagine one credit card that pays the electricity, heat, water, and fuel for almost every city building except the fire stations and senior center. That’s essentially what the DPW utility block is. ”

The Fire Department's electric and gas line historically has been level-funded at $45,000 a year. To the mayor’s credit, this year it’s gone up to $70, 000. At the same time, the Senior Center has spent the last two fiscal years at $40,000 and this year gets a $5,000 increase. Do either of these accounts adequately cover the actual anticipated expense… I couldn’t tell you but I know from the last two meetings that Councilor Drew has the actuals and this is a question I hope he asks.

The electricity line item in the DPW budget that is designed to cover the rest of the city buildings, excluding the schools, as historically been budgeted around $110,000. The budget document from the first read has the actuals for the current fiscal year at the time of printing of $167,500. The mayor has budgeted $185,000. The water and sewer line has maintained a flat 47,110 over the past couple of fiscal years. There is nothing that I can see on this budget related to natural gas that is used to heat the majority of these buildings.

Winter is Coming

The snow and ice budget for FY27 is $200,000, the same as this year and down from $400,000 in FY25. Massachusetts law actually allows cities to spend more than their snow budget and settle up at the end of the year, which is why this line is routinely underfunded.

“ But here’s the catch: when snow costs run over budget, that overage has to come from somewhere at year’s end. While we hope for a light winter, we protect our free cash account to offset if this winter gets crazy. ”

Trash Costs Keep Climbing

Methuen pays tipping fees, the cost to dispose of the city’s garbage, and those fees are rising. The FY27 budget sets aside $6.02 million for tipping fees, up from $5.5 million in FY25. That’s a $520,000 increase in two years driven almost entirely by contract pricing the city doesn’t control.

The Council cut $200,000 from this line at the first read. Given the upward trend, that cut may need to be revisited before the fiscal year ends.

Councilor Drew and DiZoglio had a disagreement over the management of this line. DiZoglio wants to avoid what happened this year and having to tap into free cash to balance out the account. Drew believes that since we have the new trash czar (as they call it), we are better off using the $200,000 that was cut and, quite possibly a little more, to fund more necessary items. His belief seems to be that because of the efforts of this individual, tipping fees will decrease and it will make more money where we need it. … I don’t disagree.

Twenty Fewer City Employees

The FY27 budget eliminates 20 full-time positions across city government, dropping from 392 to 372 employees. These aren’t all formal layoffs. Some positions are simply zeroed out and left vacant. But the effect is the same: less staff to do the same work.

Notice it says “City Employees.” That is specifically phrased as it doesn’t include layoffs facing our schools.

“ The positions being cut include the Deputy Police Chief, the Assistant Appraiser, the Assistant Treasurer, and multiple DPW laborers and equipment operators. For each one, the Council should know: was this position actually vacant already, or does cutting it mean someone loses their job and their duties just don’t get done? Hopefully someone asks the same question about the schools”

Here are Some Lines that Should be Cut

Here’s a list of things the council should discuss for cuts…

1. Assistant Council Clerk

You may recall that a few weeks ago, the council brought a resolution to increase the salary of the assistant Council clerk. It failed. Reason cited included alignment with the position and a statement was made that we should be paying the position and not the individual. The 2026 budget has the position at 57,882. The 2027 proposed budget after the $2,000 cut plus the furlough amount of $553.81 has it at $66,215. It looks like the council chair, who manages this budget, is getting the raise through regardless. It’s also worth noting that this is exactly what she’s upset about with the mayor… circumventing the process.

2. City Council Office Supplies Budget Line

The Council Chair budgeted $2,500. This line item is routinely at $1,500. It was reduced in the first read by $500. The reason stated at the last meeting was not the increased cost of paper but the fact that she wants a date stamp in the office. The now $2,000 line item, as clarified during the discussion, still allows the Council to buy its own stamp. Currently, the date stamp is in the Solicitor’s office and the Clerk’s Office. This $500 stamp saves a few steps down the hall to the Solicitor’s Office. When we are scraping every dime to fund much more important items, this is something that screams of privilege and ego. Someone should reduce it to it’s original $1,500 budget. If they want to save money by going digital instead of printing their large packets for meetings, they can save up for their stamp.

3. Mayor’s Chief of Staff

Speaking of paying the person and not the role… the mayor’s chief of staff has a great story. If you look at the budget, the previous Chief of Staff spent the bulk of her term under Mayor Perry, making about $105k. Keep in mind, she had 30-plus years of service and an immense amount of knowledge regarding city government and its operation. She did spend 20ish years as the city clerk before being ousted by Mayor Jajagu so he could put his friend Jack Wilson in there. After her departure, the mayor brought in his new CoS, who has next to nothing for work experience and minimal experience in the actual operation of the municipality outside of his 6 years as a city councilor. He started at the same pay that she went out on. Simply, that’s not okay. It does show some favoritism. He should be at step two on that scale

4. Payroll Services

The Council should cut this line by 25% ($12,500) forcing the City to move to a biweekly pay cycle. There is a reason many companies opt for the biweekly (26 pay cycles) or semi-monthly (24 pay cycles) as opposed to the current weekly (52 pay cycles). It’s archaic and costly. The best way to foce the change is to cut the line.

5. Postage (Across the entire budget)

It’s time for the City to explore email as an option. It’s 2026 and we need to embrace savings opportunities.

6. On-Call Overtime in IT

Overtime has been reduced or removed in every department EXCEPT this one. Given the scope of the City and our hours of operations, there shouldn’t be much need for on-call after-hours services.

7. Secretaries at the Police Department

The PD runs a 24/7 operation. So does the FD. The PD runs 2 confidential secretaries and two administrative assistants, while the FD runs with one administrative aide. It’s time to right-size the Police Department.

8. Tuition from Other Expenses in the Police Department

This line was originally funded for $129k and reduced by $42k. This needs some clarification, but since we are in a hiring freeze, there seems to be no reason we need to pay tuition during this time. Zero out the line and free up another $87k.

None of this is going to win political points. Many of these are going to be damning to relectability. However, we need to continue to put pressure on the open wound to stop the bleeding.

Methuen’s finances are in better shape than they were several years ago. The S&P bond rating upgrade is real, and it matters. But a budget that balances only because every variable lands exactly right, no overtime surprises, no hard winter, no litigation, no rate spikes, is a fragile document to govern from.

Second Read is the last chance to ask the hard questions. After the vote, the city lives with the answers.

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

⭐Councilor MacLaren.

She consistently doesn’t just speak to speak. She speaks to be heard with intention. She says what needs to be said and moves on. She was the gold start of this meeting.

The Council met Monday night for its regular May meeting.

Councilor Pesce was absent and by consensus in the room, she sat out to avoid voting on the health insurance item due to her recent attempt to secure health insurance for herself. Councilor DiZoglio got the call up to the #2 seat to act as vice chair tonight. This is interesting since the last meeting without a vice chair, Councilor Drew was tapped for the substitute opportunity which, for those who know the Councilor, did not sit well with Councilor DiZolgio.

The agenda was updated right out of the gate to remove the presentation and GIC vote due to ongoing negotiations with the unions and the executive session was removed as “the council has already voted on the issues” according to the Solicitor.

A moment of silence was observed for Lieutenant James “Jimmy Mac,” McLachlan, a 29-year member of the Methuen firefighter who recently passed due to occupational cancer.

Councilor Santos offered a religion-free invocation. Minutes from the April 21 Regular Meeting. However, the tone of the invocation was not lost on me and a few others in the room who snickered (you’ll notice a trend throughout the night of this)

They proceeded to accept the minutes from the April 28 Special Meeting and the May 4 Regular Meeting, which were all approved.

Now on to the good part…

Public Participation

Public Participation run by Councilor DiZolgio kicks off…

1. Zackary Spindler, who is a student and resident in town. He spoke in support of the pickleball courts. He thinks the City should keep working to improve this area not just shut it down. As a neighbor to the Rod and Gun club, he knows what the sound is like but the City is appears to be acting in good faith so let’s keep working.

2. Kevin O’Donnell, new union head for ASME 93, spoke about the budget and pending layoffs. He hits on the issue that the people who are impacted had no control over the budget and some of them don’t make very much at all. He advocated for his union members and the community to avoid layoffs and reduced services.

3. Diane Moore, chair of the historic district commission, member of the historic commission, and the preservation commission, spoke about Searless and the ability to continue offering lectures at the Estate. She brings attention to the growing interest in the Estate.

4. Ann DiBeneditto, retired teacher in Methuen after 35 years. She was here when the PEC was formed. She appreciates the work being done by the Mayor and the PEC but is upset about the surprise split increase retirees saw in January. She wants to see the work continue to get the best outcome for everyone.

5. Linday Soucy thanked the Council and everyone for the support at the Mann Inc charity gold tournament. She thanks the Kattar’s specifically (which becomes even more relevant in the appointments section). Then she transitions to the dirt bikes and thanks DiZolgio for his efforts. She supports the gas station solution but realizes its going to take more than just this to find a solution. She also congratulated Zack for speaking earlier, acknowledging how hard is to come up and speak at the podium and congratulated the appointments coming up on the agenda.

6. Kristen Maxwell, a former school committee member, accurately hits on the sad state of the political scene in Methuen. Then recounts her resignation before heading into the “…letters, and coordinated attacks against us for differences of opinions” statement, which is loaded with irony. She also hits on the importance of holding individuals accountable for their own actions and those of others. (This deserves its own article in the future.)

7. Eric Moreau, president of the firefighters’ union, came to thank the city and its residents for the support received during the services for Jimmy Mac.

8. Kara Blatt, co-president of the Teachers Union and member of PEC, thanks the body for their countless hours to work on this and for tabling tonight’s PEC issues for the body to negotiate. She raises one thing that is very new in this City… for the first time ever, every union is united. That has never happened in Methuen before. She accurately hits on how every union relys on the rest.

9. Lois Jacobs, retired Methuen teacher, thanks the Mayor for pulling the PEC vote and wants to keep working on making this better for everyone. She just wants a fair solution.

10. Steven Sarconie, the resident representing the neighbors at the center of the pickleball court. He presented the history to remind people that this isn’t about the sport, it’s about the noise and proximity to the homes. He came with facts about how, despite the issues raised even before these were built, citing stories from other communities, and the City spending 300k on beautification instead of issue mitigation. He just wants this fixed.

11. Heather Plunkett spoke about the item on the agenda by Valley on the liability concern for the Searles Estate. She is concerned that this is an attempt to stop events at the Estate and hopes this isn’t the case.

12. Ace Hayden piggybacks on the support for the Searless. She just doesn’t want to lose it and shared how the Massachusetts Film Commission came out to tour it.

Appointments

The respective chiefs read each candidate’s backup into the record before each vote. It’s also worth noting that the hall was full of Firefighters, pouring over in the hallways. All of whom came out for their brothers to show support.

Firefighter Jesse Kattar — Lieutenant

The name Kattar is a well-known one in town, which made Soto’s mispronunciation of it land with a chuckle from the firefighters in the hallway. Councilor Drew asked why the position is necessary, pointing to CBA staffing requirements. Simard called out the civil service framework. Soto requested a roll call. Passed 8-0-1.

Firefighter Sean Wholley — Lieutenant

Moved by DiZoglio, seconded by Santos. Passed 8-0-1.

Acting Police Lieutenant Matthew Mueskes — Permanent Police Lieutenant

Moved by Simard, seconded by Santos. Drew asked the same position-necessity question. Simard spoke highly of Mueskes. Passed 8-0-1.

Acting Police Sergeant Matthew St. Jean — Permanent Police Sergeant

Moved by Simard, seconded by Santos. Passed 8-0-1.

The Council recessed briefly for photos.

Mayor’s Report

Bond Rating

S&P affirmed the city’s AA bond rating with a stable outlook. The Mayor noted this allows the city to borrow at better interest rates.

Clean Energy Grant

Methuen won a clean energy grant to update the Timony, selected from 61 applicants. The Mayor said the administration will keep aggressively pursuing outside funds.

FY27 Budget

The Mayor acknowledged his budget, released Friday, would have been easier to produce by maintaining the status quo. He said that’s not why he was elected.

Major Projects

Highlighted projects include Apex for the Milk Street traffic calming project, the Oakland Avenue Bridge repair, and engineering and design work for streetscape improvements in the Arlington neighborhood. A working group is ongoing for rezoning planning.

Bond Refinancing

Councilor Drew asked about the opportunity to refinance existing bonds. CAFO said they look at it regularly but it hasn’t been worth it.

June 5 at 6pm: MHS Graduation.

CAFO Report

Searles Estate Expenses & Revenues (Req. of Clr. Soto)

The CAFO distributed handouts: the 2026 CIP, a revised bonding approach for better rates and management, a utilities update, a snow and ice summary, and notice of a $2.5 million shortfall she’ll be formally requesting. Santos noted she had reached out about the Oakland Avenue School and is waiting on additional information.

DiZoglio raised something about a camera that wasn’t initially clear, eventually landing on a discussion about body cameras — the grant for which has expired.

Drew asked how the administration plans to address the snow and ice shortfall. CAFO said they’re looking at options in other lines to minimize the free cash impact.

Valley asked about the Echo Lane bond. CAFO explained the authorization rolls over and the city won’t take the loan until it’s ready to begin in FY27.

Soto asked the CAFO to include totals on categories and to send reports in advance of meetings.

Requests of Councilors

Paving List on the City Website (Req. of Chair Soto)

DPW has a draft. It will be posted once complete.

Assessor Appointment — Legal Opinion (Req. of Chair Soto)

Soto brought forward a discussion and request for a legal opinion regarding the appointment authority for the Acting Assessor, City Assessor, or Chief Assessor positions. The Mayor directed her to the City Solicitor but laid out his legal logic, rooted in Massachusetts General Law, explaining why the process was valid. Soto argued the charter should control and noted this is how appointments have worked going back decades. She also disclosed she served as an assessor from 2020 to 2023 and said she was actually looking forward to using this temporary appointment as a test run before committing to a permanent hire.

What followed was a stretch of Soto asking the Mayor questions without letting him answer. The Mayor acknowledged that posting the job as a department head position was a mistake… his mistake. Soto then went after the City Solicitor, accusing him of writing an opinion for the Mayor without her permission as the Chair and his boss and characterizing the Mayor’s approach as sneaky.

Temp Vice Chair DiZoglio gave the Mayor the floor. The Mayor said he respects the checks and balances and pushed back on the idea that doing things the same way they’ve always been done is the same as doing them right.

Simard called it out plainly: this is budget season, this looks personal, and the Council received a 10-page document from Soto at the meeting tonight with no advance notice about why the Mayor is wrong. Soto countered that the Council received a 50-page packet from the Solicitor at the start of the meeting, so don’t complain about hers. The entire exchange lacked maturity and continued to throughout the rest of the item.

Soto made clear she wants the appointment voided, a new process run, and a new candidate. She also made a fairly direct threat to cut the new Assessor’s position in the budget. The Mayor noted he didn’t write the charter, state statute, or municipal code, reminding Soto she is a legislator, so “if you don’t like the rules, change them”.

MacLaren called out the grandstanding and said the focus should be on fixing the disconnect, not relitigating it.

The City Solicitor then spoke. He said he understood why people feel as they do, confirmed he was asked by the Mayor to review the matter, and agreed there is a disconnect between the code and the charter that should be fixed through the proper process. He was direct: he works for the city, not for Soto or the Mayor alone. MacLaren added that if something needs to be done, put forth a resolution otherwise, move on.

Other Requests — Status Updates

• Echo Lane Sewer Connection RFP (Req. of Clr. Valley): Pending.

• Rail Trail Depot Overhangs (Req. of Clr. Valley): Pending.

• Route 110 Sidewalk/Bike Lane Project (Req. of Clr. Valley): At the state level. Waiting on the state to respond.

• Searles Estate Liability (Req. of Clr. Valley): Pending.

• Oakland Avenue Bridge State Report (Req. of Clr. Santos): Provided in the Mayor’s report and on the agenda.

• Public Safety Buildings / DPW Feasibility Study (Req. of Clr. Santos): Provided in the Mayor’s report and on the agenda.

• Parks Audit RFP (Req. of Clr. Drew): With the Council for review.

• Buildings Audit RFP (Req. of Clr. Drew): Same as parks.

• Pickleball Court / Public Petition (Req. of Clr. MacLaren): Pending.

• Forest Street Paving (Req. of Clr. MacLaren): It is on the paving list.

Contracts

C-26-87: Apex Companies, LLC — $48,600

Engineering services for the Milk Street Traffic Calming Project through DPW. Moved by Simard, seconded by Santos. No discussion. Passed 8-0-1.

C-26-88: Weston & Sampson CMR, Inc. — $75,750

Engineering services for expanded feasibility studies of the Public Works, Police, and Fire facilities. Moved by Santos, seconded by Drew. DiZoglio asked what the contract covers; the Mayor described it as a tangible next step. Santos asked about a prior feasibility study she’d requested but says she never received. The Mayor said he was on the email chain confirming it was sent. For context: the last study was done during the Jajuga administration (2017-2019). This contract expands the scope and builds on that earlier work. Passed 8-0-1.

C-26-89: NEL Corporation — $57,503.34

Emergency repair to the Oakland Avenue Bridge under DCAMM Waiver No. 5291. Moved by Marsan, seconded by Valley. Santos wanted a timeline, noting it’s been months. The Mayor walked through the sequence: state negotiations, DCAMM waiver obtained, funding identified… this vote is what lets the work start. CAFO jumped in to restate and noted the contract expressly states an anticipated completion date of July 31st. Passed 8-0-1.

C-26-90: Woodard & Curran — $235,500

Engineering services for Phase I-A of the Arlington Neighborhood Streetscape Improvement through DPW. Moved by Marsan, seconded by Santos. DiZoglio’s question: concrete or hot top for the sidewalks? The Mayor made a joke about how he knows this is a very important issue for DiZoglio. The Mayor called up Director Bower who said concrete is the preference but it’s cost-prohibitive as salt kills it. DiZoglio said other cities do it. Bower said they can get quotes but right now this is design work. Passed 8-0-1.

C-26-91: Hilltown Demolition, LLC — $34,900

Installation of a concrete slab at Veterans Memorial Park for the base of an outdoor Fitness Court through DPW Recreation. Moved by Drew, seconded by Valley. DiZoglio said this is the best thing the city can bring to residents. Drew noted he visited the site with Director Angelo and that the layout is planned with future expansion in mind. Passed 8-0-1.

C-26-92: E.J. Paving Company, Inc. — $1,197,448

Chapter 90-funded paving contract for FY2026 through DPW. Moved by Drew, seconded by Valley. Valley called up Deputy Director Felix: approximately 3.5 miles of road at 4 inches thick. She asked for the list of roads and it will be provided. She also asked for the bid on reclamation work, which is still pending signatures. Drew confirmed the contract covers roads and asphalt curbs, not sidewalks. Marsan asked process questions; Felix explained. Passed 8-0-1.

C-26-93: DCAMM Waiver No. 5289 — $897,677

Emergency purchase and replacement of seven bulk chemical tanks, plus pipes, valves, fittings, and transfer pumps at the Water Treatment Plant. Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos. DiZoglio asked why the city keeps repairing the plant and whether grants are an option. The Mayor acknowledged deferred maintenance has piled up and confirmed the city is always looking for outside funding. Drew noted these valves require routine attention. Marsan acknowledged the equipment is old and neglected, worth noting as it wasn’t discussed or mentioned that he served six years on the Council during which this work was deferred. The Mayor flagged that water and sewer rates are long overdue for an increase to keep up with the actual demands and costs. Passed 8-0-1.

Other Officers and Committee Reports

DiZoglio on Public Safety: he went with Soto and Bower to the conservative club to clear the bird sanctuary and were approved, with the PD getting access from their side. He mentioned a potential resolution on road restoration after utility excavations, something on handicap parking (details were not entirely clear), outreach to the Salem lighting vendor who did the lanterns there, and a reference to the dirt bike ordinance on tonight’s agenda.

Old Business

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

Removed from the table by Drew, seconded by DiZoglio. The Solicitor updated the Council and deferred to conservation and DPW: the waterway needs to be cleaned out before the street can be accepted. Once the conservation agent confirms completion and bond requirements are met, including a contribution to the sidewalk fund which is required when only putting a sidewalk on one side of the street, it can move forward. Simard knows the builder and is confident they’ll comply but moved to table in the meantime. Valley seconded. Marsan opposed. Soto called for a roll call. Passed 6-2-1, with Marsan and Santos voting no.

TR-26-32: Health Insurance Options (MGL Ch. 32B, Sections 21-23)

Removed from the agenda.

TR-26-49: PACE Massachusetts

A Resolution authorizing the City of Methuen to participate in the Massachusetts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy Program. Moved by Drew, seconded by DiZoglio. Passed 8-0-1.

New Business

TR-26-50: Home Rule Petition: Reinstatement of Positions by Seniority

Sponsored by Soto, DiZoglio, and Valley. Moved by Valley, seconded by Santos. This addresses the scenario where superior officers could be demoted as civil service counts time on the job, not time in a specific rank. The Fire Chief acknowledged emotions are running high with the budget and said this resolution will help. Worth noting: the Mayor was listed as a co-sponsor but asked to be removed before the vote. The reason wasn’t stated. Passed 8-0-1.

TR-26-51: $15,200 SAFE / Senior SAFE Grant

Requested by the Mayor and Chief. Moved by Drew, seconded by Santos. An EPA was requested to access the funds quickly. Passed 8-0-1. EPA also passed.

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

Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio. Moved by Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. Passed 8-0-1.

TO-26-13: Nepotism Ordinance Amendment

Removed from the table. As amended.

TO-26-14: Self-Service Gas Stations Ordinance (EPA Requested)

Sponsored by DiZoglio and Chief McNamara. Moved by Drew, seconded by Valley. DiZoglio said the ordinance came out of an ask from Linda Soucy following a motorcycle crash on Merrimack Street. This one was painful to watch. DiZoglio asked Chief McNamara to come forward. He was clearly trying to distance himself from this resolution. He noted Lawrence recently passed a similar ordinance and said it’s not a unique problem,the issue is off-road vehicles being ridden on public roads, which has been in the news. The PD’s restrictive pursuit policy limits what officers can do in real time; he said he’d rather have a drone to track these riders than put officers and the public in dangerous chases. He wants to bring it back to the drawing board.

Santos said the focus should be on public safety without burdening gas stations. Simard said it’s a nice try but the mechanism isn’t right, and pointed to the courts as the real problem, citing the individual on Merrimack Street with a gun doing wheelies who was let go with a warning after facing gun charges. MacLaren agreed the public needs protection but this ordinance isn’t the way. Simard suggested tabling. DiZoglio made a case for legislative action that wandered into a broader commentary on gun laws.

After far to much back and forth, Drew moved to table. Seconded by Marsan. Passed 8-0-1.

And that was all she wrote….

Until next time!

Check out the fiscal breakdown here: https: FY27 Budget

The transmittal letter, the budget document, and the articles shared to the Council can be see here: Here

Mayor Beauregard submitted the city’s FY27 budget to the City Council early yesterday evening. His cover letter did not sugarcoat it. “The FY27 budget before you is balanced. It is also painful. I do not like it. Nobody should” he writes to the Council as he opens on a bleek but honest disclaimer for what was to come in the budget.

That framing is accurate. The total General Fund budget proposed is $225.8 million, up from $220.8 million approved in FY26. That top-line increase is real but misleading. The growth is almost entirely driven by costs the city cannot control: health insurance up nearly $2 million, pension contributions up $829,171, charter school tuition, solid waste disposal. Inside that total are cuts, eliminations, and deferrals that will be felt by residents in ways that a single summary number does not capture.

The Salary Reductions Are Furloughs

Throughout this budget, salary lines across nearly every department are reduced in the range of 4 to 5 percent. These are not pay cuts and they are not reclassifications. They are furloughs: mandatory unpaid days off that reduce what employees take home without eliminating their jobs.

A city employee earning $80,000 does not see their salary renegotiated. They are required to take a number of unpaid days across FY27. The budget reflects what the city will actually pay out. The employee keeps their position, their benefits, and their contractual standing.

Furloughs cannot be imposed unilaterally. City employees are represented by unions, and under Massachusetts labor law, the city is required to engage in impact bargaining before furloughs can take effect. That means formally notifying each union, sitting down to negotiate over how the furloughs are structured and what effects they have on wages and working conditions, and reaching an agreement. This is not a formality. The unions have real leverage, be assured… they will use it.

What the city brings to that bargaining table is a fiscal argument that is hard to dispute. The alternative to furloughs is layoffs. Furloughs spread the pain across the workforce and everyone keeps their job. Layoffs concentrate the pain and some people lose their jobs entirely. For a city facing a structural fiscal crisis that the Massachusetts Municipal Association has documented is affecting every gateway community in the state, that argument carries genuine weight. The unions know the numbers. Their members live in Methuen. The conversation in bargaining is not about whether there is a problem. It is about how the sacrifice gets distributed and whether the city’s proposed distribution is fair.

What the Council needs to watch closely is whether the furlough savings materialize as budgeted. If bargaining with any of the unions results in furlough terms that differ from the administration’s projection, the numbers in this budget change. The Mayor’s proposed budget assumes a certain level of savings from furloughs across the workforce. If those savings come in lower, something else has to give. The Council should ask the administration directly: what is the contingency plan if the furlough math does not land as projected?

One more thing worth calling out. Furloughs ask real people to earn less so that the city can stay solvent. City employees in Methuen are not abstractions in a budget document. They are neighbors, parents, and residents who are being asked to absorb sacrifice to keep services running. That deserves to be said out loud, not buried in percentage reductions. I don’t think is lost on the Mayor and his team at all.

With that context, here is what the Mayor proposed department by department.

The Schools

This is the central issue in the budget.

The School Committee requested $129.9 million. The Mayor proposed $113.98 million. The gap is $9.2 million. Chapter 70 school aid from the state is increasing 2.3 percent. The actual cost of maintaining current school services is rising roughly 11 percent. The city cannot close that gap on its own.

The problem is not just the number. It is what does not exist yet. The school department has not produced an accounting of what the Mayor’s figure actually means for the district. What positions go. What programs end. What class sizes become. The Council will be asked to vote on a budget with a $9.2 million school funding gap and no line-by-line picture of the impact. That accounting needs to exist before the vote happens as the budget that was approved is a few million over what the Mayor authorized and presented.

There is also a meaningful distinction between what furloughs do for city employees and what this budget likely means for school staff. A furloughed DPW worker keeps their job and takes a temporary pay reduction. School cuts of this magnitude almost certainly mean layoffs, not furloughs. Those are permanent losses, not temporary ones. The Council and the public deserve to know exactly which is which before this budget is adopted.

This plan of waiting for the State to save us is hopeful but dangerous.

Health Insurance and Pension

Two costs in this budget are mandatory, actuarially driven, and not negotiable in any meaningful short-term sense.

Employee health insurance rises to $19.45 million, up nearly $2 million from last year. The Mayor is actively exploring whether Methuen can join the Group Insurance Commission, the state’s employee health insurance program, which could produce significant long-term savings. That process requires union bargaining and takes time. It is the right conversation to be having. It does not help FY27. It’s also worth noting that this line has routinely been overrun and is likely to happen again. It’s uncapped and uncontrolled.

The pension contribution rises to $17.26 million, up $829,171. This is set by an independent actuary based on the city’s pension liability. It is legally mandated. It cannot be reduced.

Together those two lines account for over $38 million in the budget and grew by nearly $2.9 million from last year alone. That growth happens regardless of anything else the city does.

Public Safety

Frontline patrol staffing is preserved. All 77 patrolmen, 15 sergeants, 6 lieutenants, 2 captains, and the Chief remain in place. The same is true for fire: 81 firefighters, 21 lieutenants, 4 deputies, 3 captains, assistant chief, and chief, all intact.

What changes is the operational structure around them. Police overtime is cut from $311,420 to $150,000, a 51 percent reduction. The cadet program is eliminated entirely. On the fire side, overtime drops $300,000 (about 50%) from what the department requested. Both departments lose positions at the administrative level.

The overtime cuts are the numbers to watch. If either department exceeds its budget mid-year, and it has happened before, the city is back before the Council with a supplemental appropriation request. The Council should pressure-test both figures with the department heads before voting.

Public Works

The Department of Public Works goes from 76.5 to 64 employees, an 18 percent reduction in headcount. Overtime is cut in half. Road repair materials are cut. Building maintenance is cut. This department runs the roads, the parks, the buildings, and the infrastructure that residents interact with every day. A reduction of this scale will be visible. I understand why the mayor did this but the Council should be honest with residents about that rather than absorbing it quietly into a budget document.

Elder Services and Veterans

Both departments are already at the bare bones. Elder Services takes a $6,111 reduction. Veterans takes $16,882. Veterans benefits payments of $275,000 are preserved. There is nothing left to cut in either department without directly harming the people they exist to serve.

Library

Level-funded at $1,929,340, the same as last year. The department requested $67,000 more and was denied. The Library runs heavily on its own Trust. The city’s contribution is a baseline, not a full operating budget.

Economic and Community Development

Worth flagging separately from the administrative cuts. The Assistant Director of ECD takes a 52 percent reduction, from $73,036 to $46,444. The Economic Development Coordinator drops similarly. These are not furloughs. Furloughs do not produce 52 percent reductions. Overtime is eliminated. Professional services cut in half. The Mayor’s own transmittal letter identifies growing Methuen’s commercial tax base as a central long-term strategy. Cutting the people responsible for that work by half is a tension the Council should name directly.

Legal

Retains full staff with furlough reductions across salary lines. One line warrants a question: the general Expenses line doubles from $8,000 to $16,000 with no explanation. That running rate has been consistent for years. The Council should ask what changed before accepting it.

Human Resources

Five FTE retained. The line that needs attention is the HR Administrator, Diversity, and ADA position, which goes from $96,804 to $15,000 while remaining listed as 1 FTE. That is not a furlough. Upon investigation, those duties are being divided and compenstated by stipend. Methuen has not historically been strong on ADA compliance. Gutting the role responsible for it would create legal exposure. The Council should ask what the plan is to verify.

Health, Human Services and Inspections

One of the few departments that actually grows, adding a second Community Outreach Coordinator. Grants cover $368,829 in salary costs in this department. One line needs an explanation before the vote: Professional Services jumps from $2,500 to $26,500. That is a tenfold increase that demands explanation.

City Clerk

Staffing unchanged with furlough reductions. The budget increases overall because Election Services doubles from $60,000 to $120,000. I am sure the City Clerk will make her case but it’s worth noting that this is to cover a primary and a general election this year. In addition, we need to cover printing costs for state ballots… another lovely unfunded mandate gifted down from the State.

What the Council Needs Before It Votes

A few things are missing that should exist before this budget is adopted.

A school impact statement. The school administration should be required to present a specific accounting of what the $9.2 million gap means in practice before the Council votes.

A furlough contingency. If union bargaining on any of the furlough agreements produces different terms than projected, the budget math changes. The Council should ask the administration what the plan is if the furlough savings do not land as written.

A debt schedule. The debt service line carries $2.15 million in general interest. The Council should have a full accounting of what bonds remain outstanding, at what rates, and when they mature. This is standard practice and should be presented as a matter of course.

This budget was not written to make anyone happy. It was written to keep the city functional in circumstances that would break a less careful approach. The Mayor chose not to ask residents for a tax override. He chose not to drain free cash reserves. He chose to absorb the pain inside city government first. Despite my disagreement and belief that an override should have been at least presented to the residents for a vote, his instincts are right even when the results are hard to look at.

The Council’s job now is to fill in the gaps, ask the questions that are not yet answered, and make sure that when it votes, it knows what it is voting for.

Sources: FY27 Budget, Expenses General Fund Proposed (City of Methuen); FY27 City Council Transmittal Letter, Mayor David P. Beauregard Jr., May 15, 2026; “A Perfect Storm: Cities and Towns Face Historic Fiscal Pressures,” Massachusetts Municipal Association, October 2025.

Methuen is in the middle of one of the most painful budget seasons this city has seen in a long time. Word is already circulating that we are staring down furloughs and layoffs across nearly every department. Services that residents count on are being restructured or stopped outright. Some of this is squarely on the city itself, the result of decades of weak economic development and a government structure that was never truly built to balance efficiency with effectiveness. That is an honest conversation we need to have as a community, and it is long overdue.

But that is not what this is about today.

Today I want to talk about one question…

First, What Is Proposition 2 and 1/2? People talk about it but not many truly understand it.

Let me explain it simply, because it matters.

Proposition 2 and 1/2 is a Massachusetts law passed by voters in 1980 that limits how much a city or town can raise in property taxes each year.[1] The name comes from the two core rules it sets: the total property tax a city collects cannot exceed 2.5 percent of the full value of all taxable property in the city, and the tax levy cannot grow by more than 2.5 percent from one year to the next.[2]

That’s great but what does that mean in numbers? Here is a real-world example to which we can all relate.

Imagine your household budget is $50,000 a year. Every year, you are allowed to spend up to 2.5 percent more, so next year you can spend $51,250. That's it. You cannot spend $55,000 even if your rent went up, your groceries got more expensive, and your kids need new school supplies, unless the people living under your roof vote to allow it.

That is exactly the situation Methuen is in.

Since 1980, municipal costs have exploded with new state and federal mandates, rising health care expenses, and a technology footprint that bears no resemblance to local government in 1995. The 2.5 percent cap, however, has remained unchanged, and municipalities have become increasingly unable to meet their obligations under it.[3]

But here is the part that matters most for this conversation: the law already has a built-in safety valve. An override provision allows voters to raise additional revenues by a specific amount. This is done by placing an override question on the ballot in a general or special election and approving it by a simple majority of voters.[2]

The people get to decide. That is the whole point.

The Budget That Cannot Add Up

Methuen is trying to close a nearly $10 million school budget gap just to maintain existing programs at current levels, with no additions or increases.[4]

Rising costs in health insurance and special education have contributed to a $4 million deficit, and the potential elimination of reading specialists could result in long-term educational setbacks, with struggling students requiring even more resources down the road. Cut now, pay more later. That is the cycle.[6]

And it is not just schools. Fire, police, public health, and basic city services are all on the table. Mayor Beauregard is entering his first full budget cycle as a fully elected mayor, and the hand he has been dealt is genuinely bad. State funding for local schools increased only about 2.3 percent, which does not come close to covering an 11 percent increase in costs.

The math does not work. But there is a reason the math does not work, and it is bigger than this budget cycle.

Since 1980, without overrides, the maximum value of taxpayer contributions to communities has declined nearly 50 percent in real terms, as inflation has consistently outpaced the 2.5 percent cap year after year. Methuen has been drawing down that well for decades, and now the well is showing its bottom.[7]

Why the Override Question Should Go to a Vote

I am not here to tell you the override should pass. That is not my call. I’m just one vote and I’m not even sure, as I sit here writing this, how I would vote come the opportunity.

What I am saying is this:

Proposition 2 and 1/2 was designed from the start as both a constraint and an opportunity. It constrains automatic tax growth, protecting homeowners from runaway increases. But it also creates a formal, democratic pathway for cities and towns to invest in schools, public safety, and infrastructure when voters judge it necessary. That pathway exists. Methuen should use it.[7]

Statewide, 254 of 305 Massachusetts cities and towns, fully 83 percent, have placed and passed override questions at some point, making ballot-driven revenue a mainstream municipal tool rather than a rare emergency measure. This is not radical. Communities across the Commonwealth use this process routinely.[7]

Passed overrides now provide roughly $1.3 billion per year in inflation-adjusted revenue statewide, funding recurring services and debt that communities chose to prioritize.[7] Communities like Wakefield, Winchester, Reading, Medford, and North Reading have relied on overrides to sustain services over time.[7] These are not wealthy communities doing something unusual. They are communities that chose to ask their residents a direct question and let the answer guide the budget.

If I were mayor, that is exactly what I would do. I would put the question on the ballot, give the unions, the teachers, the firefighters, the police, the parents, and the community a few weeks to make their case, and then let Methuen vote.

The Political Reality Nobody Is Saying Out Loud

There is another dimension here that deserves to be said plainly.

The budget the mayor must produce this year will have serious, painful consequences for the fire and police departments. Those two unions have historically been among the most important political forces in this city. No candidate wins a serious race in Methuen without their support. The budget cuts required by the current fiscal reality put that support at serious risk, not because the mayor wants to cut those departments, but because there is no other math.[5]

Here is what makes this moment genuinely urgent: there are no signs that next year will be better. Every indication points toward a second consecutive brutal budget cycle. That creates a window of real political vulnerability, and there are people in this city who have been positioning themselves for a long time, whether for mayor or for something else.

If the mayor navigates this crisis by making the hard cuts alone, absorbing all the political pain, and the budget is just as bad or worse twelve months from now, he will have spent enormous political capital with nothing to show for it and a fresh round of the same fights ahead.

But if an override goes to the ballot, the pain shifts. The unions get a chance to rally their members and their communities around a concrete question. The parents, teachers, firefighters, and police officers get to stand in front of their neighbors and make a direct case. And the mayor, whatever the outcome, can say truthfully that he trusted the people of Methuen with the decision, which I think he does. Although I think he feels he needs to protect the City from itself.

If it passes, the city has real revenue and the mayor has a mandate.

If it fails, the cuts that follow are no longer the mayor's cuts alone. They are the community's answer to its own question.

Where local officials genuinely believe there is a strong case to be made for generating additional revenue, they should make that case directly to voters, rather than making unilateral decisions that voters were never given the chance to weigh in on. That is sound democratic logic. It applies directly to Methuen right now.[8]

It is true that Methuen tends to move on quickly. Local politics here can have a short shelf life. A crisis today becomes background noise tomorrow.

But back-to-back years of devastating budgets are a different animal entirely. Back to back years of layoffs, service cuts, and fights over who gets hurt most create a story that is harder to shake. Two years of that narrative is what a challenger campaign is built on, and there are people watching this moment closely.

The mayor has a narrow window to change the shape of this story. The override vote is that window. It says: I believe in this community enough to ask the question directly. You decide.

Let the People Decide

Methuen does not need a mayor who stands in front of the bullet himself making all the hard calls quietly behind closed doors. It needs a mayor who respects the democratic tool that Massachusetts law has already put in place for moments exactly like this one. Oddly enough, that is exactly who I know the Mayor to be…

The override process is not a gimmick. It is not an escape hatch. It is the system working as designed: a formal, legal, democratic mechanism for a community to look itself in the mirror and answer an honest question.

How much do we value our schools, our fire department, our police, our public health infrastructure, and the basic services that make this city function?

Put it on the ballot. Let Methuen answer.

Sources

1. Wikipedia — 1980 Massachusetts Proposition 2½https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Massachusetts_Proposition_2%C2%BD

2. Town of Rehoboth — Proposition 2 and 1/2 Questions and Answershttps://www.rehobothma.gov/assessors/pages/proposition-2-12-questions-and-answers

3. Dinsmore and Shohl LLP — Strict Property Tax Caps: A Case Study of Massachusettshttps://www.dinsmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Article-Strict-Property-Tax-Caps..-1.pdf

4. CBS Boston — Methuen, Massachusetts Struggling to Close $9.6M School Budget Gaphttps://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/methuen-school-budget-gap-cuts/

5. The Boston Globe — Methuen Mayor, School Committee Divided Over District Budget (June 13, 2025)https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/06/13/metro/methuen-budget-cuts-and-teacher-layoffs/

6. LocalLens — Methuen School Committee Grapples with Budget Cuts Amid IT Consolidation Dispute (June 2025)https://thelocallens.org/methuen-school-committee-grapples-with-budget-cuts-amid-it-consolidation-dispute/

7. Stoneham Civic Ledger — A History of Proposition 2 and 1/2 Across Massachusetts and in Our Neighborhoods (October 2025)https://stonehamcivicledger.substack.com/p/a-history-of-proposition-2-across

8. Tax Foundation — MA Proposition 2 and 1/2 Is Working (November 2025)https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/massachusetts-property-tax-proposition-2-12/

For years, the Methuen School Committee members, myself included, have voted to opt out of the inter-district school choice program before June 1 each year, as required by Massachusetts General Law. Year after year, the resolution was filed and the vote to opt out was cast. The reasons offered varied from community identity, uncertainty about incoming students, to concern about costs, but they shared one common thread: they were not grounded in the facts of how the program actually works.

It wasn’t until recently (the last few days, actually), when the fiscal realities of Methuen’s declining enrollment began to hit hard, that a more complete picture emerged because we went looking for it. Unfortunately, what that picture shows is troubling: the School Committee has been voting to opt out of a program it clearly did not fully understand, based on arguments that do not hold up to legal or financial scrutiny.

The information was always publicly available. It simply was never adequately presented to the committee and they never bothered to investigate what the real fiscal impact, both of opting out and opting in, actually looks like.

Some members of the committee have employed a tactic that, whatever its intent, has had the effect of misleading the public: painting school choice as a mechanism that would flood Methuen’s schools with troubled kids, expensive special-needs students, and unpredictable costs.

It is a compelling fear. It is also not how the law works. With a little effort, some digging in, it is time to say so clearly.

What Is School Choice?

Massachusetts law allows families to enroll their children in schools outside of the city or town where they reside. This is known as inter-district school choice and is defined in G.L. c. 76, §12B. This law states, in summary, that by default, every school district in the state is a school choice district. However, a district may elect not to enroll school-choice students if no space is available. The opt-out mechanism is defined in section (d) of the law and states: “however, that this obligation to enroll non-resident students shall not apply to a district for a school year in which its school committee, prior to June first, after a public hearing, adopts a resolution withdrawing from said obligation, for the school year beginning the following September.”

The law does not allow cities to opt out of permitting students to attend schools in other communities that accept school-choice students. The only thing a city can opt out of is accepting students. Additionally, it requires each sending district to pay a tuition to the district that accepts its students. Currently, that fee is set at $5,000 per student, plus a $75 administration fee. However, the accepting district adds the cost of special education to that fee.

According to the state, Methuen’s preliminary amount to be paid for the 55 Methuen students who are choosing to attend another public school in Massachusetts through inter-district school choice in FY26, based on the October 1, 2025, enrollment data, is $749,933. You read that correctly: Methuen is paying three-quarters of a million dollars for 55 students to choose to be educated in a different public school, with no say in where they go or what services they receive.

We simply have to pay the bill.

If you are thinking the numbers are not adding up, 55 students times $5,075 is $279,125, not $749,933… You would be correct.

So why are we paying so much?

The answer is: we are paying the receiving district’s special education costs for our students. Let that sink in...

We have no say in what services a student receives; we simply pay the bill. This quite literally means that a student can school-choice to another city, the other city can provide the child every service under the sun, up to and including an out-of-district placement, and Methuen, with no programmatic input, must pay the bill that is sent to the state.

This is not a quirk or a loophole. It is the explicit design of the law.

As the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) explains in its advisory memorandum on financial administration of the school choice program, for students with an individualized education plan (IEP), a special education increment is added to the regular education tuition rate, determined by applying annual cost rates to the specific services cited in the student’s IEP and it is the sending district’s responsibility to pay it. ^[1]

The “Troubled Kids” and “Expensive Special Needs” Argument and Why It Falls Apart

So, when city councilor (Ryan) DiZoglio recently stated during a meeting that he did not support school choice because we didn’t know what kind of students we would be receiving, and we would have to foot the bill for the special education services for the students that come into the district via school choice, he clearly didn’t do any research or even ask anyone what Methuen would be on the hook to pay. Meanwhile, the state explains it very clearly.

Having misinformation spread by elected officials is not only irresponsible but also dangerous. But let’s address this argument on its merits, because it deserves a direct rebuttal.

First: the concern about special education costs applies to students Methuen sends out, NOT students we accept.

Under the law, when Methuen accepts school choice students, the sending district, not Methuen, pays the special education costs. The DESE advisory memo is explicit: “it is the sending district’s responsibility” to pay the special education increment for any student with an IEP attending through school choice. ^[1] The receiving district (Methuen, if we participate) keeps a record of services rendered and is reimbursed by the sending district through the state’s monthly local aid distribution. We would not be absorbing unknown special education costs. We would be billing for them.

This means Councilor DiZoglio had it exactly backwards. If his concern were valid, it would be an argument for Methuen to accept special education students through school choice because another district would be paying for their services, not us.

Second: a receiving district cannot legally screen out students with disabilities.

The school choice law under G.L. c. 76, §12B explicitly states that no school committee shall discriminate in the admission of any child on the basis of “physical handicap, special need or academic performance.” ^[2] DESE’s April 2019 advisory on inter-district school choice is unambiguous: school districts may not consider whether students have a disability, or the nature of their disabilities, in determining whether to admit them and similarly may not rescind any offers of admission on the basis of a student’s disability or needs. ^[3] Enforcement authority rests with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. ^[2]

In other words, even if Methuen wanted to screen out students with special needs, which some officials appear to want, it would be illegal to do so. This is not a gray area. It is a statutory prohibition enforced by a civil rights commission.

Third: behavior or disability status is not a permissible basis for opting out under the law.

The only legally valid reason for a school committee to opt out of school choice is a lack of available space. As DESE’s advisory states directly, all school districts in Massachusetts are presumed to participate, and a committee may only withdraw if it votes to do so prior to June 1 and states its reasons with those reasons filed with the Department. ^[3] A committee that cites student behavior, disability status, academic performance, or community preference as its reason for opting out is not only legally exposed, but it is also placing the city in a position of potential civil rights liability.

Methuen has lost 200 students this school year compared to FY25. We would be hard-pressed to claim we don’t have space.

Were the Opt-Out Votes Even Procedurally Valid?

Beyond the substance of the committee’s reasoning lies a procedural question that has gone unasked: were these annual opt-out votes actually taken in compliance with the law in the first place?

The statute is clear that a public hearing must precede the vote. DESE’s 2019 advisory clarifies that the hearing and the vote can occur at the same regular school committee meeting but only under specific conditions: there must be notice to the public that this item will be discussed, and members of the public must be afforded a genuine opportunity to participate and make their positions known before the vote is taken. ^[3]

That is a meaningful legal standard, not a rubber stamp.

The question for Methuen is whether the posted agendas for those regular business meetings specifically identified a public hearing on school choice as an agenda item… not merely a vote… but a hearing, with public comment invited. If the item was listed as routine business without clearly advertising it as a public hearing at which residents could weigh in, the procedural foundation for those opt-out resolutions is, at a minimum, questionable.

Compare Methuen’s approach to how other districts handle this. Brockton, for example, posts a standalone agenda, separate from its regular business meeting, specifically titled “Public Hearing on School Choice,” with a dedicated call to order, public comment period, and discussion, all cited directly to M.G.L. Chapter 76, Section 12B. ^[4] That approach leaves no ambiguity about whether the statutory requirement was met.

DESE’s advisory on school governance reinforces why this matters: the school choice law requires the committee to vote after holding a public hearing as a condition precedent to declining to admit non-resident students. ^[5] The hearing isn’t a formality that can be folded invisibly into a regular agenda item. It is a legal prerequisite. If Methuen’s opt-out votes were taken without a properly noticed public hearing, those votes may not have been validly taken under the statute which would mean the district has been operating outside the law while paying nearly $750,000 a year for the privilege.

This is not a technicality. Public notice requirements exist so that residents, parents, taxpayers, and community members who are directly affected by this decision have a real opportunity to be heard before the vote is cast. If those residents were never meaningfully informed that a hearing was taking place, they were effectively cut out of a decision that costs their city three-quarters of a million dollars a year.

The Real Fiscal Picture

We have 200 fewer students this school year than we did in FY25. Those 200 students equate to a $3,563,400 reduction in our foundation budget (200 × our per-pupil foundation budget amount of $17,817). One hundred of that reduction was due to a decline in kindergarten enrollment which means that next year, we will likely have lower numbers in both kindergarten and first grade. The source for the $17,817 figure is: Methuen Public Schools FY26 Proposed Budget Public Hearing document, available at https://methuen.massteacher.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2025/05/FY-26-Proposed-Budget-8-1.pdf

Does it make sense to open the entire district up to school choice? Maybe not. Does it make sense to offer a limited number of seats to students in kindergarten and first grade to offset some of the amount we pay out? The entire topic is still worth a serious conversation.

One argument we hear is that we don’t pay for school-choice students from the operating budget, so it doesn’t really impact the schools. While it is true that school choice students are not part of the operating budget, the $749,933 Methuen pays out is part of the chargebacks, the money added to our operating budget to reach net school spending. So the money is deducted from the amount the city must allocate to the schools’ operating budget. If we could offset this amount with tuition income from accepting students, it could reduce the chargeback amount and free up money for the district to use in the operating budget.

Another argument we have heard is “we only want Methuen kids in Methuen Public Schools.” While this is a nice sentiment, it is not a legally available option. The only reason the law allows a school committee to vote no to school choice is space limitations. To this end, any reason cited by officials, besides space, is not valid under the law. And Councilor DiZoglio’s on-the-record rationale about special education costs, as detailed above, is not only legally invalid as a reason to opt out, it is also factually inverted: it describes a problem that already exists for Methuen as a sending district, not one we would face as a receiving district.

How Accepting School Choice Students Would Help Methuen

The question isn’t just what school choice costs Methuen as a sending district. The more important question is: what could it return if Methuen chose to participate as a receiving district? The answer, supported by both state data and the experience of districts across Massachusetts, is substantial.

The Empty Seat Principle: Revenue Without New Cost

The school choice funding model is built on a straightforward economic reality: the marginal cost of educating one additional student is far lower than the average per-pupil cost. As the superintendent of Newton Public Schools explained it plainly during her district’s school choice debate:

Methuen has already paid for its buildings, its teachers, its administrators, and its buses. It has lost 200 students. Those empty seats do not reduce fixed costs but they do represent an opportunity. Each choice student who fills one of those seats brings $5,075 in tuition toward costs the district is already bearing. As the Berkshire Hills Regional School District, which has participated in school choice for nearly three decades, explains

Direct Revenue That Offsets What Methuen Already Pays Out

Tuition income from accepting choice students flows directly into the monthly local aid distribution, the same mechanism by which Methuen currently pays out $749,933 a year for its 55 students who choose other districts. ^[8] Every dollar Methuen collects in choice tuition offsets a dollar it would otherwise have to pay out or make up through local appropriation. The chargeback that drains the operating budget shrinks. The amount the city must contribute to reach net school spending decreases. That is direct fiscal relief.

Berkshire Hills offers a real-world illustration: last year the district realized approximately $1.25 million in school choice revenue and applied it to offset its annual assessment reducing what its three member towns owed by nearly $2 million combined. ^[7] Methuen is a much larger district with more capacity. The upside, even from a limited, targeted program in specific grades, could be meaningful.

Protecting Programs That Declining Enrollment Threatens

Enrollment decline does not just cut revenue, it eventually forces program cuts. When a class or grade shrinks below a viable threshold, specialized offerings become too expensive to sustain on a per-pupil basis. Research on the Massachusetts choice program has found that receiving districts are able to “offer particular niche programs when they might not be able to attract enough resident pupils to enroll in them,” making the district more efficient and more capable of delivering strong programs. ^[9] Accepting a targeted number of choice students in kindergarten and first grade, where Methuen’s losses have been steepest, helps stabilize the enrollment pipeline before those cuts become necessary.

A Competitive Signal to the Community

There is also a reputational dimension worth considering. A school committee that opts out of school choice year after year sends a message: we are not confident enough in our schools to invite outside families in. Personally, that was never the message I intended to send but, admittedly, I was uneducated.

A committee that opens targeted seats signals the opposite. As Pioneer Institute’s research on the Massachusetts program notes, the choice program was designed in part to “spur competition between districts” because competition creates incentives to improve. ^[9] Families choosing out of Methuen are already voting with their feet. Accepting choice students does not cause that problem but engaging seriously with the program is part of addressing it.

The Enrollment Liability Is Compounding Every Year

One final point that should focus the committee’s attention: Methuen’s 55 choice-out students are not a one-time problem. Under G.L. c. 76, §12B(m), once a student is admitted to a receiving district through school choice, they have a statutory right to remain through the completion of their program regardless of any future decision by either district. ^[2] The tuition bill is recalculated and re-certified every October 1 and April 1, at current rates, including any new or expanded special education services. ^[8] Those 55 students will keep generating bills for years. The only way to reduce that liability over time is to make Methuen schools compelling enough that families stop choosing out and accepting choice students in return is one concrete, immediate tool to offset the cost while that harder, longer work is done.

Looking Ahead

I look forward to the public hearing and vote on a resolution, as required by Massachusetts General Law, before June 1. This time I hope the committee will come prepared with the facts, not fears, about what school choice actually costs, what it actually requires, and what it could actually return to our district. And this time, I hope that the public hearing is properly noticed, genuinely open to residents, and conducted in a manner that meets the statutory standard not as a procedural afterthought bolted onto a regular business meeting.

The information has always been there. It is time to use it. I regret just learning it now but better late than never as they say.

Sources

[1] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Advisory Memorandum on Financial Administration of the Inter-District School Choice Program. Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/schoolchoice/choicead.html

[2] Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 76, Section 12B. Available at: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter76/section12B

[3] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Advisory on Inter-District School Choice Pursuant to G.L. c. 76, §12B (April 23, 2019). Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/advisory/2019-0423glc76s12b.html

[4] Brockton School Committee, Public Hearing on School Choice — Agenda (May 20, 2025). Available at: https://www.bpsma.org/apps/news/article/2071469

[5] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Advisory on School Governance. Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/advisory/cm1115gov.html

[6] Bryan McGonigle, “Why School Choice Doesn’t Completely Cover Per-Student Cost,” Newton Beacon, April 9, 2024. Available at: https://www.newtonbeacon.org/why-school-choice-doesnt-completely-cover-per-student-cost/

[7] “The Dollars and Cents of School Choice, Explained,” The Berkshire Edge, May 24, 2025. Available at: https://theberkshireedge.com/the-dollars-and-cents-of-school-choice-explained/

[8] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, FY2026 Preliminary School Choice Tuition. Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/schoolchoice/choice2026.html

[9] Roger Hatch, Inter-District School Choice in Massachusetts, Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 181 (May 2018). Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED589538.pdf