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

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

Full agenda: View the May 18, 2026 Agenda

Life moves fast. Methuen city government moves… differently. But if you want to have a say, you have to know what’s going on. Here’s your plain-English breakdown of Monday’s City Council meeting, so you can decide if it’s worth showing up or speaking out.

Procedural Opening

They all start the same way:

• Roll call

• Acceptance of the agenda

• Pledge of Allegiance, invocation, moment of silence

• Public participation

• Minutes from the April 21 Regular Meeting (removed from table), the April 28 Special Meeting, and the May 4 Regular Meeting

Public participation is your time. If anything below moves you, that’s your window. There’s plenty here to be moved by.

I’m always curious if the Council will reference religion in their invocation.

Appointments

Four public safety personnel are up for promotion on Monday. These are worth a look.

Fire Department: Two New Lieutenants

Firefighter Jesse Kattar is being promoted to Lieutenant. View backup. Firefighter Sean Wholley is also being promoted to Lieutenant. View backup. These are Civil Service-driven promotions, meaning the candidates went through a competitive state-run process. Both should be routine.

Police Department: Lieutenant and Sergeant Made Permanent

Acting Police Lieutenant Matthew Mueskes is being confirmed as a permanent Lieutenant. View backup. Acting Police Sergeant Matthew St. Jean is being confirmed as a permanent Sergeant. View backup. Moving from “acting” to “permanent” matters because it affects pay, benefits, and job protections. Again, Civil Service-driven, so these should move quickly.

Like I said last time, in a time where we are looking at furloughs, layoffs, and other budget reduction tools… is it wise to be promoting or should we be looking to restructure departments to run leaner in our time of need? This has absolutely nothing to do with the candidates, this is purely a financial discussion.

Mayor’s Report & CAFO Report

These sections are usually a mix of updates and councilor questions. Several recurring items are back on the agenda this week:

Searles Estate Finances (Chair Soto)

Chair Soto is again requesting a full accounting of Searles Estate expenses and revenues. Although this may surprise the Chair, I agree with her. The public deserves to know what the city has spent, and what it’s taking in, on this property.

However, the irony of Soto proactively killing any potential sale on the property is not lost on the team at Inside Methuen.

Assessor Appointment Process (Chair Soto)

Soto is asking for a legal opinion on who has the authority to appoint the Acting Assessor, City Assessor, or Chief Assessor, and what that process should look like. This matters. The Assessor’s office sets property values, and therefore tax bills, for every property owner in the city.

As a real estate investor who has been rumored to routinely strong-arm permits and approvals behind City Hall's closed doors, this is concerning. First, because she could be angling for more “friendly” appointments. More importantly, because the power to appoint for these positions are subject to Section 3.3 of the City Charter.

Paving List Online (Chair Soto)

Soto wants the city’s paving list posted publicly on the Methuen website. Simple transparency ask. If your street is (or isn’t) getting paved, you should be able to find out without calling City Hall.

Echo Lane Sewer Connection (Councilor Valley)

The RFP status on this sewer connection is being asked about… again.

Rail Trail Depot Overhangs (Councilor Valley)

Valley wants an update on the historic depot overhangs along the Rail Trail, specifically, whether the city can acquire them, what legal options exist, and whether grant money could be used to preserve them.

Is this a legitimate historic preservation question? You may recall an earlier article where we did the research and these overhangs were slated for removal several decades ago. This building is owned by the Laborers’ Union. The City should not be spending taxpayers’ money on OVERHANGS.

Route 110 Sidewalk/Bike Lane (Councilor Valley)

When does this project wrap up? Valley is asking for a completion date. Straightforward.

Searles Estate Liability (Councilor Valley)

Valley wants the City Solicitor to weigh in on liability concerns related to events being held inside the Searles Estate. Insurance and liability exposure are real questions whenever the public is using a city-owned historic building.

Oakland Avenue Bridge State Report (Councilor Santos)

The state’s inspection report on this bridge has been asked for before. It should exist. Where is it? Santos is asking again.

Our suggestion is that she go back and watch the last meeting where the Mayor explained this or, perhaps, the meeting prior to that one where he explained this in essentially the same words.

Public Safety & DPW Buildings Feasibility Study (Councilor Santos)

The study is ongoing but “it’s moving” isn’t a timeline. Santos wants a status update.

This shows a lack of understanding of government, how it works, how it moves, and what time of the year it is… BUDGET SEASON.

Parks Audit & Buildings Audit RFPs (Councilor Drew)

Are the RFPs for the parks audit and buildings audit actually out the door yet? Drew wants confirmation that the city has followed through on its commitments here.

The Mayor, at the last meeting, said this would be parked until after Budget season. It’s not unreasonable.

Pickleball Courts (Councilor MacLaren)

MacLaren is asking for an update on the public’s petition regarding pickleball courts. This has generated real community interest and the council should give it a real answer.

Forest Street Paving (Councilor MacLaren)

Is Forest Street in the paving plan for FY’26 or FY’27? A simple yes or no would do.

Public Service: Contracts

Seven contracts are on the table on Monday. This is where real city money moves.

C-26-87: Milk Street Traffic Calming — $48,600

View contract — Apex Companies, LLC will provide engineering services for a traffic calming project on Milk Street. Traffic calming usually means things like bump-outs, crosswalk improvements, or speed table design. If you live near Milk Street, this is worth paying attention to.

C-26-88: Public Safety & DPW Feasibility Studies — $75,750

View contract — Weston & Sampson will conduct expanded feasibility studies on the Police, Fire, and DPW facilities. These buildings are aging. This is the study that tells the city what it’s dealing with. Money well spent if it leads to actual action.

C-26-89: Oakland Avenue Bridge Emergency Repair — $57,503

View contract — NEL Corporation has been awarded a DCAMM emergency waiver contract to repair the Oakland Avenue Bridge. Emergency designation means the city bypassed the normal bidding process, presumably because the bridge couldn’t wait.

C-26-90: Arlington Neighborhood Streetscape — $235,500

View contract — Woodard & Curran will provide engineering for Phase I-A of the Arlington Neighborhood Streetscape Improvement Project. Streetscape improvements typically include sidewalks, lighting, and street furniture. If you’re in or near the neighborhood, this matters.

C-26-91: Veterans Memorial Park Fitness Court Slab — $34,900

View contract — Hilltown Demolition will pour a concrete slab at Veterans Memorial Park as the base for an outdoor fitness court. Parks’ infrastructure is a public good. This is a reasonably priced investment in a public space.

C-26-92: FY2026 Paving Season — $1,197,448

View contract — E.J. Paving Company (a Methuen-based company, notably) will handle this year’s paving through the Chapter 90 program. This is the big one,over $1.2 million for road resurfacing across the city. Chapter 90 is state transportation funding, so this isn’t entirely coming out of city coffers. This is where the rubber meets the road… literally.

C-26-93: Water Treatment Plant Emergency Tank Replacement — $897,677

View contract — Another DCAMM emergency waiver. Seven bulk chemical tanks, plus pipes, valves, fittings, and transfer pumps at the Water Treatment Plant need emergency replacement. This is drinking water infrastructure. You don’t let that slide. The emergency designation here is appropriate.

Unfinished Business

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

View resolution — This resolution has been sitting since 2025 and is now up for a second read. Developer JR Builders wants Cooper Lane officially accepted as a public way, meaning the city would take over maintenance. Once that happens, plowing, pothole repairs, and all upkeep become the city’s responsibility indefinitely. The council needs to confirm the road was built to city standards before they vote yes. Questions about road quality should be asked before any vote is taken.

TR-26-32: Evaluating Health Insurance Options Under Chapter 32B

View resolution — This resolution, coming off the table - maybe, would have Methuen formally adopt sections 21–23 of Chapter 32B of Mass. General Laws. What that means in plain English: it opens the door to a formal process for evaluating changes to employee and retiree health insurance. This can affect city workers and their families significantly. Worth watching.

Let’s be clear what this DOES NOT do… it does not give the Mayor unilateral authority to move the health insurance to GIC or anything else. This merely gives him the ability to explore GIC and other options. Hopefully, this will run cooperatively with the PEC.

TR-26-49: PACE Massachusetts Clean Energy Program

View resolution — This is a second read and should an easy yes. As a refresher, PACE stands for Property Assessed Clean Energy. Here’s how it works: a business wants to upgrade to solar panels, better HVAC, or LED lighting but doesn’t want to pay up front. A private lender finances the project, and the business repays through a special line on their property tax bill over up to 20 years. If the building is sold, the assessment transfers to the new owner.

For Methuen to allow this, the city has to opt in, that’s what this vote does. The city takes on zero financial risk. Private capital funds it all. 82 Massachusetts municipalities have already signed on, including Lowell, North Andover, and Peabody. This is a no-brainer for local businesses and a good economic development tool. Expect it to pass.

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

View ordinance — Second read. Sponsored by Councilor DiZoglio. Simple concept: when a building is demolished or a commercial waste operation runs nearby, rats get displaced into surrounding neighborhoods. This ordinance puts the cost and responsibility of pest control on whoever is doing the demolition or running the waste operation, not on the neighbors stuck dealing with the aftermath. The fine is $300 per day per offense. The Board of Health sets the standards. Good public health legislation.

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

View ordinance — It’s back again. It will be interesting to see if this makes it off the Table this time. Chair Soto’s updated nepotism ordinance is back, with amendments. The ordinance expands the definition of “family member” to include first cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews which is broader than what state law covers. It bars family members of department heads from working in the same department, and if two city employees become family members after passage, one has to transfer out within 90 days.

Police and Fire are carved out and that’s actually legally required because those departments operate under Massachusetts Civil Service law, which the city cannot override locally. That exemption isn’t suspicious; it’s mandatory.

What to watch: the 90-day transfer requirement is real employment disruption with real legal exposure, and the ordinance is silent on whether the city is obligated to make a transfer spot available. Also, 30 days to disclose all existing family relationships across city departments is a very tight window. The council should press on with the implementation details before voting.

New Business

TR-26-50: Home Rule Petition on Seniority-Based Reinstatement

View resolution — Sponsored by Chair Soto, Councilors DiZoglio and Valley, and Mayor Beauregard. This resolution asks the state legislature for permission to reinstate laid-off city employees by seniority within their departmental unit. Home Rule Petitions are how Massachusetts cities ask for powers that state law doesn’t automatically grant. If layoffs happen, or have already happened, this would govern the order in which people get their jobs back. This is a significant labor and employment policy.

TR-26-51: $15,200 Fire Department SAFE Grant

View resolution — Requested by Mayor Beauregard and Fire Chief Toto. The state Department of Fire Services is awarding Methuen $15,200 through its SAFE (Student Awareness of Fire Education) and Senior SAFE programs. Free money, no city match required, goes directly to fire safety education. Easy yes.

TO-26-14: Self-Service Gas Station Ordinance

View ordinance — Requested by Councilor DiZoglio and Police Chief McNamara. This ordinance adds rules for self-service gas stations to the city’s municipal code. The details matter here as self-service stations have specific safety and operational requirements. With Chief McNamara’s name attached, this is likely focused on safety and crime prevention at gas station locations. This is its first reading, so it won’t get a final vote on Monday.

Executive Session… The One to Watch

After all regular business concludes, the Council will vote to enter executive session, closed to the public, with the Mayor and City Solicitor. The reason cited is Exemption 7, which is the exemption for complying with legal obligations and court rules.

The specific matter: Commonwealth v. Joseph Solomon, two Essex County Superior Court cases (docket numbers 2377CR00451 and 2377CR00452). The council will not reconvene in open session afterward regardless of whatever happens in executive session ends the night.

Oh, to be a fly on that wall….

Keep an eye out for the meeting recap on Tuesday.

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

What Is a Chargeback?

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

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

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

Why Does This Create Confusion?

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

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

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

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

The Agreement Behind the Chargebacks

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

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

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

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

Who Is Responsible?

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

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

What Residents Should Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How We Got Here: A Short History

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Charter Actually Says

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

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

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

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

The Mayor Should Not Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking the Mayor at His Word

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

What We Could Have Done and Did Not

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

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

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

The Longer List of Missed Opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Comes Next

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizational Business

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

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

Minutes

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

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

Appointments

Kevin Barry — Promoted to Deputy Fire Chief

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

Mayor’s Report

The Mayor covered a lot of ground:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAFO Report

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

Requests of Councilors

Quick status updates on outstanding items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Officers and Committee Reports

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

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

• Drew Parks: No further update from subcommittee.

Old Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Business

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

Full agenda: View the May 4, 2026 Agenda

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

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

Procedural Opening

They all start the same way:

• Roll call

• Acceptance of the agenda

• Pledge of Allegiance, invocation, moment of silence,

• Public participation,

• Acceptance of minutes from the April 21 meeting.

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

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

Appointments

Kevin Barry Promoted to Deputy Fire Chief

View backup document

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

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

Mayor’s Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAFO Report

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

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

Unfinished Business

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

View resolution

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

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

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

View resolution

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

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

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

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

View resolution

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

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

View resolution

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

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

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

View resolution

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

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

View resolution

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

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

View ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Business

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

View resolution

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I don’t think it passes.

TR-26-49: PACE Massachusetts Clean Energy Program

View resolution | View backup/program overview

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

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

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

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

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

View ordinance

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

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

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

Keep an eye out for the meeting recap on Tuesday.

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

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

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

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

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

— Mayor D.J. Beauregard

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

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

How We Got Here

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

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

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

📅 What's Next

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

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

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

The Bigger Picture

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

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

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