What's on the Agenda: Monday, May 4, 2026 City Council Meeting
Trash and Neoptism top the excitment meter for this one but this is Methuen so anything can happen!
Written by: Dan Shibilia
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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.