[0:00] It is 709. Here at the Great Hall and the Searles Cyril’s Building. Um, Madam clerk, if we could take the roll. Councillor Salman. Here. Councillor Bailey. Present. Councillor. DiZoglio. Present. Councillor drew here. Councillor McLaren here. Councillor Monson here. Councillor is absent. Councillor Santos. present and chair. Soto present. Thank you. Um.

[0:35] Councillor Pash did call. She had an a conflict in her calendar. Um, she used a specific word, but I don’t remember it. She couldn’t be here this evening and she apologizes. Thank you so much. Um, I need a motion to accept the agenda tonight.

[1:01] Second motion by Councillor Simard, seconded by councillor uh, Valley. Any discussion on the agenda? Councillor. Drew. Madam chair, I’d like to amend our rules. Yes, sir. Uh, I’d like to amend our rules and add a presentation to our agenda. Okay. Do I need two separate votes? One on amending the rule and the second to add the presentation? Or could it be one? You don’t.

[1:22] You can amend the agenda for a presentation. You’re not voting on it. We’re not correct. Okay. I’d like to make the agenda to add a presentation at line nine for, um. Perfect. The friends of the Searles estate.

[1:40] So I have a motion on the floor amending the agenda to order the presentation of the sales estate update. Uh, from the friends of the Sales Estate. Is there a second? Second. Second. Second. By Councillor Valley. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk. That carries. And that was my oversight.

[2:02] So my apologies to the friends of the sales. It was not malicious or on purpose. I want to make sure I point that out. Um, so that’s done. Now, on the main motion to accept the agenda with the amendment. So move, move. Uh, Councilor Drew. Seconded by Councillor Smart. All those in favor? Aye.

[2:24] Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk, we’re moving on. We will stand up for a pledge of allegiance. Please. To the flag of. The United States of America. To the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Is there an invocation this evening? Yes. Heavenly father.

[2:55] Thank you for the opportunity to serve our community. Guide us, our hearts. Giving us wisdom. And in making decisions. And help us lead with compassion and unity. Bless our city and everyone that serves in the name of the father. Amen. Thank you. Uh. Moments of silence this evening.

[3:16] Please join us in a moment of silence as we remember to long time Bethlehem residents who have recently passed away. Mrs. Alice, Max and Mister Richard Carpenter. We extend our sincere condolences to the families, friends and loved ones during this difficult time. Thank you. You all may be seated.

[4:03] May I, Madam Chair? At this point, we will open public participation. Uh, speakers are reminded to state their name and address to the record. Prior to speaking. Each speaker shall be allotted maximum of five minutes to speak.

[4:26] They will receive a warning when not one remains and will not be permitted to speak after the allotted time. Speakers, as well as audience members, are expected to conduct themselves in a respectful and order, orderly manner. Any disruptive behavior may result in an immediate removal of such person to restore order, and to ensure the orderly conduct of the meeting. Thank you. We have Mr. Mike Hamill.

[4:54] Good evening. My name is Mike Hamill. Echo Lane. I’m here to talk about the Echo Lane sewer project. Friday, I emailed all the councilors with a little history of the project. I hope you had a chance to read it. I have a little more information about the meetings we’ve had over the past almost ten years.

[5:17] The first meeting was in 2017. It included two West End councilors, acting DPW director, City Solicitor, City Engineer, two DPW foremen, and the residents of Echo Lane. Miyazaki did not attend the meeting. The city had no interest in the project at the time.

[5:35] Um, the city engineer gave me a copy of the plans for the project. It’s roughly 460ft of pipe, plus the five stubs. Um, so the next meeting we had was with Mayor Perry, and he was very receptive with the project. Um, at the meeting was the city solicitor, DPW director, the West End councilor, the city engineer, and the residential president.

[5:56] Um, Mayor Perry said street lights were given. He said there’s no problem getting the streetlights. And he promised he would give us, uh, find the funds for the project. Unfortunately, he passed away before we got rolling on it. Then we started meetings with Mayor Beauregard. Um, pep, our the director of DPW, assistant Director Felix was there.

[6:18] Tina Tuma, the chief of staff and myself and one of the neighbors, Norman Berube. The meeting was just to get together, get the new people up to speed. What was going on? And the last meeting we had was with the mayor, Beauregard. Tina.

[6:37] Felix, myself, Norman Ruby, the chief of staff, uh, stated that they would put the money in the CIP line for the budget line, and they did, and the city would cover the cost of the installation. The residents would pay for the, uh, the hookups.

[6:55] I also gave, uh, assistant DPW Director Felix a copy of the plans that, uh, the former engineer, Steve Gagner had drawn up. It’s all the engineering plans, the everything. Uh. In my email, I send you explain what the city did in the mid 80s when they installed sewer lines throughout the west end of town. The city paid for the sewer lines.

[7:18] The residents paid $10 a foot for their frontage, and we had to pay for a hookups. I was involved in it because I lived on Forest Street at the time. When they were running all the sewage through. Um, if you have any questions about anything on my cell phone numbers on the email and my email address is there.

[7:31] So if there’s any questions on any of the history of links to this started in 2017 and it’s the third attempt, but we’re just looking for the same deal. Everybody in the West End got in the 80s and it’s like past practice. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Mr. Tom.

[7:55] Gia Russo, is that the last name? Very good. Uh, Tom Giarrusso, nine Echo Lane. Uh, I want to thank. You. To have the time. That I can speak for a minute. Speaking off the cuff. Because I just found about out about the meeting and that this was going to be the topic.

[8:12] It’s obviously near and dear to my heart because I live in Echo Lane. Uh, I guess I’m concerned. I just found out about it that, uh, uh, that it was going to be on the meeting, and I know that the project was put into the 26 budget.

[8:31] I hear I spoke in front of you last year about the project, and then I had heard that it was taken out of the 26 budget. And I urge you to put it back in the 27 budget.

[8:48] We’ve been we’ve been hoping for this for a long time, and it’s been a challenge, especially with all the things going around the when the town of Methuen actually approved the road, it became actually a city’s responsibility to help this go forward. And we’ve been trying to push it forward right along. I don’t want to take a lot of your time, but I wanted to show our support.

[9:03] We have a number of residents that are here tonight. Just because we had heard that things may have dropped off the budget. And I urge you, since it was on the 26 budget, to add it to the 27 budget and to try to set a date, because we’ve been patient for quite a while. But we would like to see a resolution to this if we could.

[9:20] So thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to participate, please approach the podium. Say your name and address, please. For the record. Yeah, my name is Brad Jones, 97 Druid Hill Ave. Uh, thank you, councillors, for giving me a chance to speak.

[9:52] Um, I had one thing in particular, and it addresses the Searles of state, and it’d be easier for me to read my notes. So, uh, I’ve already approached the, uh, Housing Authority, uh, about this issue, and it’s, uh, the Searles, the Searles estates unique property.

[10:15] Um, it’s tough to say what it can really be used for in the future, but I had the opportunity to work that 3 or 4 times for the nones. So I’m a little familiar with it. And one of the ideas I was thinking of, uh, the nursing home facilities would be, uh, to to turn it into senior housing. You know, we’re we have a population that we’re not we’re undeserving.

[10:36] Our seniors, uh, low income disability veterans, um, the building is there. It has over 100 right now. The building’s three floors has over 100 unit bedrooms. That could be redesigning the building and get some one, you know, one bedroom units out of it. Uh, it would be a good use.

[10:57] You know, you can probably get state and federal funding for it. Um, it’s just it’s part of our community that probably worked a whole lives and had jobs that went week to week and were never able to save.

[11:18] And the cost of, like, the buildings that are going up now, we are offering 10% low income that they don’t even qualify for that, you know? So I’m just afraid in five years from now it’ll be a new council, and it still won’t be a defined plan for the Searles estate. That particular portion of the building. Um, it it could be a total gut upgrade it completely. It has some things going for it.

[11:37] It’s a brick building, has two heating systems, one gas, one oil. Uh, the windows are vinyl. It has a rubber roof. It has an elevator. Uh, it was built in the 50s, so there’s probably some lead paint issues. There may be some asbestos, but all of that can be remediated.

[11:58] And at least if you have that portion of the property that’s actually servicing the community and possibly breaking even or making an income, it’ll allow you to do something else with the rest of it.

[12:17] Um, I know there was talk about using another portion of it for like a venue where you could have shows or entertainment and, uh, if you’ve walked the building, the there’s only one building section on the cemetery side that has a good enough sized hall where you could say, yeah, we could have a venue here. But the logistics of getting any Ada approval to get that usable, it’s a difficult project.

[12:38] So that’s one of the things I was, was approaching you guys with as a possible idea of what to do with the property. Um, and also in researching a little bit about, uh, some information for tonight, I found out that, um, we had some, some pipes broke this winter, and there was some water in the lodge building and

[12:58] another section of the, uh, the estate. If I’m wrong, you can be correct. Me, but I hope any of that water damage was remediated. So it’s not eating into our investment. You know, with the buildup of any sort of mold or anything. Because that’s the big thing today.

[13:19] Uh, water damage, mold seems to set in, and then things just go crazy. Um, that was one of them. Uh, since I had time, I was hoping to come hear more of this this summer, and I didn’t, um, second thing, I was filling up at the Half Moon station the other day. Diesel.

[13:36] And I’m standing looking at the pump, watching the number go up. And I happened to notice that the weights and measures certification on the pump was done in May of 2020. Mhm. Okay. So to me that’s not a good thing because if the pump isn’t working right nobody knows.

[13:58] But the other side of it is if we’re not doing our weights and measures. Uh that’s revenue to the town that’s not being utilized. And I, I’ve heard there’s no one doing it anymore. It used to be part of the building department’s duties. And frankly, they’re too busy doing permits, inspections and looking at plans.

[14:21] I think if that’s a portion that can make the city a little bit of cash, there should be somebody hired and assigned to it so they can start going through. And it’s not just gas pumps, it’s scales. It’s but it’s something that should be bringing money in. And it’s been ignored for six years. And it is a state mandate.

[14:39] And it was a little vague, whether it’s every year or every other year. But that’s either three years or six years of revenue. I’m sorry to interrupt you, but your five minutes are over. Okay. If you can, please wrap it up. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I’m all set.

[15:07] Is there anyone else in the audience that didn’t sign up for public participation and would like to speak? We close public participation. Madam chair. Thank you. Um, so we are moving on. Organizational business. There is none. Um, next, I’ll need a motion to accept the reading and acceptance of our minutes from our previous meeting. Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. That was a regular meeting. So moved. Second.

[15:39] Thank you. Councilor drew made the first motion. Councillor McLaren did the second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing? None. Unanimous. Madam clerk. Okay. Uh, proclamations and correspondence. There is none. None. There are no appointments. Now we’re on presentation. So we do have a presentation this evening. And it’s from the friends of the Seals.

[16:10] If you guys want to make sure that your, um, computers connected and you have your visual, um, we can troubleshoot briefly and we’ll give you the floor. You have ten minutes. I apologize, we’re on a zoom call. So we’ve been switched out, but we need. Oh, there we go. All right. All right. John’s my assistant tonight.

[16:47] Mayor. Beauregard. Council chair. Members of the city council. City officials and fellow residents. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes this evening to share an update on the friends of the Searles estate, but most importantly, I wanted to share a story.

[17:12] A story about what? What can happen when a community begins to rediscover something that has been quietly waiting for us to be noticed. Seven months, seven months ago, nine passionate volunteers came together with a simple belief that this extraordinary place deserves to be understood. And in those seven months, something remarkable has begun to happen. People started asking questions. People started coming through the gates.

[17:43] People began looking more closely at the architecture, the art, the gardens and the stories. And perhaps most importantly, people began to care. The friends began as a small group of citizens who share a passion for Methuen history, and who actually sit on historic boards and commissions.

[18:11] We organized ourselves as a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and are pursuing federal 501 C status so that our organization can operate with accountability, transparency, and a clear purpose. Our mission is simple to support and advocate for the preservation, restoration, and innovative. Re repurposing of one of Methuen most extraordinary historic landmarks. First, we created awareness because before people can understand why a historic place matters, they have to know its story.

[18:47] In less than six months, we built the social media platform, have presence, and we have a steady increase in activity on our website. With the support of the mayor’s office and the economic developer, Jack Wilson.

[19:17] Nearly 300 residents attended lectures in the summer, learning about Edward Searles, his life, the estate and actually enjoying music performed by one of a volunteers on the one of the organs in the estate. We know the city has limited resources to maintain a property of this size, so we asked our community for volunteers and they answered. Volunteers have spent countless hours removing overgrowth, clearing debris and addressing invasive vegetation.

[19:51] At one point, volunteers filled the dumpster that was donated with debris in a single Sunday afternoon. The DPW then stepped in and cleared the remaining debris. Other volunteers went into the estate and helped clean and prepare the buildings for tours. That is what community looks like. It isn’t always about a large check. Sometimes it’s a pair of working gloves.

[20:19] Sometimes it’s an afternoon spending cleaning brush, and sometimes it’s simply showing up. The city has opened the estate and three days of tours have already taken place, and all have been full and successful. The reaction from those who walk through those doors has been extraordinary. People are amazed. They’re curious.

[20:44] They’re excited. Many had lived in Methuen for years and had never had the opportunity to truly experience what is actually behind those walls. So on October 18th, the city will open the estate again for another tour de. Something wonderful has happened in Methuen. We’ve rediscovered what we have.

[21:11] When the city purchased the Searles estate, it didn’t simply acquire buildings and land, it acquired pieces of history, pieces of art, pieces of craftsmanship that belonged to the citizens of this great city. Through our research, we have begun learning more about the extraordinary artists and craftsmen whose work exists throughout the estate.

[21:39] The estate architect Henry Vaughan is perhaps best known for his work in Washington. On the on Washington’s National Cathedral, the estate also contains sculptures by the celebrated American artist Thomas Ball. This is actually one of his statues in the first floor of this building.

[22:09] The extraordinary carving work of Johannes Kirsch Meyer, one of the most renowned carver woodcarvers in has ever, and also can be found throughout the property. And they were works by Luigi Fellini, a celebrated woodcarver of Florence, Italy, and Thomas Ball’s son in law, William Cooper. There aren’t simple, beautiful objects. They help tell the story of why this place matters. Next, we worked on protection.

[22:42] One of the most important things the friends have done is identify and document immediate needs of the estate. Our members have developed an extensive checklist that you see on the screen. It’s been presented to the city, ranging from critical preventative maintenance to long term preservation and restoration.

[23:05] We’ve walked through the property with the DPW leaders to identify winter needs. We’ve met with the water Department regarding adequate water for supplies, water supply, and fire protection. Protection, and we’ve met with the fire department leadership regarding emergency access because preservation isn’t just about dreaming about the future. Preservation begins with protecting what is here today.

[23:34] We understand that the city has many needs and limited financial resources, so the friends have worked with the legislative delegation to identify potential funding opportunities. We are grateful to Representative Maria Hamilton and our legislative delegation for their support and advocacy for the estate.

[24:03] Among the opportunities we are pursuing, as you see them on the board, $250,000 capital bond earmarked for comprehensive infrastructure study, $75,000 is earmarked for 2027 to help address immediate protection and winter needs.

[24:38] A potential $2 million capital bond earmark that could support future restoration, and a potential $500,000 capital bond earmark to support administration and planning associated with creating a sustainable future for the estate. We have also worked with the city’s environmental leadership on a grant application of $40,000 supporting environmental projects, already advanced through volunteer efforts, and we are preparing a castle Fund application to explore a future historical, cultural and educational uses for the estate.

[25:08] But what may be the most important point tonight is the friends here are not to replace the city. We are here to become a resource for the city, a partner, a source of volunteers, a source of historical research, a source of educational programming, a source of community enthusiasm, and as our organization grows, hopefully a source of grants and private financial support.

[25:34] Because these past seven months have taught us something very important. There is tremendous interest in this Searles estate. People want to learn about it. They want to walk through the doors. They want to hear its stories. They want to volunteer and they want to help, and they want to know what its future may be.

[25:57] Historic preservation doesn’t happen simply because we have an old building. It happens when people decide that the story is worth carrying forward, and I believe that it is what we are beginning to see in Methuen today. The estate has stood here for generations. Its walls have witnessed more than a century of history.

[26:22] Its architecture tells stories and its artwork tells stories. Diane, the ten minutes are over. I’m sorry to interrupt you. I’m almost done. One more minute. It’s gardens tell stories. And now we have an opportunity to become part of that story. Seven months, nine volunteers have come together with an idea.

[26:44] Seven months? We have lectured, filled with residents, tours, volunteers, researchers. The city has worked hard and conversations taking place around funding, preservation and future. That is tremendous work and only seven months. The Searles estate is being seen. People are looking at it with fresh eyes, and they are beginning to understand what it really means.

[27:09] They are beginning to imagine what it could be, and they are beginning to understand that there isn’t a simple piece of Methuen past its Methuen future. The future should be carefully researched, thoughtfully planned and shaped together. But we do know one thing.

[27:34] We have something extraordinary here, and for the first time in a very long time, more and more people are beginning to see that. So on behalf of the friends of the Searles estate, all the volunteers, all the city departments, the legislation, the tour guides and everyone that came to the gates because seven months ago we were asking people to care about this estate.

[27:57] Today people are asking, how can I help? And perhaps that is the most encouraging sign of all. Our next lecture that the city is conducting is this Wednesday, and we’re already sold out. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. I’m moving on to the mayor’s report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[28:22] And I’ll just begin by expressing my own gratitude to the friends of the Searles for that presentation and all the incredible work that they’ve been doing. It’s been nice to see some more activity on the estate and really seeing things come to life. So with that, I will begin my report here. Good evening. Councilors.

[28:43] I want to begin tonight’s mayor’s report by addressing the Solomon situation. As I’m sure most of you know by now. Last Friday, former police chief Joseph Solomon pled guilty to all 17 charges against him, including 11 felonies. He admitted under oath that he committed these crimes. He went directly to jail in his taxpayer funded city. Pension is gone.

[29:02] The city will now pursue every available legal avenue to recover the more than $1 million in pension benefits already paid to him. The elimination of his pension under state law is also expected to reduce Methuen unfunded pension liability by approximately $3.7 million over the next 20 years, regardless of what his defenders claim on social media.

[29:27] Solomon committed perjury, uttered forged police academy credentials, and in procurement fraud, and knowingly placed unqualified and improperly trained individuals into positions of public trust. His crimes endangered public safety, betrayed his oath and formed part of a broader scheme to defraud the taxpayers of Methuen. But Solomon’s convictions cannot be the end of this matter.

[29:50] Serious questions remain about whether others participated in a wider criminal conspiracy to defraud Methuen taxpayers, and abused the power of city government. Individuals were identified in official documents as unindicted co-conspirators.

[30:13] Yet the federal investigation into Solomon and others was abruptly and inexplicably closed two years ago this week, without charges or any meaningful public explanation to demonstrate a unified front from Methuen elected leadership, I will be, along with Councilor Samar, bringing forward a joint resolution and an attached letter from the mayor and City Council at the next meeting, formally calling upon US Attorney Leah Foley and the Department of Justice to return to Methuen reopen the

[30:33] federal investigation, examine the evidence gathered by state and federal authorities, and determine whether federal charges are warranted against Solomon or anyone else who participated in this criminal conspiracy to defraud our taxpayers. Methuen has achieved an important measure of justice. Solomon is a convicted felon. He’s serving time in jail and his city pension is gone.

[30:56] But accountability cannot stop with the one person who happened to hold the title of police chief. Every participant in this corruption, and every person who knowingly benefited from it, must be investigated and where the evidence supports it, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of federal law.

[31:17] Moving on to our schools, Methuen High schools Back to School Night will be held on Thursday, September 24th. The event will begin with a club and activity fair in the cafeteria from 530 to 6 p.m., then from 6 to 8 p.m. families will follow their high schoolers schedule to meet their teachers and see their learning spaces.

[31:37] Friday, September 25th marks the midpoint of the first term for our high schoolers. This Friday is also an early release day for Methuen public school students. As district educators will engage in professional development with a focus on the role of AI in education. This will set the stage for a series of AI centered workshops. Faculty members will attend throughout the school year.

[31:54] The grammar school libraries are open and looking for volunteers. Please reach out to the grammar School principals about volunteer opportunities or email info at Methuen. K-12 news. For more information. Several positions at each grammar school are also dedicated to the Methuen Senior Tax Work Program.

[32:16] The School Committee’s Finance and Policy subcommittees will meet this week, and Gina Bozek from the school district will provide an update on constellations at the next regular school Committee meeting on September 28th. Regarding paving, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, are extremely ambitious. Road improvement initiative is well underway.

[32:36] We’ve been making some great progress in the push to fix our roads. We’ve tackled Forest Street and we’re working on Milk Street now. We’ll be fixing badly deteriorated sections of Pleasant Street, Jackson Street, and Pleasant Valley Street in the near future.

[32:55] On top of the residential side streets that are in need of attention, I’ve been working with Chair Soto on drafting a Home rule petition modeled after a 2014 special act for the town of Barnstable that would give the city council the ability to vote to pave, but not formally accept, certain unaccepted ways that have been open to use by the general public for at least 20 consecutive years and connect to other accepted ways.

[33:11] I hear the frustrations from residents who live on the streets, and I think the Barnstable model is one way we might be able to help them. Also, regarding the dangerous intersections at Park and Lawrence streets in East Milton Prospect streets, preliminary designs are now in place for both intersections.

[33:31] DPW is meeting weekly with tech, and I’ve invited concerned residents who live near these intersections to join us in an upcoming meeting with tech so we can make sure their concerns are heard before plans are finalized. Regarding trash and recycling, I expect to present a new trash and recycling contract to the City Council for consideration and approval this fall.

[33:51] This will mark the culmination of what I’ve been calling our trash reset, including bringing on the city’s first sanitation coordinator. Karina, as you know, and strengthening oversight of this essential service. Our goal is to have more reliable collection, clear communication, and greater accountability when problems arise.

[34:13] The proposed contract in its financial service implications will be presented as part of the City Council’s review. I want to mention also that we heard tonight about weights and measures from Mr. Jones, and this is a topic that we were thinking about possibly bringing to this meeting, but we’ll probably do it at the next meeting where we have an amendment to the wage and salary grid so that we can formally bring that position

[34:30] back into existence. It has not been a thing since, as was mentioned, roughly 2020, I believe, with the retirement of former Inspector John Gibney. We’ve been in touch with the state about this. So that is something that is moving. I wanted to mention that in response.

[34:51] As you know, on tonight’s agenda, we have the second read for my request for a one year moratorium to give Methuen time to assess the potential impacts of data center development and establish appropriate local regulations. My central concerns are affordability, utility capacity and water use.

[35:13] Large data centers can require a substantial electricity and cooling resources, and we need to understand how we propose facility would affect our infrastructure and whether any associated costs could fall on residents and existing businesses. At the last meeting, the amendment to the table of uses was removed from the zoning ordinance for the moratorium to have any teeth.

[35:29] I would ask the council to consider adding that back in tonight before sending it to the Community Development Board for review, including the Table of Uses. Amendment is a must. If we are to pass the temporary moratorium during the moratorium period, we would work toward enforceable standards addressing electricity supply, water demand, cooling systems, noise and responsibility for infrastructure costs.

[35:51] The City of Everett’s work on data center regulation offers a useful starting point. Methuen needs rules tailored to our own capacity and community priorities before making long term commitments. In my opinion, economic development should strengthen our tax base while protecting residents from added utility burdens.

[36:12] The city’s proposed low income Community Shared Solar Program has received initial clearance from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, and we’ve submitted documentation to DPU for approval. We’re working with our municipal electricity aggregation consultant, Colonial Power Group, to bring additional electricity savings to income eligible households participating in our Methuen Community Choice Power Supply program. The current projection is a discount of approximately 2.

[36:37] 2 cents per kilowatt hour, reducing the program standard electric supply rate for eligible participants from 12.8 $0.03 to approximately 10.6 $0.02 per kilowatt hour. Our goal is to begin delivering these savings in early 2027, subject to the remaining approvals and implementation requirements. We’ll share additional information about eligibility and timing as the process moves forward.

[37:03] The city’s transition to the Group Insurance Commission remains scheduled for January 1st, 2027. As we’ve discussed, this is a major structural reform intended to provide more predictable costs and address the recurring deficits associated with the city’s health insurance trust fund. The special enrollment period will run from October 5th through October 30th.

[37:23] Anyone wishing to have GIC coverage, effective January 1st must apply. During that period, enrollment is not automatic. Participants should review their plan options, confirm that their doctors and hospitals are a network, and check plan service area. Those enrolling dependents should be gathering the required government issued marriage and birth certificates.

[37:44] Now, to avoid delays or rejected applications. Just to point out, this is something that the state requires regarding GIC enrollment. Folks need, uh, marriage and birth certificates for any dependents.

[38:02] And so I’ve decided to make those obviously available to city employees with a waived fee so that we’re not charging our employees to get their hands on those for the sake of the transition. The city has scheduled in and virtual information sessions throughout the month of September. We’ve already had sessions on the first, the third, the eighth and ninth, the 15th and the 17th of this month.

[38:22] We’ll have an additional opportunity here in the Great Hall on September 24th, later this week, from 10 to 1130 in the morning. Uh, beyond that, benefit guides, enrollment information and virtual meeting links are available@methuen.gov. Employees first payroll deductions for January coverage will begin in December. Any questions that folks have, uh, can be directed to the Employee benefits office at (978) 983-8577.

[38:50] We’ll continue sharing information as a special open enrollment period approaches. Uh, this is all information that’s been shared internally with our employees. But of course, there are many retirees out there. So we’re just reiterating reiterating this for them. Excuse me. Lastly, I noticed that tonight’s agenda and correct me if I’m wrong, but I just wanted to point this out.

[39:09] It includes an executive session to vote on releasing certain meeting minutes from 2020, 2022 and 2023. I’m not privy to what the City Council does in executive session, but I’m aware that Greg Gallant, the former president of the Methuen Police Superior Officers Association and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Solomon and Fountain cases, is the

[39:30] individual who is seeking those documents. While, of course, I generally prefer to stay in my lane. Uh, I must state my opinion publicly that I strongly oppose any efforts to release these documents to the bad actors involved in the Solomon criminal conspiracy.

[39:49] Such a move could place our city at serious risk, and I hope that the council, collectively, as a body, considers deciding against providing any assistance whatsoever to the co-conspirators, such as gallant, even in ways that may initially seem innocuous at first glance. Regarding some upcoming community events. There’s going to be a ribbon cutting at the Methuen Youth and Community Center this Saturday at 10 a.m..

[40:09] The Methuen Fishing Derby is also scheduled for this Saturday at Forest Lake. Methuen day is happening on Saturday, October 3rd. A naturalization ceremony will be held to welcome new immigrants to the country, officially gaining their citizenship. It will be at the Nevins Library on October 15th. That’ll do it for my mayor’s report.

[40:30] Happy to answer your questions, but otherwise I do have some updates to share about the list of requests. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, we. Uh. We were getting text messages that we were not online, so I want to know, for whatever reason, we were not being broadcasted live on the television. Okay, I’m going on to the Capitol report.

[40:58] Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, the. Searles expense, uh, the estate expenses. I sent out the detail this afternoon. Um, so I’m sure there wasn’t enough time to go through it. But if you have any questions, when you do go through it, or if you want to ask questions at the next meeting. Happy to answer those.

[41:18] But I did send those out this afternoon. Um, I will just in summary, we’re at about $4.1 million in expenses since we purchased, um, but happy to answer any detailed questions if you have them as you go through it. Um, my other item on here is about the back taxes.

[41:37] Um, I did send out a detailed report of the comparison between the report that was provided in January versus where we’re at now. Um, of 175 tax accounts from the beginning of 2026, we’ve collected on 17 properties, 16 residential and one commercial, uh, which is about 10%.

[41:58] Um, if you look at the two reports in total, only it looks like we’re more. And that’s just because it’s a constant cycle as things get paid off. Things then go into tax title. Uh, things that have been outstanding for multiple years, then get assessed. Uh, a 26, uh, tax title portion.

[42:18] So, um, I do have the, the detail of the individual years as well. If you’d like to see that. But, um, we have shown progress. At least 10% of those in the last six months. Okay. Before you go, I’m going to go, if you don’t mind. Councilor, thank you for that. The.

[42:38] I know that we had our request via email from a constituent for dollars amount and for it to be posted online. And you did respond that that would you did respond with the information and that it will be updated on the site. I’m assuming that’s on on the estate page that we have. Yes. Okay. And it has been posted.

[42:54] So for the sake of the reporting, because I’m not taking it off your category. Yeah. If we can have that dollar amount. The total dollar amount. Yeah. Just right next to it saying, you know, expenses, whatever that dollar amount is, if that’s okay.

[43:13] I mean, if we’re going to publish it anyways, we might as well go from agenda to agenda. Yeah. So do you. What do you. Do you want me to. So you see where the line item is. Request for the sales estate expense. Yes. Just provide the dollar amount at the meeting. Okay. So verbally say. We’re at. Um, we’ve increased by a water. Oh, you know, an electric bill of $60.

[43:34] Okay. Yeah. I think that’s going to help for those inquiries. That way, if we don’t update it right away. Yep. So they have that answer and they’re not emailing us. No problem. Okay. If that’s okay with you. Okay. Councilor drew, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um.

[43:49] When you sent me the year by year breakdown of back taxes. Um. I mean, there are some properties here that have back taxes owed older than me. I mean, we just. I mean, I’m looking at one of them. They have back taxes here. This one’s not quite as old as me, but it was 1991.

[44:10] And they every single year since 1991, I’ve been a back tax. And they owe currently every their.. $183,000. I mean that property when I went and looked it up it’s worth $260,000. I don’t I don’t understand like it feels like a lot of this is just sitting there.

[44:36] Wait, like, how do we get this? So this is just like, there’s $7 million here, and that’s just one of them. And there’s countless pages. I mean, Madam Chair, could you hold that? Pack it up.

[44:55] I mean, that’s that’s literally just years and years and years and dollars and interest that we just keep pushing out and putting it on to the residents and over and over again. It’s it’s I mean. 1991 I. How do you fix that? So if I, if I could.

[45:17] Um, so when I first started so I’ve been here for seven years when I first started, um, we were not going after any old tech sale, so they did just sit there and had been sitting there for many, many years. Um, so one of the things that we did at that time was take, um, was bring on a, a legal firm who specializes in tax title.

[45:36] Um, and they have spent the past 6 or 7 years now. Um, going after all of them. Okay. Yes. Six. Seven. Yep. Um, going after these properties and we’ve actually we have hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, we’ve been able to collect in these back

[45:55] tax title. Um, I’d love to get the original number. I can’t I don’t have it off the top of my head of where it was when we first started this project, but, uh, that firm only gets paid when they collect for us. So it’s been a wonderful partnership.

[46:10] Um, we continue to work with them. Um, but we had a lot of work to do because it had been sitting there for years and years just building. Um, so I can’t I’m not sure exactly. I’d be happy to look into any specific property you’re talking about, but. I have no specific to any.

[46:28] I just saw that one glaring to me. It’s like, that’s 35 years old. So there are certain properties that have all sorts of red tape and things that that we may or may not have purpose for sitting there. There are other properties that are actively being, um, sought after or or gone after, I should say.

[46:48] Um, and so we actually are talking about foreclosing. We just foreclosed on one. We’re actively talking about another 1 or 2 properties because we’re at that point, we try everything that we can not to. But I’m I’m not advocating for taking anybody’s home ever.

[47:07] You know, I know people get into bad situations and things happen again, but it seems like I mean, just that one in particular. It’s like they’re making zero effort. Well, so I don’t want to say they’re making zero effort because there could be. Again, I’ll look I would love. To get. It doesn’t look like any of them. Okay.

[47:26] Um, again, I’d be happy to go through any individual property and give you a background or a backstory on where those things are at. Okay. I just, I see that such a significant amount of money that the city is owed has extended to other services that we’ve we have to now put back on other taxpayers.

[47:42] And it’s not helping the burden. At the end of the year. So. Councilor DiZoglio. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just following up with Councilor Drew was saying that one’s. I’m 35 years old. I was born in 91.

[48:09] So for someone to say that it’s not making an effort of $185,000, making it an effort is they’ve cut it down over a time period that maybe in the last three years they had to pay back their taxes. But 35 years of not paying. So, you know, something’s got to give. Sell the house if you can’t afford it.

[48:26] But also, the fact is, like Councilor Ju was saying, we keep raising taxes on everybody that does pay their taxes every year. And because we keep shifting the burden on them, where now the public has been telling me $7 million is just waiting.

[48:48] What how many teachers could we have saved? But that how many, um, how many parks can we build with that? You know, it’s starting to get where we put things off. Or we could have been painting our stadium by now, you know, there’s so many things we could have done with $7 million to fix the roof up the chimney. I could make a whole list. Council, if I may.

[49:03] Um, I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that $7 million is quite literally just sitting out there. There are. If we were to maybe look through the specifics of each entry on that list, it’s possible that somebody may have died right many years ago, and there’s no chance that will collect certain entries on that list.

[49:19] Not to say that that’s the case for all of them, but, you know, if there are any specifics that you’d like us to look into and follow up on, we could certainly do that. But as the Castle referenced, this is something that had been really just sitting there for the longest time.

[49:33] And we do have an effort underway to collect it. But there is a story in circumstances behind each one of those entries on that document. And so, uh, certainly happy to look into the 1991 situation. But, you know, just if we were to use critical thinking, right.

[49:57] Clearly there would be a certain, uh, intricacies of each case that could make some situations more complicated and difficult than others. And certainly if there was an easy way to automatically collect all of that, we would have done it yesterday. And so just keep in mind that it is an ongoing. Effort. So thank you, Madam Chair.

[50:15] So to use your quote with critical thinking, that means if the person died, we lost money because they didn’t pay their taxes too. So we keep throwing money away and losing money for the city that could have been received over time. Correct. If you know.

[50:35] If I may, it doesn’t matter if a person dies, they you still collect, you still get your money as a municipality. I think that’s a moot point on this floor. Uh, you have further question. I’m going to go on to Councillor Valley and then. Thank you, Madam Chair. Three years to the city solicitor. Arlene, being placed to these properties. Lean limply. Yes.

[50:52] Because like the mayor said, if the resident died, the lien will prevent the state from selling the property without paying to the city. So all these properties have tax titles in place? I would say all of them, except the brand new ones. Those needs remain on record.

[51:11] The issue is really there’s not a lot of mechanism. I mean, I’m not making excuses, but the reality is there’s not a lot of mechanisms to collect this money from people who are not voluntarily paying it.

[51:28] So our options are tax title and then move to tax foreclosure, which requires us to essentially foreclose on someone’s home and then sell it out from under them. And that has occurred. And we are moving in that direction.

[51:47] Obviously, the mayor and the the tax collector try to work with people as much as possible to prevent that from happening because, as you said, we don’t want to be in the business of moving people out of their homes. But a lot of these, the ones that have some of those ones that you were talking about, I am involved with, some of them are in bankruptcy. And so When there’s a bankruptcy filed, we can’t actually move to foreclose. But we do assert our rights through the solicitor’s office with bankruptcies.

[52:06] And we have been successful also working with outside counsel on their end, um, recovering money that way as well. So we’re starting that process as well to work more and through the bankruptcy court when people file.

[52:23] And that’s often what people do, um, that have huge debts, they’ll move to file bankruptcy for protection, which they can only do once every seven years. But some of those larger ones, I think, are some of those.. But property taxes doesn’t get wiped out when they file bankruptcy. They do not. They’re actually protected by federal law so they don’t get wiped out. There are cases where we will try to.

[52:42] So. The other thing people should know, and as you referenced, when you see that $183,000 figure, most of that is interest and interest up until recently when they changed the law, it was accruing interest at 16%, I believe in 16%. That basically doubles your debt every five years. So a lot of that’s interest.

[53:07] Um, there are some newer, um, state laws that have been passed that we can look at to maybe create some, uh, uh, have more access to payment plans and other things, um, that, you know, will help the people that want to get back on their feet. Uh, some people are just, frankly, unable to.

[53:23] They’re elderly or, um, they just, you know, are no longer working. Um, but there are a few things that we can do, and we can certainly look at that to try to move this process in, in the direction of better collection. I agree with Councilor DiZoglio.

[53:39] It’s not that we want to push residents out of their home, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We have some people paying taxes. Seniors that I’ve received, phone calls and texts at least once a week saying that they can afford, uh, you know, higher taxes anymore.

[53:56] So I believe we need to do something with the other group that is not paying. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um. Through you, madam. And to. To be clear, I’m not trying to push people out of their homes. Like, if someone’s back, be, like, a little bit behind.

[54:12] I’m not saying foreclose on their properties, but for some of these properties that have, you know, you could clearly see people. People not taking care of their debts. That’s where I think, again, Methuen turns into, we just let people just write up their debts and we don’t collect on anything.

[54:34] That is instead, taxes continue to go up in the city of Methuen. And I feel like there’s just different avenues that we could be collecting revenue from that were just not doing it. Um, so that’s what I have to say. Thank you. Okay. Um, uh, thank you. Um, I just, um, have a question for the couple. Is there.

[55:01] Any way that that, um, we can rearrange or look at the contract that we currently have with the with a firm that is taking care of this property that have not been paying taxes so that they have an aggressive way to approach the the homeowners. Um, just I just wanted to throw that on the table. So that.

[55:28] Um. So they are working with us as far as working directly with the homeowners. So they are doing that and they work with the Jen Finnegan, the treasurer, collector. Um, in fact, we had, like I mentioned earlier, a house that we foreclosed on. We did end up foreclosing on it recently.

[55:45] Uh, the treasure collector, the, um, the legal team, they all went out, and, uh, the police department went out and had a meeting with the owner to see how. So we now own this property, but still to see how we could work with her to get it so that she wouldn’t be kicked out of her house.

[56:05] And so we are going above and beyond what we can in order to follow the appropriate laws that are in place and still collect as much as we can. You know, things go into tax title. We can’t just take them back out of tax title.

[56:22] So there’s all sorts of rules, laws, regulations that we have to follow in order to get them back out or get them paid. So we are aggressive with trying to get those back. We post their names in the newspaper multiple times a year.

[56:39] Um, and so we’re, we’re trying to get after them, but I’ll absolutely talk to them and just make sure that they know that this is a critical piece that we need to get as much as possible. Yeah. Is that a follow up? I just have another question. Uh, do you share? Yes.

[56:59] Do you have an idea of how many properties has been touched in the last seven years with this issue, and how many properties were they behind when you started at seven years ago? So I just actually pulled up an old, very old. And this is kind of on the spot here. But from um, when I started was 2019. So I just pulled it up and it was over $5 million.

[57:16] And so we are at two and a half now. So we’ve, we’ve cut it in half. Now that’s not to say two and a half is nothing. It is two and a half. I’m talking about just the property tax not the interest. And and fees.

[57:29] But uh, they have worked with us to cut it in half. And we’ve also added to it. Right. So that’s not just properties in total. We’ve added to that because every year anything that isn’t paid then goes into tax title. And it’s a constant revolving. Um, but we have cut that total balance in half.

[57:48] So I was it you had your hand before you if if I may before. So I mentioned something on this floor. I think it was maybe 2024. The new law. Now that we foreclose on that property, we actually have to pass something because we can’t actually sell it unless we have a bidding process for the for

[58:10] like an actual, uh, professional to list it and sell it in the general market. And there’s I got to go back to my notes, but that process has to be done by the municipality. And then the mayor will put out an RFP and all that good stuff, I forget. I don’t know if you guys.

[58:26] Recall equity, equity theft, low equity. It’s an equity theft law that the state passed. So we can’t do anything with that property, which is interesting to me because now I got to go back and look, where we allowed, for example, Diane Moore’s in the room and she’s a licensed

[58:41] broker. She could apply through the RFP, let’s say to to retail that property. But I need to go back and see. I don’t think we were allowed to foreclose. And the solicitor will do his research unless we had that in happening.

[58:58] So she’ll be able to get moneys if we get more than what. So let’s say her debt was 50 grand in taxes. We sell it for 250,000. We’ll get the 50. She’ll get 200. And the old law, we would keep the 250. Right. So, um, I think that we need to get that on the books.

[59:18] And this council is open to working on that. All right, counselor. It was the same. Thank you. Oh, good. Yeah. I’m moving on. All right. Request the counselors. Cost of breakdown and tonnage for the Methuen Housing Authority. Trash collection services through the city. Municipal trash contract. That’s my request, Mr. Mayor.

[59:42] And I know that the Housing Authority executive director has been coming to our meetings. And I appreciate that. I think also, um, if we can move on, this conversation, potentially, she doesn’t have to wait, waste her every other Monday night in the room, I think what what I’m trying to get at here is how do

[1:00:02] we siphon off what that cost is I still continue to receive pictures. of the. The. Um, furniture outside of the dumpsters and other things. It’s gotten better. It’s gotten much better. But they’re still coming. So my question to you, Mr.

[1:00:24] Mayor, is it DPW or the Cafo that we reach out to Harvey because they’re picking that up to say, what does the what do these properties look like so that this body can I think it was Councilor Duda said, maybe a year out or whatever. So again, the executive director doesn’t have to continue. So if we can get an answer on that number, we can work backwards.

[1:00:39] Yes. So just on the basis of the question that we have regarding, uh, just the breakdown in terms of cost, but also the tonnage, uh, we have been in touch with Harvey, and I would expect probably this week, by Wednesday or Thursday, we’ll have a memo ready that outlines that information.

[1:00:57] And so I would expect to see that later this week. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. A request to the city solicitor and DPW to develop the dedicated um, this is for you, Mr. Solicitor. The dedicated website providing the clear path.

[1:01:19] Now, I think that with the Barnes, with the Home rule petition, this may be a moot point. I could be wrong. Maybe not, because somebody on an unexpected way may want to still get their street accepted. So we should still outline this process. That’s probably a good idea, simply because the Barnstable, uh, template, it doesn’t contemplate actual acceptance of the roadways.

[1:01:42] It would just provide for a mechanism for us to help the residents who live on those roadways. That, again, as I referenced, just for everybody else’s purpose, it would be, uh, a road that is unaccepted but has been open to the general public for travel for at least 20 consecutive years and connects also to other public accepted ways.

[1:02:00] Uh, and so that’s the criteria that the Barnstable folks established. So, uh, this is still going to be an issue in terms of roadway acceptance. And I would recommend that we continue with this project. Perfect. So I guess that question is for the solicitor. How are we doing on that project for that? So we do have that available.

[1:02:18] We can put that up on the website. We have those steps. The road folks. Yeah. For those that want to, you know, collect the signatures and, and present it to the council. I think. Um. You’re in councillor. Uh, yes. Thank you for chair through you to the city solicitor.

[1:02:37] Uh, the IT department informed me that once they received the information from legal, it takes ten, 24 to 48 hours to have it. We have it already. We can get that up there shortly. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right.

[1:02:54] Yeah, I was with, um, whether Echo Lane and the sewer connection will be included in the 2027 capital improvement plan that the request of Councillor Valley as well. Yes. So we had the Echo Lane project in a prior year CIP. So the funding is incorporated into the CIP.

[1:03:13] It’s been bonded and where we have it available, the issue that we need clarification of, and this is something that I would defer to legal so we can iron it out, is the question of the city is able to front that money. We have it available to front it. But the question is whether this is something that would require some type of a betterment. I know that that’s been a conversation that has been, uh, at play here.

[1:03:29] And so I would defer to legal on specifically, uh, how we would have the rubber meets the road in that context. But it is in the CIP. It is. Funded. So, uh, through you, Madam Chair, just to confirm it is on the CIP for 2027.

[1:03:49] There’s going to be a betterment and the city solicitor is going to advise on that. How much is going to be for resident. That that would be the guidance that I think that we would need. But nevertheless, the project was included in a prior CIP. So it’s available in terms of funding on that front, but specifically how we would want to facilitate that.

[1:04:10] That remains the legal question. Is there a quote for the project, like how much it’s going to cost? So we used, uh, Deputy Director Felix Garcia did some digging in terms of, uh, specifically what the project cost range would be, and that’s the number that we factored into the CIP. I believe it was in the ballpark of Mr..

[1:04:31] He’s here. Yeah. He’s here. I Felix. Sorry. Um, the exact number. I don’t want to quote it and get it wrong, but it is in the CIP. It’s in the ballpark of 450, I believe. But Felix in chime. In. I didn’t hear them. Um, Mr. Garcia. Just said. It’s 454 50 450,000. Yes. Thank you.

[1:04:59] So we could assume that any overage of that 450 there probably be a better, I’m guessing, to the homeowners that what we’re saying. So my understanding is that we’re able to front that. But it’s something that we would need to work out.

[1:05:18] I don’t know if it’s for the full project, but we can do some digging on our end with the solicitor and see what the best path forward. would be. This is something I know. It’s been sitting out there for a while. And one last question, Mr. Mayor. Do you think by next year this is the this project can at least get going, like start? I certainly hope so. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um.

[1:05:36] All right, all right. Building audit RFP. That’s Councilor Drew. Uh, so this one’s been on there for a long time. Um, we’re right now in the midst of the transition in the building maintenance superintendent position. We don’t, uh, currently have anyone officially in that role just yet, but we will.

[1:05:59] Um, it’s something that, uh, perhaps we can work with the new superintendent on it, but it’s just given everything else we’ve been dealing with. Uh, considering also the fact that the fiscal year 27 CIP, once we do bring that to you, is likely to include only one project.

[1:06:17] And that’s the Timoney roof, which is in desperate need of repair. Yesterday. Uh, that’s something that we, uh, given the fact that we’re carrying over projects from last year, which helped us with debt service payments this year, we only have room for one big project. I mean, we passed. This thing in February. It’s really. Just to. Ask the pricing.

[1:06:42] To figure out a roadmap on what we should be focusing on, because right now, it feels like we’re just throwing money at whoever’s screaming loudest, right? If this is the problem, this is the problem. Yes. I’m not saying the school doesn’t need a roof. It absolutely does.

[1:06:58] But there are other things in the city that need help, too. But, you know, I’m going to use Milk Street, for instance. You know, we’re paving Milk Street. I mean, I think it was a month ago. We just approved a survey. So we surveying Milk Street. Now we’re paving it. That’s for the intersection. Councilor.

[1:07:18] Just for that intersection? Yes. So we’re going to end up going back and having to rework all of that. I’m just. To install. Road map when it comes to having to fix the IP problems. That is my biggest concern here. It’s the only reason it’s sitting on this thing over and over and over and over. For the last seven months.

[1:07:39] It’s just. How can we be a well-informed body to ensure when you go to spend money on a project, that it’s the appropriate project for the city moving forward? We trust that you’re the mayor, you’re the executive decision. You have the ability to do that.

[1:07:56] But how can we make an informed decision not having any sort of, you know, audit in front of us to look and say, okay, yeah, well, he’s going to the roof because that’s top of the list. That’s the biggest problem.

[1:08:09] You know, if then the next time you go way down the bottom is like, yeah, we really needed to change the doors that I don’t know. City Hall. Right. Well that’s not really a major issue. But there’s the fire department has a boiler issue, whatever it may be, but I don’t see the roadmap. I don’t know how we can continue to make informed decisions on capital improvement plans. We trust that you’re making the right decision.

[1:08:29] We want to believe that. I’m just this is just a simple to see what it would cost to have somebody come in and do it so we can not be throwing good money at bad. I’m going to cafe has a comment.

[1:08:48] Uh, one we won one step that we did take towards this is that we did look and find another community or two. Actually that did something similar. Um, they had just opened their bids when we had founded. So we were waiting for the bid results to come out.

[1:09:06] So I’ll follow up on that just to get an idea of a comparable, you know, what they are paying just to get a ballpark. So at least we can move forward with that. We also got their IFB so that we have language as far as what that. So if it’s $2 million to do this, yeah, we’re probably not going to agree to do it because we don’t have that funding.

[1:09:18] But if it’s 50,000 or $100,000 to make sure that everything we’re doing over the next 5 to 10 years is, well informed, it seems like that would be good money spent. Yep. So I’m going to follow up with them and see if we can get an idea of what what ballpark we’re talking about.

[1:09:34] The other thing to keep in mind is that at the Timoney, they’ve been having to relocate entire classrooms. This has happened at least on two occasions in the past couple of months. Uh, due to water intrusion into these classrooms.

[1:09:55] Uh, it’s something that, uh, the longtime director of facilities, Bruce Stella, who actually produced, I think, the district’s first capital improvement analysis back in 2017. Uh, he’s indicated that this is the highest priority project for the district based on his experience. And I am not debating that fact at all. I know the schools have issues. I right well informed on that. I’m just saying, you said that he created an improvement plan in 2017.

[1:10:18] We are coming up on a decade later. And so as I was about to share, uh, I think it’s been something that the public has certainly noticed.

[1:10:34] It maybe not always internally, but certainly it’s something that I’ve heard from, from residents, uh, where they’re seeing that there are so many projects that we are just so behind on. And we have been going gangbusters trying to catch up and do everything that we can in order to just meet our basic needs and stay afloat from a facility standpoint. And so that’s what the goal has been.

[1:10:55] I think that, you know, perhaps as we catch our breath a little bit, we can, you know, do some of the long term planning that we need to be doing. But frankly, since I took office, it’s it’s been like we’ve been drinking from a fire hose in the context of just trying to catch up and keep things moving.

[1:11:11] And so we’re going to continue doing that. Uh, the Timoney roof is such a major priority. Uh, we were encouraged by the state to apply for grant funding for that. Uh, and then we ended up getting rejected for it in favor of communities that had apparently other, more pressing needs.

[1:11:29] Uh, and so, uh, considering that context, you know, we’re making do with what we have in terms of resources and just doing the best we can. And looking at I just look at it as a tool for the grant writing service that we contracted, that we’ll be able to maybe look at that list and say, all right, well, we can’t

[1:11:46] help you with this, but you know what? We can get you grants for these three down here to help prioritize things and help knock things off the list. So you’re not drinking from a fire hose. That’s all this is for. And I don’t know why. Seven months. It’s just it’s frustrating.

[1:12:00] Well, the other thing keep in mind as well, just the last thing I’ll share about it. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but, uh, anything that we do, we have to either budget for. it or it’s going to have to come out of free cash.

[1:12:16] And, uh, in the budget this year, you know, hopefully it’s something it’d be great if it’s in the ballpark of that $50,000 range, because this isn’t something that had been budgeted for.

[1:12:35] If that’s the case, let’s say it’s higher then, uh, you know, it’s something that we might have to have a conversation about other funds, but, you know, part of the issue is that we are running a really tight ship and just wanted to share that from a cost standpoint, because it’s not that we can just say, oh, it comes back at 7000, five, $100,000. We can just pull that from somewhere. We have an austerity budget this year.

[1:12:53] And so I just want to share that, just to set expectations. Uh. Well versed in the in the budget and how tight everything is. And I would not expect to spend any more free cash. We’ve already spent $12.5 million this year, and we’re already pretty tight as it is.

[1:13:11] Like I said, if it was $2 million at that RFP comes back yet, we’re not going to do it. But it’s a conversation. If it’s $100,000 to see what it actually costs. So I think we can move on from this. Okay. Next one is that email signature. Uh, it’s yours Council drew as well. And then you have C permit fees, which I think were discussed earlier.

[1:13:28] Two comments on that, Mr. Mayor. Uh, so I actually quite like the email signature that Councillor Drew proposed, and I have adopted it along with, uh, my chief of staff.

[1:13:47] Um, the one thing that I did hear from, uh, Louis and it our chief information officer, is that one of the challenges with that graphic is how it is actually being translated when it is sent via certain devices. So we can certainly, uh, you know, work on something. But I’m just going to be honest, this has not even been probably in the top 100 of my, uh, priority list.

[1:14:09] But it is something that I know is important to the council. And, uh, you know, we can we can just try to get it done and get something easy. Low hanging fruit checked off the list. I don’t think it likes you, counselor, because that’s an email. I mean, I said, that’s just created by a plumber.

[1:14:24] I mean, it that’s what he does for a living. I’m assuming he can figure out how to fix the graphic. That’s what we pay him to do. So I don’t see how this is a this is to me an IT thing that they can fix in a very short order.

[1:14:39] I don’t know why this continues to be a thing, but we can just move on because there’s no point. Let me know if you want to take it off the agenda. Councillor H.H., I permit fees. That’s yours as well. So the Board of Health, uh, they had already voted on updated permit fees a while back.

[1:14:58] Uh, they’re currently conducting a review on building permit fees right now, and that is expected to come before the council once they are ready. With that. Okay. So how long do you anticipate. That? Just because in just. In the next couple of. Weeks. A month, two meetings, three. Meetings. All right. We’ll aim for October. How about.

[1:15:28] That? Uh, next, uh, there’s an update on, uh, the barrel fees. Uh, this is actually something that we had a meeting about earlier today. Um, is anyone sending emails out? And if there is no response or we following up with a phone call. Um, that’s the question. I believe, from Councilor DiZoglio.

[1:15:49] So the way that our system works is we have open gov, which is a permitting software. It is not a software program that is otherwise used for anything like this.

[1:16:16] Uh, but nevertheless, that was the system that was established at the very outset on the anniversary of somebody’s renewal 90 days before the system triggers an email reminder about their upcoming payment that is due, uh, we do not have people sitting here in this building making phone calls. Uh, one of the things that was recently passed was a resolution that would allow the city to place these charges on municipal tax bill.

[1:16:40] Uh, so, uh, what we’re doing at this point is making sure that the way that we have at least things for the current year, it’s synchronized with the recently passed ordinance by the council, namely, considering the fact that there’s going to be a July 1st reset for all the barrel fees that’s going to automatically trigger on July 1st for renewal fee, uh, payments coming through.

[1:17:01] So, uh, this is an area where, again, we have a system that was screwed up right out of the gate when the horse left the barn. And so this is one of the areas that we’re trying to correct.

[1:17:25] I will say, uh, that, uh, considering that we are moving expeditiously towards a new contract, very potentially, and I won’t say anything definitively here tonight, but potentially a new vendor opportunity for, uh, this to be part of the broader trash reset. So I don’t really have an update on people reaching out to residents with phone calls looking for money.

[1:17:44] We don’t really do that, but we are trying to establish a system that can help us clean this. Up. Through you, Madam Chair, to the mayor. So to begin with, this conversation, when this council pulled out 800 something thousand dollars, $850,000 and I said, no, and then we put a resolution together, me calling up several

[1:18:13] councillors here because they can all witness to this, to put these safeguards in. So then I can rescind my vote. And one of the things we promised was to get these balances.

[1:18:36] Now, it’s not now I’m at the point that it’s not even about it’s it’s the sole principle of the fact is that we have two councillors here that paid their barrel fees. And now you’re saying that we’re going to reset July 1st. Will I expect that the. Based on your ordinance, councillor? Yes. But at the end of the day, Mr.

[1:18:53] Mayor, then these two should get their money back along with everybody else that has paid for it. The. You have a list? I don’t see the problem with someone. While Karina is going around checking the list. Okay, they have an extra barrel and then checking with that person.

[1:19:17] Have you paid your barrel fee? I don’t see how hot it is for that person as she’s going around the city checking that list, saying this person, okay, they paid their barrel fee, okay? They didn’t. Hey, did you get the email? Because I have a woman here that I have a text message. Bernice, that her simple email. It was one letter off. She was never getting her email. Unfortunately, that email was active.

[1:19:39] So someone in the universe was getting a barrel fee renewal. For $100. That’s how simple I found that out. She called me and said, Mr. Tesla, I haven’t gotten my battlefield renewal. So then I had Louis fix it. Well, we fixed it and she said, put it in the comment.

[1:20:01] Louis told us to tell this lady to go on to sign on to a barrel and write in a comment saying, hey, this is for my renewal. Ends up the next day, Harvey bringing her a brand new barrel. She was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, I ain’t asked for a new barrel. I just wanted to pay my barrel fee.

[1:20:16] She then told Harvey to take it back, but now she’s worried about that. She’s going to cost down two barrels. She’s called DPW. She’s trying to reach out to Karina. She’s trying to reach out to people. And she wrote me today, just the other day, saying that nobody’s gotten back to her.

[1:20:34] So the process, it’s not even that. And then on when this budget cycle, we took 200 more thousand dollars out and I said, they don’t have a process. That’s the frustrating part of it all is that we take money out of free cash to pay a bill where we have these revenue streams that even if the ordinance is not working,

[1:20:57] it’s not fair for, again, for the people that are doing the right thing to have to pay for it, and other people are not. Mr. Mayor, and I’m not trying to criticize you, but I’m not just as a council, but as a constituent. That’s not fair for people to have to do that.

[1:21:17] And so that’s the question I’m asking. Are these two individuals and along with other individuals getting their money back for doing the right thing? Just looking for a refund. No. So, so so it doesn’t escalate? I don’t I’m not sure that the mayor has an answer to that. I think he’s expressing he’s trying to solve the issue.

[1:21:47] I’m not I’m not I’m not going to respond to that. I’m just going to let the councillor blow off steam. That’s fine. So I feel the frustration on the floor with the garbage and the fees and but I think it’s time that maybe we meet in office with DPW.

[1:22:08] Call your meeting with the mayor, give some insight in there and see if you could both figure how to work that out, because I really would like I’m always going to vote yes on the extra fees because that’s, you know, I’m consistent.

[1:22:24] But at the end of the day, I do agree that I’d be pissed off if I’m paying my fees and others get to waive it or, you know, not have to pay for whatever I, I agree. So I think a meeting of the minds maybe in your office would work.

[1:22:37] Now we do have another item that I think you and I both got the call the same week about that item. And that’s why I added my name to your request, because you actually made the request. And it was about the billing. I called, uh, Louis, I didn’t follow up with you, counselor, but I did call Louis, and he said the billing.

[1:22:55] Uh, software that we’re using could potentially be tweaked with him just calling. And the concerns I’m getting from constituents, and you obviously jump on right after my comment is that they get their bill, and there’s the usage amount, but then there’s no history amount of that dollar amount.

[1:23:15] So what they think is maybe and again, we do have a lot of seniors. They maybe they think that they paid the bill, but they didn’t pay the bill. And so now they’re saying I already paid this bill. And my and I’m getting added charges.

[1:23:31] But I had paid my bill. But it’s because at that top it doesn’t say no. You have a like your electric bill says you have a forwarded balance if you ever get one. We don’t have that in water and taxes. We don’t have it.

[1:23:45] You get the tax bill for that order and that’s it. You get the water bill for that quarter and that’s it. So I believe from talking to Louis, there is a mechanism, but it has to come from the administration where that can be updated because other municipalities do have it. And we use the same system.

[1:23:59] Yeah, that makes sense. And Louis is someone who we’ve had involved in these conversations that we can certainly circle back with them about that. But, you know, I think the expectation and I understand the frustration I’m hearing, the frustration I feel, the frustration and I sympathize.

[1:24:21] But I think the expectation is that we will have fixed every problem and have a perfect system yesterday. And that is something that I. I’m not a magician doing the best that we can to try to fix a very broken system. Thank you.

[1:24:40] Did you have a further comment on the bill? Councilor DiZoglio, did you? Is your concern the same as mine about the bill? Yes. And if I’m correct, it was like a tax tax bill. And then she called and then paid everything up front. That’s correct. So that was I got that call too. But the other one was the water. Yes. Okay. So so so it’s working on that.

[1:24:59] Well we’ll take it off. It’s get to get resolved for the next quarter. Um, next one is Councilor DiZoglio as well as well. What’s the issue with accepting checks. Yes.

[1:25:17] So so I just was asking a question of this because someone told me that they went into a one department, would accept checks. And then there was another partment that said they wouldn’t accept the check. I just don’t, I said I would ask the question on the floor.. So there’s certain departments that may not, um, accept checks for different reasons.

[1:25:38] So for example, our police department doesn’t collect checks for licensing, licensing to carry licensing to door to door. Uh, the reason behind that is because for that department, those specific licenses, what was happening is they would come in, give us their check, they would get their license. They can go off and carry now or door to door, and then they bounced the check and it was tapping constantly.

[1:26:00] So they reached out to other communities. And as far as those public safety licenses go, um, it’s best practice to not do that so that we don’t have people that are bouncing checks and now have a license to carry inappropriately. Um, so you might see and that that’s an example.

[1:26:16] So there are certain departments that have reasons for that. Other departments don’t have that type of criteria because it doesn’t um, it doesn’t have that level of seriousness, if that makes sense. That’s probably not the right word, but that’s kind of the difference between them. Um, we have talked about going to no checks.

[1:26:36] Uh, we have a no cash system at this point. Um, which is an updated. You know, we used to be able to take cash and that’s that’s not best practice for sure. Um, but we try to allow people to pay is as they can when it’s appropriate, but there are certain ones that aren’t.. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

[1:26:58] Okay. If that’s it, we’ll move on. I can also, before I go on to contracts, if any, because we’ve been meeting to meeting to meeting. Is it somebody want a motion for a five minute recess and we come back or you want to go right through. or not? Right through. Okay.

[1:27:16] Public service grants PS grant number 31193015 Pleasant Street National grid to install I I’m sorry, one jail pole on Pleasant Street, beginning at a point approximately 40ft north of the center line of the intersection of Pleasant Street and Independence Drive. May I get a motion to approve? So moved.

[1:27:40] Second motion by Councillor Drew, seconded by Councillor Marsan. Questions, comments. Remarks. Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk eight. Yes. One absent. PS grants number 31194501 Jackson Street. National Grid to install one J. Pole on Jackson Street and Pleasant Street, and continuing approximately 360ft in south direction. Motion to. Approve so move. Motion by Councillor Drew, seconded by Councillor Valley.

[1:28:11] Comments. Questions. Concerns. Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk eight one. Absent. Licenses. There are none going into contract. C 2729. Amendment of employment contract by and between the city of Methuen and Scott J. McNamara. I need a motion to remove from the table.. So move. Motion by Councillor Santos.

[1:28:40] Second second by Councillor Morrison and discussion. To remove from the table. No, no. that’s privilege motion. I’m sorry. Um, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Eight. Yes. One absent. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. On the main motion, removed from the table. A motion by Councillor Drew. Second. Seconded by Councillor Santos. I’m in discussion. Thank you.

[1:29:15] Mr. Solicitor, for reminding. Me. I’m in discussion. Guys. Councillor drew. Are we going to read into the record the email that was sent to us? Um, we did receive an email. Yes. From, um, actual previous employee. Not sure. Um, well, it’s a public record.

[1:29:38] Why not? I’m going to pass it on to the to the vice to read or actually give it to Councillor Drew to read, because I am going to step away and the vice for tonight will take over and I’ll be right back. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Discussion.

[1:29:59] Okay. Uh, so there was an email sent today, uh, from Scott McNamara. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. President Soto, I understand that the members of the Methuen City Council will likely discuss the vote tonight. A previously tabled agenda item titled. See 2729 amendment of Employment contract by and between the city of Methuen and Scott J.

[1:30:21] McNamara. Although I was unable to attend last meeting, I later. reviewed the recorded playback of the public session. I am grateful for the kind remarks that were offered about me and my years of service with the city.

[1:30:37] I also recognize that several councilors raised legitimate questions, or so simply did not yet have a complete picture of the events that led to the Council to the unusual position of considering whether it was an appropriate to amend a personal service contract after retirement. My only wish is that the council be able to make a fully informed decision.

[1:30:55] For that reason, I thought it appropriate to forward this email I sent to Mayor Beauregard in the Cafo in the immediate aftermath of my retirement. See below. I believe that the correspondence fairly frames what occurred, why it occurred, and what reasonable resolution would look like. I do not believe I can usefully add anything further. That is not already contained in that email.

[1:31:17] I respectfully ask that this communication be shared with your colleagues on the council, and if you deem it appropriate, that be read into public, record. Respectfully Scott J. McNamara, former Chief of Police Methuen, Massachusetts. Uh, here we. Go. From Scott McNamara. On August 25th, 2026 to Mayor Beauregard. Uh, Cafo Dupree and James McCarty.

[1:31:42] Subject to request of clarification of resolution regarding vacation buyout. Dear Mayor Beauregard and Miss Dupree, I write regarding the calculation of my vacation buyout following my retirement as Chief of Police for the city of Methuen on August 24th, 2026.

[1:32:03] My goal throughout this process has been to do the right thing for the city and by the department during a period of transition in June 2026, well before contractual 60 day notice required, I informed the mayor that my intention to retire on August 24th, 2026. At that time, I already had ten weeks accrued vacation, and under that contract I was scheduled to receive an additional four weeks of vacation on July 1st, 2026, plus one week of personal time.

[1:32:25] I shared my concern that taking those additional five weeks of leave would leave the department without a chief for a substantial portion of my remaining service, I made clear that I would honor whatever preference the mayor expressed. If he preferred that I used the additional leave.

[1:32:41] So the buyout stayed at the contractual ten week maximum. I would have done so without any quarrel. If he preferred that I remain at work to support the stable transition, I was willing to do that as well, provided that the city would recognize the additional earned leave.

[1:32:58] The mayor indicated a preference that I would rather the mayor indicated a preference that I work rather than take leave, but was noncommittal on the question of payment for extra accrued time, and said he needed to check with the Cafo.

[1:33:16] In the weeks that followed, I made repeated efforts to obtain clear guidance from the mayor, the chief of staff and the Cafo. Beginning July 14th, 2026, and continuing thereafter. My payroll clerk at my direction sent multiple emails with the projected buyout figures in the sincere hope of reaching a meeting of the minds and obtaining definitive direction from someone authorized to decide the matter.

[1:33:38] On the afternoon of August 24th, approximately 30 minutes before the end of my final shift, Miss Dupree responded with responded that while the mayor confirmed he did not want me using my vacation time leading up to retirement, he had not approved any buyout before the contractual ten week maximum of 400 hours.

[1:33:57] When calculated correctly, the full amount of vacation leaves should be accredited at 541 hours. At my hourly rate of 130 197, totaling $71,395.77. This includes the 26.5 hours of prorated vacation earned, while July 1st and August 24th, 2026 and the 400, hour regular under understates the earned leave by 141 hours to a total of $18,607.77.

[1:34:33] Under Massachusetts law, accrued vacation constitutes wages once earned under an agreement, it generally may not be forfeited. See Electronic Data System Corp. v Attorney General for 54. MassDOT 63, 2009. Attorney General Advisory 991. General Law section 41, subsection 111 E.

[1:34:59] The Supreme Judicial Court has also held the failure to a timely accrued vacation triggers strict liability for treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs under General general law, section 149, subsection 150 c Reuters v City of Methuen 489. MassDOT 465 2022. I raised these points not to create conflict, but to simply ensure the city has a complete picture of the legal framework that applies.

[1:35:23] I truly hope this matter can be resolved through this email rather than through the OP. Other options that would put me in an adversarial position with the city that I have grown to love with those who lead it, and with those who lead it.

[1:35:40] My intention from the beginning was to support the department and the city during the transition, and I remain committed to resolving this manner. That is fair and consistent with both our discussions and the law. I respectfully request the city pay the full corrected amount of 541 hours, $71,395.77, or the unpaid balance of the 141 hours, 18,607 77.

[1:36:09] If the 400, our portion has already been processed, I’m available at any time to discuss this further and provide whatever documentation may be helpful. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a constructive resolution. Respectfully Scott J. McNamara, former Chief of Police, City of Methuen. Okay. Comments. Questions. Concerns. I have comments. Questions, concerns. If nobody does.

[1:36:35] Okay, so thank you for reading that. Um, last time we discussed this, Mr. Murray, you weren’t here. You were obviously conflicted on that meeting. Uh, I don’t I don’t quite understand why it came back to us as amending a previous contract. Even I understand the gist of why. Okay, so it’s under your threshold.

[1:37:03] And I and I, I can see where maybe you want to be transparent. You want to pay it out under what it was and what it is. But, you know, we were delayed or late on it. But understanding that, um, and that’s an assumption of mine perception of mine, not that it’s accurate.

[1:37:23] I’m just saying the fact that it’s coming after he’s even gone to this body and I’m not on, I’m not speaking from my fellow councilors may look to us like it may be a liability if we vote on something that’s an old contract that doesn’t even exist right now. So my concern is understanding is under your threshold.

[1:37:42] Why not? If there was a meeting. of conversation agreement of some sort, legally figure out how that can be arranged and done. Whether it’s MOU, another contract, how that works out. But understanding the law with strict liability in in uh, what this becomes now after.

[1:38:06] Because the way I understand it is July 1st hits and employees in this building at the four weeks vacation and one week of personal time. That’s some good time off. I’m telling you. So what I’m trying to say with that is. So now it’s earned, right? Because July 1st, it’s earned. That’s, um. And my I have my notes here that’s considered in. The.

[1:38:27] The solicitor can correct me under the Wage Act, not a non wave right now. Does our. And these are the questions I have does does that old contract that we shouldn’t really be amending after it’s no longer valid. Supersede that. If you were to argue that.

[1:38:47] But understanding strict liability under the Wage Act means let’s say we don’t pay. You don’t pay him. Right. You’re looking at triple damages off the bat, plus attorney fees on both sides. So we’re looking at a potential 150,000 from $18,000.

[1:39:08] So and I don’t want to speak for the body personally, I don’t feel comfortable voting on that old contract. And I did have a conversation with you that I thought maybe you should bring it forth something else. Figure out how it can be done. Not sure how it can. Um, and it’s under your threshold. We don’t have to vote on it. So those are my comments.

[1:39:25] And I’m going to pass it off to the solicitor and the voters hear some more information. But contrary to some of the things that I’ve heard, uh, this is not Watergate. Um, I do want to mention that, uh, in response to what you said, Madam Chair, you actually did sum up my thinking pretty well.

[1:39:44] Uh, so when the chief shared that he would be retiring, the option would be, of course, given the quirky timing of it, late August, a couple weeks after the new fiscal year starts, uh, the pitch that he made was that he could either stay until the very end and we would be able to limit the any chaos in the

[1:40:05] transition, if you will. Or he could burn his time, and I could name an acting chief before his retirement date. Uh, but considering what happened and this was a, I think, a cautionary tale in my mind a couple of years back in a neighboring city, uh, they had a chief transition.

[1:40:24] And at one point and one year, they were paying three people to be chief. Right. And so, considering the fact that, uh, you know, we had this dilemma, given the timing of the retirement, I decided quite simply that I would rather have him stay until the very end.

[1:40:47] And at that point, we would sort out exactly the details about how to get this done. The solicitor had that it would be an amendment to the contract, and that’s why we proceeded with this. But the long and short of. it was, he agreed to stay until the end. And we had an orderly transition from Chief MacNamara to Acting Chief Moore.

[1:41:05] And, uh, you know, this is something that I probably could have sorted out internally, not brought before the council. I’m sure in another universe, other mayors have done similar things, but I have committed probably an unusual, uh, commitment to transparency. There was a time when there was a contract that was $24,999.

[1:41:30] I probably should not have brought that before the council because it wasn’t at the threshold. But given that it was so close rather than any perception issues, people saying, oh boy, if it’s a dollar under the threshold, I decided to bring it anyway, just because I think perception matters in government, especially given the level of trust in government in our country nowadays.

[1:41:48] And so, a similar principle applied here for the sake of in open disclosure of that situation at the end there. And the fact that this is the preferred legal mechanism, uh, this is why we’re doing this. The timing is an ideal.

[1:42:10] It’s a little odd, sure, that it’s after he had already stepped aside and retired, but nevertheless, I wanted to have this, uh, done in an open way, and it resolves, I think, a relatively simple issue where we didn’t have any chaos in that transition. He was here until the end, and we have this money budgeted for the purposes of ensuring that he’s compensated for time earned.

[1:42:31] And so, uh, I’ll leave it there. I don’t really have anything else to say about it. It’s been talked about a lot. Uh, there’s been some insinuations made that this may not be aboveboard. That’s not true.

[1:42:47] Um, and it’s something that, uh, it’s just a little quirky from a legislative standpoint. And out of the Capitol. And the solicitor. Chiming. So I’ll just say I insisted that this come before the council. It absolutely has to be approved by the council. The Cap and I had a discussion about it and the contract that was written is essentially an employee contract.

[1:43:08] It specifically confines payment to ten weeks upon separation. I won’t comment on the legal merits of an argument either way, and you correctly identify the potential pitfalls and treble damages if that language was found not to be sufficient to support that cap.

[1:43:31] I will note that the language is written by my predecessor, and I would have written it differently, but it does is something that has to come before the council, and the reason being, number one, it’s an employee contract requires two votes. Um, the mayor is not empowered under the the, the law or the charter to unilaterally increase benefits for an employee under contract. And there’s no appropriation to support this expenditure.

[1:43:55] I think the council would tell you that while there is a vacation account, she budgets it based on what people have. And I don’t think she probably budgeted for the extra amount that was requested, which means that this body has to approve that essentially by approving a change to the contract, there’s

[1:44:11] no problem changing this contract. I know it may seem odd, but it’s still a valid contract that can be amended. Could it be done by a separate writing? Sure.

[1:44:29] Might it have been better to do this before the man left? Probably would have been a good idea, just because of the nature of of the order of things. And I think it was a little bit of a surprise that it didn’t come before you before, but there’s nothing inappropriate about it. And as I said the last time, um, the chief isn’t receiving anything he didn’t earn. He did earn these extra four weeks.

[1:44:45] There was just an artificial contract cap on what he could be paid upon separation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, through you to the mayor. Mr. mayor, I appreciate your transparency of bringing this in front of this body, but since it is under 25,000, I believe this can be handled internally. But thank you for bringing this in front of us.

[1:45:10] Any other comments, questions, concerns? The other part of this is, and I could be, um, we’re setting the president’s of amending old contracts that are no longer, um, current active right now. So what does that mean in the future? Joe Schmo leaves.

[1:45:37] Well, he he was told that he could receive x, y, z. Oh, we got to bring it to the council. Oh, he’s left 30 days ago. And so to me, that’s a huge that’s a huge problem. Um, I also feel that there and it’s falling again the same category where we already had issues, which is the police department. There was already issues there with contracts in the.

[1:46:03] Past. Um, so I’m not sure why the, the, the solicitor’s office has not been able to figure out, along with the mayor, how they can make them the the chief whole without having to amend a contract that is no longer in place. Well, I mean, there’s no way around it.

[1:46:31] The contract caps at ten weeks. So, I mean, I suppose we could do it by appropriation, but you would essentially be approving the same thing. I mean, I would defer to the Cafo, but I think she said last time that if we were to pay this, she would need additional money for vacation time at the end of the

[1:46:47] year. It wasn’t factored into the budget. So essentially there has to be an appropriation for this. This payout, this additional payout. But the contract language is very clear. It says upon separation, ten weeks pay. Out which. Which is whether setting aside whether that’s legal, illegal this case law on both sides of that.

[1:47:07] 100% diminishing the promise that was made. Uh, you know. That’s the issue we have here. Uh, council, that when we make a promise, whether it was verbal, non verbal, you know, a signal in the air.

[1:47:28] And, you know, here we have the chief claiming I asked question over, question over question and didn’t get an answer until the day I left. That’s a problem. I mean and then it comes back in front of us and guess who gets plastered and subpoenaed and blah blah blah. It’s this body right here. I don’t want to spend 50 grand to defend myself.

[1:47:44] So what I’m saying is I will be voting no on this if I’m being forced to vote on something I don’t believe is correct, I feel that there should be a separate mechanism for the chief to be made. whole under the Wage Act.

[1:48:07] What does that mean, in my opinion? From reading hours of the Wage Act today, we cannot we cannot waive the right for that vacation. So how do we make him hold for it? He didn’t get to use it. Was he was it implied that he was going to get paid for it. And that’s why he worked all those days under the Wage. Act.

[1:48:25] I from what I read today, he’s going to have to get paid regardless. Here’s my. Point. Whether we vote on this contract or. Not. Well, this there still needs to be an appropriation of that amount to pay unless the Cafo. I don’t think she I’ll defer to her as to whether it’s included, but usually it’s budgeted for what exists.

[1:48:44] And that was not part of what was contemplated at the time. So you could do it by a budget appropriation of the additional amount, and then she would be authorized to pay that out. Councillor Drew. Mr. solicitor. Is there precedent. Showing that we can amend a contract like this, or are we creating the precedent.

[1:49:05] For it? We can admit there’s no issue with amending this crime, this contract. You can amend this contract. So we’re not setting a precedent. This is there’s already precedent in the legal world that this can happen. No problems.

[1:49:23] Just trying to avoid the floodgates of previous employees or future employees doing this and looking, oh, I had ten weeks and now I want 15. Well, these this is why this contract is before you if that if that any anytime there’s an employee contract, it has to come before you for for any change whether it’s, well the person is present or not present, there’s no legal

[1:49:39] requirement that it come before you. This contract is actually technically in effect until 2027. He was staying until, I think, October 27th. So he chose to leave early. But.

[1:49:59] Um, you know, this is part of the check and balance system that has been set up in the city that the previous council, um, you know, changed some of these rules regarding collective bargaining agreements for reasons we all understand. Um, that they have to have two votes instead of one vote. So there’s no question in my mind this has to come back before the council.

[1:50:19] Um, and in fact, I by proving that amendment to the contract, you would be essentially authorizing that appropriation and that expenditure, assuming that there’s sufficient money in whatever account that vacation time comes out of. So are you saying that your belief is that this contract is still in force? Correct. So it is still an active living contract that we can amend.

[1:50:38] There is no after the fact to this. The contract has not technically severed, even though the employee no longer. Is here. It’s not. Severed. So there’s no. Precedent. Well, there’s never any precedent.

[1:51:02] I mean, other than somebody seeing that they did this and then wanting to do it later, I would suggest procedurally, you know, in the future, I’m hearing from members of the council that it would be good before the mayor make such a promise if he brings the amendment before the council, while the person is present.

[1:51:22] So I think that’s probably reasonable, right? If you saw this three weeks before he left, then you would have the opportunity to discuss it and and vote on it. And like I said, for various reasons that didn’t occur. I don’t think it was intentional. It just happened to do with when he left and how quickly he left.

[1:51:40] So we also keep in mind, had three meetings this summer, just given the fact that we have a limited schedule during the summer. And so we have all these events happening and again, I guess this is a common theme tonight. I’m not trying to do anything here. That’s underhanded. There’s no attempt at that.

[1:52:00] I’m just trying to establish an orderly transition for the department. And this is the mechanism that we have to do that by end. If the council wishes to vote no, it’s your prerogative. But I’m just trying. to say the facts. Thank you. Does require five. Votes. Councilor DiZoglio. To you, Madam chair, to the solicitor. So you.

[1:52:22] And again, correct me if I’m wrong. You just said technically it’s an active contract, correct? Yes. So technically, the chief could come back at any point, because if it’s an active contract. It doesn’t work like that. I mean, the contract doesn’t cease to exist because he’s left the job.

[1:52:43] The terms of the contract are still in force, in effect on both parties. So, I mean, if he were to bring I mean, I’m not going to get into legal action, but I mean, the contract, obviously the terms of the contract would be construed in a court of law, and either it would hold up under the Wage Act or it would

[1:52:59] not. But there are, you know, it’s really not the issue. The issue is. You know, do you want to pay him for the the four weeks he accrued or not? And the cap right now says ten.

[1:53:19] So, you know, understandably, the Cafo came to me and said, I have a contract before me that says I can only pay the police chief ten weeks. So, you know, I would say she did the right thing.

[1:53:35] And I said, you’re right, if you want, if he wants, if he’s promised extra time, then it has to go through the normal process that we do with everybody else, which is we bring it to the council, And the council says we’re either going to amend it or we’re not. So. And I mean, and that doesn’t mean he may not have other claims or whatever, but we have to abide by our own rules to to make it valid.

[1:53:52] Right? I mean, and there are many reasons why why that’s important. And I agree. And I’ll go back to you, councilor DiZoglio, I agree with your comment that the Cafo did the right thing, but too late. Why? And I’m not saying you didn’t do this in June, July, August. I’m saying it’s in front of us.

[1:54:09] It was in front of us last meeting. And now this meeting again. Right. So we knew he was leaving. Way before now. So the intent for a contract to be that valid, both parties have to be in agreement.

[1:54:30] Who’s in agreement with us right now under this contract, other than the fact that he wants the four weeks, there has to be two parties in an agreement for a contract to be valid. So I don’t think Mr. Solicitor, and with all due respect, I don’t think that’s valid. But again, it’s up to the will of this body.

[1:54:49] I am uh I already stated how I feel and what my vote will be if there’s further discussion, we may move forward. Um, did you have something to say? Yeah. I’m just. I’m just trying to go through what you were saying. Mr. solicitor. Like, to my knowledge, the second that he said, I’m retiring, he’s giving up that last year of his contract, meaning the contract is now gone. Like that’s just.

[1:55:10] And again, I’m not a lawyer. I can tell. You at it from my perspective. And if I’m wrong, that’s one thing. But again, like I just think because if the chief deserves it and earned it. He should. But at the same time that he he left at this point in the contract says ten weeks.

[1:55:34] So I’m very conflicted about this because I’m not saying he doesn’t hurt. It hasn’t earned it. But at the same time, this is where I get in a situation where we should, like Madam Chair said, we knew that he was leaving and if that was the case, we should have gotten an email or something saying, hey,

[1:55:55] we’re going to amend it, we’re going to bring it forth. This is the reason why. Because again, I feel like we are going to start setting a precedent for people. Councilor Drew, thank you. I think. the the whole thing of this is it’s frustrating that this was a conversation that was. Had. Well in advance, and it comes.

[1:56:20] Before this body. After the. Fact. I don’t think anybody wants to, for lack of. a better. Term, screw. Chief MacNamara out of anything that that we know he. Earned. Um, I just think the hardest part of this is that it’s a the the conversation was had in. June.

[1:56:42] Hey. I’m retiring. Do you want me to stay? I’ll stay to do a nice, easy transition. Make sure the city is in proper order. He did the right thing by the city. As as torn as I am on this contract. Because every part of me in business says you have a contract for ten weeks.

[1:56:59] I also know you’re supposed to make people whole and do the right thing, because he did the right thing by the city of Methuen. for five years. So solicitor says this is a contract that’s still in force.

[1:57:15] We can make this amendment, I believe chief McNamara did the right thing by the city to ensure a smooth transition. I don’t think this city wants any sort of other bad publicity by any means, but I also think we should do the right thing by our employees and by the people. So. I’m done with my peace. I know where I will vote in favor of taking care of.

[1:57:34] Councillor Martin. Thank you. I just have a bad feeling about amending the contract. We have to pay the chief. We don’t want to get into a lawsuit. It’s just something in your gut just doesn’t feel right that we’re amending a contract that’s no longer a contract. In my mind.

[1:57:55] Because he’s gone. And I understand what you say, Mr. Solicitor, but we got to make the chief hold. You know, that was an agreement that was made. I just wish it didn’t come this way, that’s all. That with the contract. Well, may I make a suggestion? You. You don’t have to amend the contract.

[1:58:14] You could do it by a different mechanism. You could certainly say, notwithstanding, you could change the motion to something like, notwithstanding the terms of the contract, the Council authorizes the Cafo to pay the chief for an additional four weeks vacation that he had accrued at the time of his separation. You could just simply do something like that.

[1:58:36] All that is required is that the mechanism of appropriation be vindicated, and so that the Cafo and um has permission to use that money for that purpose, because the contract says something different. So I’m just saying you can amend it. That’s what’s on the table. But you could do something different by amendment.

[1:59:00] And that doesn’t amend the contract. If that’s a concern of folks here, we just need permission. Um, you know, notwithstanding the language that’s in the contract, because that’s what’s there. So and it is the council’s, you know, duty to, to be that gatekeeper. And I think it’s an important one.

[1:59:21] So especially given the history of what has gone on here that everybody is aware of. So and I feel the same way about being the gatekeeper and about the contract. That’s why I’m having a hard time with it.

[1:59:37] So if we can amend the contract, if that’s the will of this body to amend the verbiage so we can just appropriate the money as opposed to amending the contract, I think that would help me a lot, because I want to make the chief whole, because if the deal was made, we have to stand by your word no matter who made the deal, that’s irrelevant. That was with the mayor and he that’s his prerogative to do that.

[1:59:53] And it was the right thing to do to keep the chief here. I believe that, too. So, um, but we need to pay him. But. Well, I would suggest that we you it could be done just simply with. No, I’m sure there’s significant. There’s enough money in the vacation account to pay him. We can figure.

[2:00:09] It out. Cafo simply needs authorization to do that. Notwithstanding the language of the contract. So you can do it very simply. That way you may come back to you later in the year and say, now that we paid more money than I budgeted for, if other people take it, there might be a, I don’t know, there

[2:00:25] might be some deficit at the end of the year that needs to be plugged, but I would leave that to her to explain. Councillor McLaren. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:00:43] I guess I’m more in favor of appropriating the funds outside of amending the contract, because my concern is that if we’re setting the precedent that a contract is not severed when somebody decides to leave before it’s actually supposed to conclude that anyone could come forth in the future with a request that their contract be amended for various reasons and argue, based on this precedent, that, well, we’ve set a standard, that your contract is

[2:01:04] not actually severed because the date of its conclusion has not arrived yet, despite them no longer holding the role. So I’m completely in favor of compensating chief McNamara. I believe he deserves that compensation for all of his hard work. Keeping him on board was the right thing to do.

[2:01:20] I don’t enjoy the way that this is coming forward, but I think perhaps appropriating the funds outside of amending a contract is the best way to go about this. Thank you. Um, I’m going to give the calf all the floor. Just just not that just my two senses.

[2:01:38] Uh, I really the mechanism with how this goes forward. I love the language that the solicitor just presented, how the mechanism had happened. I don’t it doesn’t matter to me. I just need the approval or disapproval. Um, in order to pay that. So how it happens is, is that your discretion.

[2:01:59] ? Personally, I feel the language as opposed to having see, you know, this is the contract that we have on the agenda. I don’t I’m, I’m amicable. If the body wants that, we hold even a special meeting to get that appropriation done. Not not with the language of, you know, that we change right on the floor. I know you’re going to argue that with.

[2:02:15] No, I’m not I’m going to tell you I’ll be happy to write that for you if you want to defer it to another meeting. I’m sure the chief would be happy to wait. Until you do a zoom meeting, and we’ll do a zoom meeting, and we get it done. That way.

[2:02:29] I feel the way this reads here and the conversations we’ve had, we’ve had, we’ve opened a can of liability. If this were to fail. Um, and so I personally for, for, for my vote to not be a no, I would like it to come back with the correct language for that to happen.

[2:02:49] Madam chair, I just want to share that I appreciate the council’s caution. I think that that’s something that, uh, is certainly important. And, however this is accomplished. Uh, I’m on board, and I thank you for your consideration as we’re having this conversation. Certainly it could have been presented in a far more artful way, perhaps, but the timing was quirky.

[2:03:11] Um, and certainly, uh, here we are. But I appreciate the effort and the. Caution. So with that being said, then we’re not, um, if we would motion to table this, it would die eventually. Correct? It would stay in the air and. It’s up to the up to the council. And I’m happy to write additional language if you want. Oh, yeah.

[2:03:32] Motion and to table. Or motion to table. Second motion by Councillor Valley, seconded by Councillor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Eight unanimous. Madam clerk one. Point of information, Madam Chair.

[2:03:54] So can we schedule a zoom meeting? So 48 hours, whatever we have to do to post that so we can get this off our plate and get to. Do it first thing in the morning. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so that would we would look like today’s Monday. Thursday? Uh, 6:00, 6:00 on. Zoom. Thank you. See, 27-30 care solace, Inc., 120 Birmingham Drive, Cardiff, California.

[2:04:29] 9207 mental health Care Coordination Service, $66,250 motion to approve. So move. Seconded by Councillor Joo, seconded by Councillor Santos. Discussion. Councillor drew. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this is a two part question. So we approved this back in 2025 for $50,000. But there was an earmark that was put on to it.

[2:04:53] Is there still an earmark to this or are we this is coming out of our funding. So this is something that Representative Hamilton secured an earmark for us last year. Uh, we do not have an earmark for it this year. So that was for, uh, covering year one of the program.

[2:05:10] But, uh, we have, uh, tapping into the opioid funds to help cover a portion of this, uh, and it’s a program that has just done us a world of good in terms of helping to connect residents in need of services. It’s a program that’s utilized by both the folks at One Broadway and HHC, and by the school department, as well.

[2:05:30] And, uh, actually, there have been some parents who have reached out with, uh, concerns just for their own kids, and we’ve been able to plug them into resources through care, solace. So it’s been an effective program. Uh, certainly different ways that we’re funding at this year. But, uh, the earmark, unfortunately, was for last year. Not this year.

[2:05:45] Then can I ask? I mean, we approve this. I mean, not too long ago, but I mean, you’re looking at a 32% increase on the cost of this. Do we know what that driver is that’s pushing that cost up that high? I mean, it’s certainly way more than any sort of inflation.

[2:06:03] Yeah. So the issue is that the $50,000 earmark didn’t cover the full amount. It covered a portion of it. So now at this point we’re seeing the full amount, uh, and not having an earmark for it at all. So um, certainly not saying if the representatives are watching.

[2:06:22] Certainly grateful for covering year one, but, uh, that’s the variance here. The 50,000 was the portion that was covered by the earmark last. Year. Okay. Any other comments? Questions, concerns seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk eight. Yes. One. Okay. C 2731CO coding Inc. dba Windows 8 25 Granite Street Bank, Braintree, mass. 02184 pavement. Crack.

[2:07:04] Ceiling, high performance $114,585. Motion to approve motion by Council, seconded by Councillor Valium in discussion. Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk eight. Yes. One absent.. C 2732. Tech, Inc.. Phase two Pelham Street. Salem Street. Roadway improvement in the amount of 255,000. Motion to approve. Some.

[2:07:40] Second motion by Councilor Stanfill, seconded by Councilor Valley. Discussion. Councilor Valley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, through you to Mr. Felix Garcia. Uh. I noticed, uh, on the attachment. Attachment a it appears to be an inconsistency within the attachment on page one. States is marked Lampson. And if we go to page four.

[2:08:16] The agreement states that will invoice the city monthly on a percentage complete basis. So which one is the correct one here? Page one. At the beginning, under the project name requested by client. I’m not 100% sure. Usually for when they sent their proposal. It’s not to exceed, but um. So is it going to be paid monthly? A percentage.

[2:09:34] Or are you asking? Oh, it’s going to be a lump sum. That is what the client is requested. It’s requesting. The first. If you’re asking um, in terms of payment, like when the. payment when. Correct. My apologies I misunderstood.

[2:09:50] So uh, typically with TSC what they do is every month they will send an invoice. like for the work that they’ve done for that month. And then the what they’ll do is that they’ll list all the things that they’ve done, all the tasks and the billable hours that they worked on.

[2:10:08] And then based on our emails that we, you know, we see all the work that they’ve done, then if it makes sense, then, uh, will approve for for payment. Okay. So it’s not a lump sum. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to clarify another thing, if I could.

[2:10:24] There’s a typo in the, um, the title for the agenda that had been submitted. Um, and it’s on the cover sheet two. Granted, the cover sheets not part of the contract, but the contract is for 225,000, not 255. It says 255 on the cover sheet, but it’s 22225. Just to clarify. And that’s what would be in place and formally voted on. Okay. Yeah, we just noticed that. Too.

[2:10:45] And, um, so we’ll have to amend that on the approval. You don’t have to amend the cover sheet. You’re approving the contract. It’s just the contract. It’s the correct is the correct number. Okay. So it was just a typo on the cover. And my agenda two had a typo. My, uh, yeah. Meeting agenda.

[2:11:08] Okay. Any other questions comments concerns? Councilor Drew. Thank you. Um, so in 2025, we approved an $85,000 consultant fee for this exact same area. We’re adding another $225,000. What are we getting? What have we gotten so. Far? So for this type of work, this, um, we we wanted this.

[2:11:38] So we we as a city, we identified issues through, you know, issues, uh, Pelham Street is one of those corridors that we need to improve safety. Uh, intersections, accessibility and so on.

[2:12:00] So what consultants do is that they help us draft, like, do some engineering and, uh, help us make sure that this project becomes attractive to the state. So then it’s, um, paid for the transportation, uh, improvement project. And once it’s back, then the state and federal will help with money.

[2:12:23] So, so the the first contract was for them to help us make it attractive, do some design work and explain to the state this is why we need to do this, because it Pelham Street needs to be improved in terms of safety. There’s some issues that are covered there as well, and there’s some intersections to that needs to be improved.

[2:12:39] So then for this contract that we have here is now now that they kind of kick started with the state, now they’re going to really survey the the the street and do a 25% preliminary, preliminary design that is needed for MassDOT to review. So to date they’ve done some basic oversight, overview for 85.

[2:13:03] The 85,000 state is now recognized that this is a problem. And they’re going to have to do actual, more correct surveying and all sorts of different traffic studies and things like that. Correct. Because we don’t know that. So we can’t go too deep into the design because we don’t know if the state is going to pick it for for a tip project.

[2:13:24] So we give them what, what they. Um. We do our best to make it attractive. So. So yeah. So we included all this all these features on Pelham Street, this long stretch of corridor, uh, in order for them to say, okay, this is there’s a need in Methuen.

[2:13:40] Let us have this as a project. But it’s the the first contract is is not. It’s when they’re working on this is not too in-depth because let’s say they don’t pick it. Then we just lost a lot of money. So it’s something very preliminary here. What we’re thinking of doing, uh, we. The design development set before we get into construction. Documents.

[2:14:01] That is, we’re paying for construction documents. So now we’re paying for a preliminary 25%. So once we have that 25%, they’ll review it. And then, um, they’ll send it back. And then after that we’ll be working for a..

[2:14:16] So will they be coming back looking for more money for this exact corridor? At this point, we spent $310,000. If this is approved tonight, to get this further down the road. That is correct. So as as as as they are like ongoing, you know, back and forth with MassDOT. So we put this together. We sent it to them.

[2:14:36] They say, okay, yeah, give us another set of drawings, go to the city, get another 200. It’s already approved. Now it’s already approved. So on April 20th of April 2026, it was already approved. So now the state will help. But now we have to bring it to 100%.

[2:14:50] So I believe what we have here is, uh, uh, let’s see. Taxes. Task six is to do a 25% design submission. So then I think after that, uh, we may get another contract for bringing it up to 100%. So they’re potentially in another 18 months. Could be another contract in front of us. Correct.

[2:15:12] Asking for more money for this stretch of road. Correct. And there is another reason why. It’s because, let’s say for the culvert that we have there, once they do more of an of an analysis, there may be more things associated with that culvert as an example. So they don’t want to say they don’t want to charge us more.

[2:15:29] And that is not really what’s needed. So based on what they find on their preliminary design okay. Now because we know what we really need, this is what the new proposal will be in order to make it to the finish line for the 100% design. Thank you. Welcome. Okay.

[2:15:52] Any further questions? Comments, concerns? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. I’m actually because I read 255. Can someone make an amendment to my. Motion to amend the. Uh. At the agenda? No, the approval is for 225. To the approval of 225. Not on my agenda. But it’s to amend the agenda. to to reflect two 2220 5000 for c 2732.

[2:16:26] Motion by councillor drew. Second. Seconded by Councillor Simard. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk on the. On the motion. On the contract. Don’t we have to admit it on the contract? No. Uh. On the main motion, we were in discussion. So all those in favor? Aye, aye.

[2:16:48] Any opposed? Unanimous. Thank you. How are you doing? Doing okay? Yeah. You’re under construction. Your city is under construction. All right. Thank you. Um, tech Inc. Oh, wait to contract C 2733. Tech Inc.. Phase two, Brook Street and over. Unnamed water body culvert replacement in the amount of $30,000.

[2:17:21] Motion to approve. So moved motion by Councillor DiZoglio, seconded by Councillor Santos. I’m in discussion. Seeing none are Councilor Drew. All right, I’ll make this quick. Felix. Same thing as the last time.

[2:17:40] So this is so this is perfect because, uh, we’re almost at 100%, but because of this culvert, there was additional things that they had to do with the US Army. Uh, Engineering Corps. So it wasn’t part of the original scope of the previous contract. So this is more work. So they want to get paid for that work. So at this point they’re coming to 100% construction documents. We’ve already paid them to this point.

[2:17:58] This should hopefully get us over the finish line. And we shouldn’t see. The finish line. And then eventually, once we have, uh, um, construction documents, they’re gonna want, uh, we’re going to need them to oversee and make sure that the construction is done per the plan. But that’ll be another contract. I’ve been an engineer. I’m good.

[2:18:17] If I could throw something out there about Brook Street. So if you’ve driven down that stretch lately, you’ll see that that roadway is in really bad condition. One of the issues that we have is we can’t really do any fixes there until we get through, uh, dealing with the culvert project.

[2:18:36] And so, uh, by getting this done, that will allow us to help with some other. Infrastructure issues too, right. All right. No other questions, comments, concerns. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk? Yes. One. All right. Reports, uh, other officers and committee reports. Seeing none. We’re moving on.

[2:18:59] Unfinished business resolution TR 2683, FY 2020, FY 27 budget drew up an order concerning appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026. Um added effective upon passage requested as requested by the Mayor and Council. I need a motion to remove it from the table. A motion by Councilor Simard. Second. Second by Councilor Valley. Discussion. Mr. mayor.

[2:19:37] Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to give a recap and maybe a little refresh on what we’re doing here. So this was first announced back in early July, and I had previewed it during the August meeting.

[2:20:00] Uh, how after we had already passed the budget and I think it was May, uh, we were able to strike the deal with the unions in transition to the group insurance commission. And what that did was it had the effect of, uh, freeing up funds that had been originally budgeted for what they call stop loss premiums.

[2:20:25] So because we have been self-funded with our health insurance, we were required to maintain stop loss coverage to cover, uh, shield us against high claims. And so now that we will not be self-funded anymore after July. Excuse me, January 1st. Uh, we only need stop loss coverage from July 1st to December 31st. That frees up, in a structural sense, it establishes an ongoing structural savings of roughly $3 million a year.

[2:20:49] Uh, that we will then also see the other half, uh, in the next year as well. So considering that, uh, one of the commitments that I had made was we had made some, uh, tweaks to the budget, in essence, establishing some austerity measures, including employee furloughs. Uh, there were issues, of course, in our schools.

[2:21:10] Uh, there were other projects that I was anxious to fund in the budget, but decided at the time, considering the headwinds we were facing, that we couldn’t do it. And so this will allow us to utilize the structural savings that we can anticipate on an ongoing basis compared to prior years.

[2:21:30] Uh, to eliminate the furloughs, as promised earlier in the summer, uh, drive another roughly $800,000 into the schools. Uh, if we were to approve this, Methuen would be one of the only I don’t want to say one of the only, but one of the very rare municipalities in the Commonwealth to not lose any classroom teachers this year,

[2:21:48] in the midst of these difficult budget conditions. And we also have available funding to invest in kindergarten readiness initiative to vote with the literacy partnership. On top of that, um, there were concerns expressed, of course, about the condition that we were leaving DPW overtime. Uh, so this in essence, helps to make all of those concerns, uh.

[2:22:13] A. whole or. Resolve that, um, using structural savings generated by the GIC as well as a higher than expected, uh, amount that we received from the closing of the Oakland Avenue school. We have budgeted for, I believe, $500,000. And they ended up putting out 700,000. That closing.

[2:22:36] So, um, again, I’ve discussed this ad nauseam, but just for the sake of a refresher, I wanted to share that. Thank you. You know what I realized? Yeah, I asked for discussion on a privilege motion. And you gave your spiel right? Right on the table.

[2:22:58] So I’m sorry for that, but can we pass the off the table? We got your spiel already, and then we’ll go on the main motion. That was why I was giving you the look, but you didn’t acknowledge it.

[2:23:12] Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, um, as I indicated last time, you’re going to have to vote individually on these line items, just like you do with the budget. So I think we’re just doing we’re just doing the first two pages. Is that what this. Is? The I, we just it’s just the first two pages or three pages. Are the changes correct? I don’t know what. You’re looking for. All right.

[2:23:30] Well we’ll let’s get it off the table. Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk, we’re off the table on the main motion discussion, right? No. First. Second discussion. It’s late. Can I get a motion on the motion? Second motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by Councillor Valium and discussion. Thank you.

[2:24:00] The mayor spoke at the solicitor. So I would just say these are budget changes. So you have to vote on them just like you did in the budget individually. So I just wanted to clarify with the capo so we know exactly what. We’re. Voting on. It’s these first three pages, right.

[2:24:16] And the backup is just the the change afterwards. So you just have to vote on each of the items that you’re increasing. Because again, the council has the authority to do individual appropriations. And although it’s tedious, as you did in the budget, you may not agree with each one of these.

[2:24:36] And, um, I take no position on that. But you do have the right and should vote individually on each of those line items. So. Not just one vote on the whole order. So just for clarification, TR 2683, right. You all have that document. Okay.

[2:24:56] You’re the main page where it says General Fund oh one. I’m going line item by line item. And then at the end approving the total number as well. Yes. Because you attached. So I mean it’s it’s a lot. You don’t have to vote on the rest of it.

[2:25:18] I attached a lot because I wanted to show what all three were doing in total to the budget that was originally approved, but that first three pages, okay. It just it starts with fire and ends with water sewer. Okay. Um, those are the new appropriations that need to be okay. Thank you. Those. Thank you. For that. So like fire, we’re adding 15,000 to the.

[2:25:36] To the budget. Yes. And I will note that there is some reductions that need to be part of this. So there are lines, most of them that are appropriating. But there are a few lines that are negative that need to be a reduction. So when you’re voting it needs to be a reduction. Okay. All right.

[2:25:54] Here we go. Any any questions before we start. Yeah. Any questions. This is like the budget night. Remember that. Yeah. So we got a vote 18 times. Yes. Um and it’s all roll call. Vote. It doesn’t have to be. But no it doesn’t. Have to be. It didn’t want to do that.

[2:26:11] But no. No one on lines. No. Up to the your either. I don’t. Preference. Just couldn’t ask. Well if you’re a no you scream no okay okay okay. Ask a question. Yes, sir. Um. So, Mr. Mayor, Madam, careful. Before we. go diving into this fun part of the evening.

[2:26:33] Um, you know, we see that there is a savings. We we found savings, and it’s wonderful. Everything’s going great. We’re in a good spot this year.

[2:26:50] What’s it going to do to us next year? I mean, are we are we shortsighted? And yes, this year we’re whole in thinking, all right, the governor want an extra 200,000 in the money that was given out to us. Let’s call it what it is. It’s an election year. Of course they did. They found the money and spent it. So next year, when it’s not an election year, I mean, we don’t see the extra money.

[2:27:07] We’re spending every dollar except for $2,300 of the money. That was a found or I don’t I don’t know what the right word is. but every dollar except for 21, 32. What is 28 look like? If we’re doing this now? So the GIC savings is structural.

[2:27:37] That’s not one time that is going to be a savings that we experience continuously. The additional funds from the closing of the Oakland Avenue school, actually the Oakland Avenue school, uh, closing proceeds in terms of that down payment from soup to nuts, including what we already factored in. Uh, that’s one time.

[2:27:56] Uh, certainly we’re going to get beyond that in terms of the payments that they make, but that down payment that we accounted for, that’s one time. But aside from that, um, you know, the state does what the state does. We can’t really control that. But what I can speak to is, namely, the health insurance savings.

[2:28:14] That was something that had been painted about as a an opportunity for us. And this is the city experiencing the first signs of those savings right out of the gate, mainly due to the stop loss. Uh, so I can’t speak to the state. Um, we are going to probably have headwinds as we do every year, but what I can say is the health insurance savings are very legit.

[2:28:38] What’s the anticipated 28 health insurance savings? So something to share? Uh, initially here. Is that the stop loss savings from January 1st to June 30th of 27? Uh, that’s 1.75 million. Uh, right now we’re spending money on stop loss, roughly 1.

[2:29:03] 2, uh, to get us through to the end of December. Suddenly, in 2020, fiscal year 28, the entirety of that will be a savings compared to what we had experienced in fiscal year 27. So anticipating anywhere between 2.9 and 3.1 in stop. Loss. Just stop loss. Being off the table saves us 3 million. Bucks. In a. Year.

[2:29:26] And so this is, as I mentioned, an example of that savings coming to bear is, uh, you know, benefit for us. If I could just piggyback on that. Um, yes, it’s $3 million. We are choosing here tonight. If it’s approved to use 1.

[2:29:48] 7 million of that to offset the furloughs. So that is then spent, if you will, so that, um, the additional savings next year would be that 1.2 million that we are currently including in health insurance that next year we won’t. So we will have that.

[2:30:08] We will see that for fiscal year 28 budget when we’re putting it together, we’ll see that we’ll be able to move that 1.2 around to fund elsewhere. Whilst the furloughs have already I mean, the salaries have already been covered this year, right? I mean, just by your math, of $3 million, you’re saying what we’re spending here tonight between the furloughs and everything else, it’s roughly how much to just under.

[2:30:30] Two point just under 2.4, 2.4. So in theory, there could be a in the back of $600,000 if everything stayed flat leveled for next year. I did not follow that last part. So if we have $3 million in stop loss tonight, we’re spending 2.4 million to bring everything back.

[2:30:49] So not all of it though is from stop loss. So the 2.4 is not all from stop loss? No, I know that. I know that there was some one time fees and all that. I’m talking in 28, okay. In 28 you’ve got $3 million. That’s going to now basically do this in 28.

[2:31:05] So there’s actually a surplus of 600,000 at the end of. It. Does that make sense. Because we’re spending 2.4 here tonight. You’re saying I’m saying in 28, if we had to do this and there’s 3 million. All very rough math. Sure. All right.

[2:31:24] Can I say something else too? So the thing we keep in mind is that we’re not going ahead and, uh, adding all this to the budget, as in, like, the bottom line, right? We already budgeted for $3 million in stop loss. That’s already baked in. And so we’re not saying that, okay.

[2:31:46] We’re going to take additional $3 million in, say, savings and adding that what we’re doing is we’re taking that 3 million that had already been budgeted. Sure, we’re spending roughly 1.2 of it on the first half of the year. On the stop loss that we have until we transition out from, uh, Blue Cross into the GIC.

[2:32:05] But we’re taking that bucket just from a budgetary standpoint, the 1.75, for instance. And we’re reapplying that at an already been budgeted across other areas. That’s all we’re doing. I understand that, yeah. I’m just. Was just trying to comprehend because of the one time expenditures this.

[2:32:26] year from the sale of the school and then the 1.2 million that we have and everything else. It’s just trying to figure out what it’s going to look like in 28. So in theory, in 28, that all of this expenditure is covered in the future years. That was all I was trying to get to. And there’s a potential for an excess in 2028.

[2:32:50] That was all okay. Any other questions, comments or concerns? None. All right. So if I’m going with appropriation order, expenditures true up general fund 101 I’ll start with line item 220 for fire $15,000. Can I have a motion to approve. second motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by Councillor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye, aye.

[2:33:25] Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk. So the total for fire is 15,000. Total public safety 15,000. Do I have to approve that total? No. Okay. Line item 300 Methuen schools $618,139. Can I get a motion to approve? So move. Second motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by Councillor DiZoglio. Any discussion? All those in favor? I.

[2:34:00] Any opposed? Unanimous, madam clerk. So the total under total education is 618139. Next line 400. Public works 50,400. Public works $50,000. Motion to approve. Some motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by Councillor Valley. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam. Clerk. Total for public works, it’s $50,000. Um.

[2:34:36] And that line item actually was 5700 total other expenses on the public works for correction. A line item 910 employee benefits group health insurance. Um, that’s a -$115,025. Can I get a motion to approve? So so motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by Councillor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Uh. Any opposed? Unanimous. Uh, Medicare tax, 25,000.

[2:35:10] Motion to approve. So move. Motion by Councillor DiZoglio, seconded by Councillor Santos. Discussion or all those in favor? Aye, Any opposed? Unanimous. Total employee benefits. Is now $90,025. Negative. Negative. Thank you for that, councillor. -$90,025. Next line 820. State assessments $642,032. Motion to approve total state of motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye.

[2:35:47] Any opposed? Unanimous. Other amounts to be raised. There’s overlay offsets. That’s 92. Is that $0.92 dollars? Thank you. $92. Uh, motion to approve. So moved. Second motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by Councillor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. That brings the grand total general fund to $1,235,238. Do I need to do. That? Final number.

[2:36:27] I’m good. Thank you. Okay. All right, here we go. Next page 820. State assessment. Total state assessment. 4 million. Am I on the right? One? Did I skip one one water door? Okay. Oh, yeah. Oh, here we are. Thank you for that. 444 50 water and sewer Enterprise line 5100. Total personnel services $115,025. Motion to approve.

[2:37:01] So moved. Second motion by Councillor Santos, seconded by Councillor DiZoglio. Discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. 59.99 transfer out in direct cost. -$280,655. Motion to approve motion by Councillor Santos. Second seconded by Councillor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk, total enterprise funds comes to 160. -$165,630. Grand.

[2:37:43] Total. Enterprise fund to that number. Am I going on that other page? Two. Okay. All right. Go. Is that correct? All right. Thank you for that. Now, this is, um, effective upon passage. We don’t have to do anything right on that. It’s already at second read, so it’s fine. All right. Just making. Sure.

[2:38:04] All right, here we go. So that’s done. TR 2684 A resolution authorizing a transfer of 456,055 from FY 27 general fund employee benefits, health insurance, and 40,000 from FY 27 general fund veterans benefits personnel services to various FY 27 general fund. Other expenses lines effective upon passage requested by the mayor and the Council. Motion to. approve is.

[2:38:36] Is this on the table? No. Motion to approve. So moved by Councilor Santos, seconded by. Second Counselor Valley discussion Councilor Jerome. Just the same question I asked last week, just once to the mayor. So we’re taking the, um, admin out of the veteran service. Officer. So we have Jordan filling the role of the clerk as well.

[2:39:07] So considering that, at least for now, we’re going to maintain that a status quo, we feel like we’re in a good spot in terms of the workload that he’s able to absorb that as well. The VSO role, as well as handling. So he’s doing. This role. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions comments remarks. Seeing none. All those in favor.

[2:39:30] Aye aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Madam clerk. TR. 2685 A resolution authorizing a transfer of $1,181,649 from FY 27 general fund employee benefits, health insurance to various FY 27 general fund personnel services lines effective upon passage requested by the mayor and the Council. Motion to. Approve so. Move.

[2:40:09] Second motion by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor Samar. Discussion. Councilor Drew. So we just had to go line by line and add them into each budget. Item. Do we have to do the same? Because these are technically personnel items that we’re adding into each individual budget line. They’re just transfers, though. You don’t have to vote in the individual.

[2:40:30] You can if you wish, but you don’t have. I’m not looking to add work by any means of this hour. I’m just want to make sure that we’re doing this appropriately. So the difference is the first one is appropriating more money, adding to our budget.

[2:40:42] So the total bottom line of our budget is going to increase by the amount that was voted on during that process. This is not changing. The bottom line is just a transfer between budget lines. Understood. So just to clarify, I mean, you always can vote individually if you want. And in this situation these are all furloughs.

[2:41:00] But if any member decided they weren’t on board with one of them, then you would need to vote individually. So so if I wanted to go in and just cut a dollar, figure out of this, I could either amend it or just make us go line. By line.

[2:41:14] You could vote against an individual transfer, but I’m not suggesting you do that. I’m just saying. so you have the right to do so if you wish. If I just decided I wanted to cut $10,000 out of some random line, I can make an amendment, cut $10,000, and then Maggie gets to figure out what to do. With it. Yes. Mm.

[2:41:35] Sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous thing. It very well. Could be. Thank you. All right. Um, I’m in discussions now. So any other further questions? Concerns, comments. So if I decided to cut. Something. They get to decide, like whether they are cutting it out of a cola or cutting it out of a. Furlough.

[2:42:03] Correct. You can’t tell the mayor where to impose a cut. This isn’t really a cut. It’s a transfer. So it’s a little different. But if you were in the budget and you cut the budget, you don’t get to decide where it comes from.

[2:42:21] The mayor would get to decide whether he lays off somebody or he doesn’t buy paper or whatever. So he’s just doing the whole transfer all at once, and he’s just telling us where this is all going. Correct? Okay. Madam Council. I do just want to note that we did separate them into the buckets specifically so that the furloughs would be in a separate transfer.

[2:42:40] Just the furloughs, the last transfer that you voted on were the other items. And that first one was the budget appropriation. So we did try to do it intentionally so that you were voting on the purpose and what it’s for, and not just throw it all in one big thing and ask you to vote on that. Okay.

[2:42:58] So with the furloughs, we didn’t do any furloughing this. Year. No days off, no furloughing, no nothing. We have not done any. Um, and so we’ve brought this forward. And if it fails, then we’ll need to reassess that. But this the purpose of this transfer is to make so that. Yes. No. Okay.

[2:43:19] The budget you voted on included furloughs. They were reduced by the furlough allowance. So if this were to fail, I would have no choice but to implement the furloughs. Okay. Just check it. Okay. Counselor. Jessica, did you have a question? No, I do.

[2:43:50] So the 67,500 from the early literacy program that was added on there as a. Because that doesn’t have to do with furloughs, does it? Am I on the wrong one? No. Yeah. That’s it. I’m sorry. I’m on. I’m Perry. Sorry. Brain fog. Um. All right, guys, um, any further discussion? None. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Move. TR 2686. Complete streets.

[2:44:27] Grant acceptance resolution with the one high school motion to accept. So move motion by Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Uh. Okay. Any opposed? Unanimous. TR 2687. Castle. Fun resolution for the first church. Methuen. Motion to approve. So move second. Seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. First was made by Councilor Santos. Amid discussion.

[2:45:02] We did get an email for an additional $500. Mr. Solar sitter. They had a meeting and approved an additional $500 for this line item. How do you advise the body to handle that? You can amend your approval to increase it by 500..

[2:45:24] So if if one of you kind councilors could amend this approval to add $500 from the Castle fund. I’ll make. The amendment. I just don’t. Yeah. The total. Can you read a total by adding the 500? I’ll make the amendment to add to 500. Hold on. Let me get my my form here. It would be 3700 total. How much? It would be 37. Total. So 30. 20. Um.

[2:45:58] 26. 87 to 3700. Total. Okay. I have a motion to amend to 32nd. Second motion by Councilor Smart, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Any opposed? Unanimous.

[2:46:23] Am I going back on the main motion to approve the total? And the second read on the council fund for the 3700. Motion to um., every. second. Councilor Santos, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Ordinances two 2620, as amended. An ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on the data center and the city of Methuen to request from the mayor, as amended by fellow Councilor Morrison. Last meeting. Motion to approve.

[2:46:54] So moved.. Motion by Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Santos. I’m in discussion. If there’s any Councilor Drew.. Just I know your chief of staff was here last. Week. I just want to clarify. There is no data centers being built in this city. Nobody’s been put in a permit, a request. Anything. Not in the permitting stream.

[2:47:18] But there has been some. Uh. Notations, I think, on LinkedIn that there is active interest in possibly moving forward with some type of project and beginning the permitting process for that, although that’s not obviously in the queue. So technically, for the city’s sake, uh, there is nothing actively in the works.

[2:47:41] However, um, this is an issue that I think it is worthwhile for us to get ahead of by way of establishing, uh, thoughtful, uh, regulations surrounding this. And it’s going to take time. And that’s why I think it is important for us to establish this before we have to react to it.

[2:48:05] Um, and then the other thing that I wanted to reiterate, I mentioned this during my report, which is for the sake of discussion here, without, uh, the striking of that table of use aspect, we technically don’t have a moratorium.

[2:48:26] So I would recommend that if it is the will of the body that that be added back in, it would only be in the broader table for the time of the temporary moratorium, which is one year, and then it would revert back to whatever it is now, uh, unless the Council, of course, decides to extend it, which is provided for here.

[2:48:44] Hopefully by that time we’ll have more of a concrete, uh, mechanism in place, uh, for the council’s review. Uh, but nevertheless, in order for the actual moratorium to be in place, we need to maintain the amendment to the table. So I just had a question. We voted on this the last time.

[2:49:05] And did we send it to the Community Development Board? We did a public hearing. We did. So we have to wait before we can actually pass this for them to consider and report back after the public hearing and give us their recommendation, because this is essentially a it’s modifying our zoning. So that procedure requires us to do it, just like we do with every other zoning.

[2:49:24] Refer to them, hold a joint public hearing or separate public hearing, get their recommendation, and then vote on final passage. The mayor is saying, we need to add that piece back in. We can do that now or later. We’ve scheduled that for the 2nd October meeting. By the way, it’s 6 p.m. as a joint.

[2:49:44] I just want to make sure because if you pass it now, it won’t be valid. Yeah. Um, I left it on the agenda for the conversation with the mayor, but I’m expecting a table. I think this is good. A little forethought, a little planning. It’s good. I’ll motion to table. This. I’m in a privilege motion.

[2:50:01] Motion by Councilor Drew, seconded by Councilor Sarmad. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Okay. So we’re back on the table. Uh, new business, no new resolutions, no new ordinances. Any other business for the good and welfare of the community? I do have, um, a request to go into executive session.

[2:50:43] If this body wishes to do so this evening. If not, you could vote no. And that could be brought up at our next meeting. But we’re having a special meeting. And we are having a special meeting on Thursday. Right. at 6 p.m.. So it’s up to the body. So I’ll take a motion to go into executive session.

[2:51:09] If the body of all votes yes, then we go into executive session. If not, then I’ll move forward with the motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion for executive session by Councilor Drew. Second. Seconded by Councilor Santos. I’m going to take a roll call for executive session. Since we’re at an even number tonight. Councilor Simard. Council.. No. Councilor DiZoglio. No.

[2:51:42] Councilor drew. Yes. Council McLaren. No. Councilor. Mason. No. Councilor. Councilor. Santos. Yes. I’m sorry. Yes. Thank you. And chair. Soda? No. Six. No. Two. Yes. Okay. So motion fails. Now we’re going. Any other. Any other business for the good and welfare of the community. Any announcements? Councilor Samar. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:52:15] Just briefly, I just want to recognize the mayor and our legal team for the hard work that they showed during the Solomon saga. Um, over the last few years, they made a decision that benefited all the city residents. And it wasn’t an emotional one. It was a very responsible decision. I just want to commend them on their hard work. So thank you.

[2:52:33] Thank you. Any other further comments? Announcements? Seeing none, I will take the motion to adjourn. Second motion by Councilor Drew, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Any opposed? Unanimous. Please feel free to take some. Sweets. Um.

City Council Regular Meeting - September 21st, 2026

Transcript