City Council

Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building Chairman Beauregard called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Councilor DiZoglio, Councilor Faretra, Councilor Finocchiaro, Councilor McCarty (arrived at 7:05), Councilor Saba, Councilor Saffie, Councilor Simard, Vice-Chair Zeigler, and Chairman Beauregard. Acceptance of Agenda MOTION BY: Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Faretra to accept the agenda. Chairman Beauregard said there are two scriber errors, TO-22-5 should be TO-22-9 and TO- 22-6 to be labeled as TO-22-10. MOTION BY: Councilor Simard, seconded by Councilor Saba to amend agenda to amend. UPON VOTE: 8 yes, 1 absent MOTION BY: Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Simard to accept as amended. UPON VOTE: 8 yes, 1 absent Pledge of Allegiance/Invocation Everyone stood for the Pledge of Allegiance and remained standing for the Invocation given by Councilor Zeigler. Acceptance of Minutes Reading and Acceptance of Minutes from Previous Meetings: January 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MOTION BY: Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Zeigler to waive the reading and approve. UPON VOTE: 8 yes, 1 absent (Clr. McCarty) PROCAMATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE Chairman Beauregard announced in the Mayor’s absence his Chief of Staff, Tina Tuoma Conway, is present to answer any questions or concerns Councilors may have. Chairman Beauregard read and presented a Citation to Bill Bonnano “Methuen City Council Official Citation is hereby presented to Billy Bonnano in recognition of his efforts to assist residents of a house fire and saved their lives during a recent blizzard and thank you for your incredible service to our city.” The Mayor’s Chief of Staff read and presented the Mayoral Citation “On behalf of the citizens of Methuen, Mayor Neil Perry offers Congratulations to Bill Bonnano in recognition of your exemplary efforts in helping to save the lives of Methuen residents by alerting them of a house fire during a recent blizzard. Thank you for your dedicated service to the community. It is with our grateful appreciation that we extend this commendation from the City of Methuen. God Bless you.” MAYOR’S REPORT 1 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building Tina Tuoma Conway, Chief of Staff, reported Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the city will be conducting a distribution of COVID test kits. The hours will be tomorrow (Tuesday) at the Loop from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., tomorrow evening at Mann Inc. Community Center from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday at the Loop at the former fifth Avenue store from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Every resident can come and receive a kit for their household. Two kits per household will be given out. Anybody who received kits from the initial distribution that was done two weeks ago would not be eligible. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – None Public Service Grants: None Licenses: None Contracts: None Other Committee and Officer Reports Councilor Zeigler reported that for the Assistant Council Clerk Search Committee we have three resumes that have come in. The position has been posted in the Eagle Tribune in the Sunday edition and last week it was posted in Rumbo Newspaper, on the MMA website. It is posted as a banner on our city council website. She encouraged Councilors to share the posting so that we can continue to get more applicants. The posting will be open through this week. Once we receive all the applications, then the committee will meet to review the applications and start to set up first and second interviews. Councilor Zeigler reported the Economic and Development Committee is going back to their regular schedule and will be meeting next Tuesday for their regular schedule, the second Tuesday of the month. They will start discussions about the Master Plan, She reported that she and Councilor Faretra have begun planning for the COVID 19 Memorial Ceremony. This Council approved a resolution to raise awareness and to have the city come together in mourning and observation of a Moment of Silence for those lives that were lost to COVID 19 that were Methuen residents. That will be March 1st every year at 10:00 a.m. That will take place at the police station. Councilor Simard reported, in coordination with Chief McNamara, the Public Safety Committee is going to hold their meeting on Wednesday, February 16th at 7:30 p.m. following the Memorial Meeting that Councilor DiZoglio will speak about. The agenda will mainly be the formation of neighborhood groups. The Chief or a representative will be at that meeting and a few city reps. Councilor DiZoglio reported the Memorials Committee will be meeting next Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. He sent invites to the Mayor’s office, to the Economic Development Director along with the with the Veterans’ Service Officer. The VSO accepted. He is waiting on the other two invites. They did request a list of memorials in the city for this meeting. He has received over 45 listed memorials from the VSO and those are all either decorated Veterans or different wars 2 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building and battles that have taken place. He looks forward to working with the committee on consolidating this. Vote on Referring the Methuen Police Department Proposed Reorganization Plan to the Public Safety Committee Chairman Beauregard said, as Council has discussed during previous meetings, the next step is for the Methuen Police Department plan to be referred to a committee for further review and a vote by that committee on whether to recommend the plan going forward to the full body for approval. In his view, the most logical committee for that to go to is the Public Safety Committee. MOTION BY: Councilor Faretra, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio to refer the reorg to the Public Safety Committee for further review. Unanimous vote to Refer to Public Safety Committee Unfinished Business Resolutions: TR-22-4 An Order Authorizing an Amendment of Order #5646 Borrowing to Pay Costs for the Fiscal Year 2022 Capital Improvement Plan MOTION BY: Councilor Simard, seconded by Councilor Zeigler to adopt. Unanimous vote TR-22-5 An Order Authorizing Refunding Bonds MOTION BY: Councilor Faretra, seconded by Councilor Zeigler to adopt. Unanimous vote TR-22-6 A Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of a State of Massachusetts FY22 Budgeted Earmark of $50,000 from the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the Replacement of Playground Equipment at Forest Lake Park MOTION BY: Councilor Saffie, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio to approve. Vote: UNANIMOUS yes. TR-22-7 A Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of a State of Massachusetts FY22 Budgeted Earmark of $15,000 from the Department of Conservation and Recreation for General Improvements and New Fencing at Burnham Park MOTION BY: Councilor Saffie, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio to approve. UPON VOTE: UNANIMOUS yes. 3 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building TR-22-8 A Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $189,000 from Water and Sewer Retained Earnings for Engineering of Sewer System Infiltration/Inflow Analysis Program for Burnham Road Wastewater Pump Station Area MOTION BY: Councilor Zeigler, seconded by Councilor Saffie to approve. UPON VOTE: UNANIMOUS yes Ordinances: TO-22-4 An Ordinance Amending the Wage and Salary Classification Plan, Unaffiliated, to Add the New Position of ADA/Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Coordinator MOTION BY: Councilor Zeigler, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio to approve. UPON VOTE: UNANIMOUS Consideration of Appointments David DiNatale – Zoning Board (Reappointment) MOTION BY: Councilor Faretra, seconded by Councilor Zeigler to remove from the table. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE: 6 yes, 3 no (Clr. Finocchiaro, Clr. McCarty, Clr. Saba) MOTION BY: Councilor Zeigler, seconded by Councilor Faretra to approve: Councilor Finocchiaro asked if the Council received anything in writing confirming that everyone of these members have a clear and sufficient CORI report. Chairman Beauregard deferred to the question to the Solicitor. Solicitor Rossetti said he is not part of the screening process. Perhaps the Mayor’s Chief of Staff might be able to answer that. The contents of a CORI report is not public information. He is not sure to what extent there could be any confirmation as to whether or not that has been done. Tina Tuoma Conway stated she has a check sheet for each of the candidates and it has CORI checked off. She can’t tell who did the CORI, but she can tell Council that it was done. She doesn’t know if it got sent. Chairman Beauregard said the only information he has is according to the Solicitor and the Chief of Staff. Councilor Finocchiaro said at the last meeting Council said that they need something in writing from the Mayor’s office confirming that this has been done and not only has been done, that the CORI check has occurred but that the results also came back and that they were suitable candidates and that was what we had as a requirement for these positions. She wished Council just had in their email inbox to be sure. She understands that the Chief of Staff has those documents that say that the CORI check was done. She asked if there is any way if Council tabled this to later in the meeting. Chief of Staff stated that the names would not be put forth if there was an issue with the CORI. Councilor Finocchiaro said her understanding is that in the past they have been because when Council asked for it, they’ve been told. Chief of Staff, Tina Conway, said Council is never going to receive the CORI report. Councilor Finocchiaro noted Council did used to receive the negative CORI reports. But at the last discussion at the last meeting, Council was told that the Mayor had no problem sending Council something that explained that there was no issue. He was certain about that. 4 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building She understands the Chief of Staff has the check mark, but it is concerning if she doesn’t know whether that means that the process has started or completed and hasn’t seen it herself. For her, this is a scenario where she doesn’t know and would like to hear from other Councilors. Council went through the rest of the meeting because those were items already discussed and Council had all the information. We have a process and said we were going to follow this process. It was passed legally. It is up to Council to follow that. There is a grey area where it sounds like it might have already been done. Chief of Staff, Tina Conway, said it was done. She overheard a conversation that occurred. They were done and they were fine. She didn’t run it. There is a check off on a piece of paper that says it was done. Councilor Finocchiaro said the reason she asked is because the office is right here so Council could table it and take this up once they’ve had time to check that that is in the folders. Tina Conway said they are not kept. They are destroyed. Solicitor Rossetti Point of Order – Legally, he wished to advise Councilors that tabling this for purposes of receiving a document in the course of a meeting could lead to the discovery of the ability of a document in the course of a meeting. Where this is confidential information, that is protected by statute, That is not a course of conduct he would recommend. He added that under the Charter, the Mayor has the appointing authority for all boards and commissions. The Mayor also has the authority under the Charter to supervise the boards and commissions. It is up to the Mayor to exercise the appropriate due diligence to make appointments that admittedly are still subject to this Council’s approval authority. That approval authority doesn’t mean reinventing the process by which candidates are screened. Councilor Simard said he understands his fellow Councilor’s issue here just moving forward, just covering the Council. He will take Ms. Conway’s word that the box is checked and it falls on the executive branch should there be something that goes awry; but he is good with voting “yes” based on what she tells him. Councilor Saba said he also understands his fellow Councilor’s concerns but at the last meeting Council discussed this and he knows that we shouldn’t see the CORI but it was requested that Council get updated on the status of these, not just this one, on these three appointments and that they did satisfy the CORI. That is all Council needed to get. Council did ask for that and were told we would get an email updating us and telling us basically that. Again, he understands the concerns and when Council tables something because we’re expecting more information and then we come and we vote on it and nothing has changed, it is pretty frustrating as a Councilor to basically table something for two weeks, in this case three weeks, and then coming back on the exact same situation. He appreciates what the Chief of Staff is saying and that they are taking that is a possibility. If we table for more information the respect for this Council is due and we should have received something. If there is a motion to table, he will support it. but he is ready to vote and he understands her frustrations. Councilor Zeigler said she respects the discussion that took place and understands the frustrations. She noted that at the last meeting, Council was told by the Mayor that the appointments that were put before Council did have CORIs done\. Council was told they were going to get written documentation and that did not happen. Council has a verbal confirmation from the Mayor that CORIs were done. The Chief of Staff is telling us that they were done. We 5 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building have two people from the administration saying it was done. Council should move forward on them. Councilor McCarty said Council just took a motion that answered the question of the table so he doesn’t want to be redundant and take something off the table and then vote to put it back on the table with a span of about five minutes. He is ready to vote MOTION BY: Councilor McCarty, seconded by Councilor Faretra to move the question. UPON ROLL VOTE: 7 yes, 2 no Clr. Finocchiaro, Clr. Beauregard) UPON ROLL CALL VOTE: (to approve) 7 yes 2 no (Clr. Finocchiaro, Clr. McCarty) Nicholas Boucher – Zoning Board (Alternate) MOTION BY: Councilor Simard seconded by Councilor Faretra to remove from the table) 8 yes, 1 no (Clr. Finocchiaro) MOTION BY: Councilor Simard, seconded by Councilor Faretra to approve. Councilor McCarty asked the Solicitor for clarification of Alternate status and if this member steps into place if there is a Zoning Board member who decides to step away permanently. “Does this person automatically become a serving member full-time or do they stay in their alternate status and does the fulltime position stay vacant?” “How does that work?” Solicitor Rossetti said his understanding is that the alternate maintains alternate status. But in that capacity is able to attend and have voting rights at a meeting in place of someone who is otherwise unable to attend the meeting. Alternates are critical in helping to make sure that the board has a quorum on applications and other matters that come before it. Councilor McCarty said if there is a vacancy let’s say if somebody didn’t get reapproved, if the appointment failed, or if the person for some reason sells their house and moves out of the city and they can no longer serve, does the alternate member become a full time member at that point or does it need an additional appointment? Solicitor Rossetti said his understanding is that in the event of an opening for a permanent member, the Mayor would have to appoint a successor. The Mayor could choose to appoint one of the alternates as a successor and then chose to fill the newly opened vacancy with the alternate or the Mayor could choose to. It could go either way. In terms of a vacancy the alternate doesn’t automatically become a full vested member due to a vacancy. Councilor Finocchiaro said it is important to be consistent, the rest of these candidates, not just the first. The all don’t have the same document that Council is looking for. It is applicable to the agenda item. To her, there is a big difference between saying “I am 100% sure that the CORI check was done and it is completed and I’ve seen it or it is in my hand or in my possession” vs. I am in possession of a document that I am unclear of what this check mark means. I am assuming that it means that it is all set.” Councilor Finocchiaro said she respects Ms. Conway. She’s known her for fifteen years. If she had told her 100% hands down that it was CORI checked, that would have been enough in this situation for her to move forward. But that is not the case. It is important for us to figure out how we are going to all work together as a government. If Council has a meeting where we specifically ask for more information, anytime that we go back on that request, that is something that weakens the City Council. She wants the three appointments to understand that she means no disrespect to them nor Ms. Conway. But we have a certain process. If we are not going to follow the process then we should change it or get 6 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building rid of it if we’re not going to follow it to the letter. That is the process that we have now and that is her point of view. Councilor Faretra said many here work for non-profits and understand how the CORI process works. You have to take a class and be certified. You are not allowed to disclose any information from that document. You get that information. It is up to the individual who is in charge to decide did anything show up there and is it worthy going forward. Councilor Finocchiaro mentioned about working together and that goes both ways. This Council as a body has been together now for over twenty-four months. Council has approved dozens and dozens of board applications and then all of a sudden the CORI issue didn’t came up last month. We need to be consistent on our end as well. It is a two-way street. If Council wants the CORI form checked, that’s fine, but we can’t change the rules midway down the road. The Chief of Staff and the Mayor both said that the CORIs were done and he put the name forward. It is Mayor’s ownness if something were to pop up in that CORI, not on the Council. Councilor Finocchiaro said she is not perfect and does not know every wrong thing Council is doing. As soon as she understood that this was not being followed she stepped in. There are some rules on the books that some of us aren’t even aware of that precede when Council was even here. UPON Vote to approve: 8 yes, 1 no (Clr. Finocchiarpo) Stephen Smith – Forest Lake Commission (remove from the table) MOTION BY: Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Simard to remove from the table. UPON VOTE: 8 yes, 1 no (Clr. Finocchiaro) MOTION BY: Councilor DiZoglio, seconded by Councilor Faretra to approve: Councilor Finocchiaro stated for the record that she is also not opposed to this appointment and is objecting based on procedural issues UPON VOTE: 8 yes, 1 no (Clr. Finocchiaro) New Business Resolutions: TR-22-9 Resolution Submitting a Home Rule Petition for the Purpose of Amending Section 2-1 and Section 7-4 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Methuen to Reflect Additional Voting Precincts Following Decennial Census MOTION BY: Councilor Zeigler, seconded by Councilor Faretra to approve. UPON VOTE: UNANIMOUS yes TR-22-10 Resolution to Abandon Balance of General Government Paving Projects and Transfer $95,561.30 of Remaining Funds to Pay Costs Toward the Citywide Outdoor Wireless Video Security Public Safety System MOTION BY: Councilor Zeigler, seconded by Councilor Faretra to approve. Chief of Staff, Tina Conway, explained this was a capital project that began under the prior administration. Its purpose has been completed and this money is left over. The request is to take this money, leave it in a Capital fund; but repurpose it towards the cameras that the police 7 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building have been asking for. Its money that was set aside to do a couple of projects. The projects are completed and there’s money left over. That is the purpose of this. Councilor Finocchiaro asked for clarification on the location of the cameras. Tina responded, no. The camera contract is forthcoming. They put the funding resolutions in first. At the next meeting the contract for the cameras will be put forward. Councilor Finocchiaro said her concern is that Council has never seen any formal presentation/documentation or a plan. This is something that has been a conversation for a couple of years now. Anything she could share would be helpful. Tina Conway said she can’t share anything. She knows nothing about that particular aspect. She explained the contract is done but they didn’t want to put it forward until the funding was all set. Councilor Finocchiaro said she doesn’t approve money first and ask questions later. She would like to hold on this and get more information and then make a decision. Councilor Saba said we’re taking money that was left over from a paving project at the high school and putting it towards the cameras. He is supportive of the camera project. He wants to see the contract to make sure and get an idea where those cameras are going to go. He was curious as to why we .. Is that the best use of residual paving projects as opposed to using that money for an additional street or something. But he would like to get some information. Tina Conway said it was a paving project that was specific for the parking lots at MHS Councilor DiZoglio noted the RFP was completed. We have a contract coming to Council next meeting. He asked how much the total of the contract would be. Tina Conway explained it is the total of $96,561.00 plus the next resolution seeks to transfer $192,500 from the building task force. That sum is the total for the cameras. Councilor DiZoglio said we are moving the rest of the paving money that was done from two years ago Tina Conway explained that was a Capital project that was completed. This is excess funds from that. Councilor DiZoglio questioned why it is being moved now and not two years ago. Tina Conway commented she couldn’t speak to that Councilor. Councilor DiZoglio noted the city was looking for money two years ago and where things were falling is $192,000 that we’re… Tina Conway clarified there is $192,000 that was from the Building Safety Task Force and is very specific on what it can be spent on. This is a $96,000 overage. Councilor DiZoglio noted it has been sitting in a fund somewhere for the last two years. Councilor Simard said the Mayor came to Council over a year ago when Council appropriated funding for the new track at the stadium. He wanted cameras out there and Council agreed. He thought that was a good idea so the track wouldn’t be ruined. After that, the Mayor visited the Lawrence Police Department and took a tour of the video camera system that Lawrence has and was quite impressed with that. The Mayor has been speaking about this for the last year and a half. When the time comes, Chief McNamara is very well versed on these 8 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building cameras. He can understand Councilor Finocchiaro’s concern because we are allocating funding but what do we get. This has been in the works for quite some time starting with the track. Councilor McCarty said he agrees with putting the money in place for first read and in two weeks for the second and final read of the transfer itself along with the one read that happens on a contract. He agrees with the timing and the approach of it. He met with the Mayor this past Wednesday and he identified the $95,000 being left over from the high school parking lot from the Jajuga administration. Maggie discovered it while looking for money. He agrees with getting the first read done, getting the money in place, and then two weeks Council can make a final decision on it. Councilor Faretra said this discussion started in 2020, pre-COVID. The RFP expired and went out a second time. This has worked in the Arlington neighborhood. That is a huge tool. Speaking with Chief McNamara who comes from Lawrence and the community that has this program and Councilor Simard can speak to the benefits of having this system in Methuen. He agrees with Councilor McCarty. Council has the choice in two weeks Council can approve moving the money. If the contract comes back and Council doesn’t like the way the contract looks, they can always vote no on the contract and we’re back to square one. That is the only way to do it. His concern is not only with this. He asked how many little pockets of money are out there that we are not aware of, that we’re not sure He feels like this has happened a few times. When they first all came on to Council, there was a gentleman here for a project. He wrote a check for hundreds of thousands of dollars to get out of affordable housing. There’s now a random hundred thousand dollar account just laying there, left over. “How many more of these accounts are in the city that we are not aware of?” Councilor Saba said he doesn’t understand how a Mayor hides money and the CAFO just finds it because the CAFO is in charge of that. Council can ask the CAFO when she is here. But whatever Mayor we have in office, he doesn’t understand how a Mayor can just hide somewhere without CAFOs knowledge. Councilor Finocchiaro noted that Council argued at a previous meeting what should come first, the transfer or approving the contract. Some Councilors talked about how it made sense to approve the contract first and figure out if they even need to spend the money. If so, then approve the transfer to be able to spend for that. “What happens if Council approves the transfer but doesn’t approve the contract?” The order this should have had is either a public presentation, facts and plan to whatever extent the administration was interested in and then from there or documentation that provides more detail and then have a vote. At least you’d have the contract vote first and then later on the agenda have the funding after that. She does not feel comfortable with the cash up front before she knows the detailed scenario. She understands the goals of what some of the other Councilors have been saying. Council can potentially pass this and decide to vote “no” later. She understands that too. To her, it is a matter of process and something the Council needs more information on. She is going to be a “no” on this. Councilor DiZoglio said this was something the School Committee agreed to with School funds and city funds. It is still unclear where this $95,000 is coming from. He requested that the CAFO be present at the next meeting to discuss this $95,000 because two years later and especially in 2020 when we have a budget crisis in the city, where was this $95,000 then and why couldn’t’ this money have gone to paving for the last year and a half. 9 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building Councilor Zeigler said it is clear the Council needs more information. This is first read. This is the process. We have a first read, then a second read and then vote on the contract and all the information that Council needs if they have all the information and feel comfortable with the contract we move forward. If they don’t they don’t and vote it down. She feels comfortable voting “yes” on this and at our next meeting having our CAFO and the Mayor here. Council will have another discussion about this funding. Council will have the contract before them and have a presentation too, conversation where the cameras will go and whether we move forward. UPON VOTE: 8 yes, 1 no (Clr. Finocchiaro) TR-22-11 Resolution to Utilize $192, 500 from the Building Safety Task Force Fund to Fund the Citywide Outdoor Wireless Video Security Public Safety System MOTION BY: Councilor Saffie, seconded by Councilor Simard to approve. Councilor McCarty said this is the first time he has heard of a Building Task force fund. He asked if there is any information on this revolving account and what it is used for. Chief of Staff, Tina Conway, stated that account has been around for a long time. Prior to October 2019, the funds are any fines that are levied together against properties that are a danger to the health and safety of the community. That’s where the funds come from. Traditionally, it could only be spent on public health and public safety that was specific to abandoned properties and abandoned lots. In October 2019, this Council expanded the use so that it could be used for any public safety or any public health service, with the approval of the Mayor and the Council. It has been around forever. She doesn’t know what it has been used for in the past. Councilor McCarty commented he recalled the vote that the Council expanded the use to make it eligible for the camera program. That was two or three years ago. Council took the vote to expand it, some of the first term Councilors. He is looking forward to following through with that three years later. Councilor Saba commented it was created December 16th 2009, with specific uses and as very adequately explained by the Chief of Staff. Looking at the October 21st 2019 meeting, the CAFO explained that there’s a very specific use for these funds and it is, it was created to when you have abandoned properties and the city has to immediately clean up a lot or board up a building they wanted to have access to this money right away. It is being funded as the Chief of Staff said, by fines or by fees that were assessed to the banks when they repossess property. Looking at the minutes of that meeting the CAFO at the time did say that the use is very specific and she would not normally approve it. but because of that specific camera that Council voted on in that meeting, she justified it by saying “it is actually in an area where there is a house that has been abandoned and that the camera would help”. That was presented by the former Police Chief. He doesn’t actually remember Council changing the scope of this and saying that we can just spend it on anything. Now, it kind of goes against what the CAFO initially said where we are not looking to buy a camera for one area where there is an abandoned building or property, we’re looking at buying this whole camera system with these funds. He asked what happens if the balance is depleted. The economy will change at some point and we may have more of an issue with abandoned properties and we won’t have access to these funds. He is not clear as to whether or not the Council voted to change the rule on this across the board or just for that one 10 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building camera. He has specific questions for the CAFO because of looking at her comments at that meeting, he doesn’t get a warm and fuzzy feeling on this. He is 100% supportive of the cameras but he is not sure about the funding source. His recommendation is that Council table this until Council can get some answers from the CAFO. And maybe put this before the Solicitor for him to do a little research also on it. Councilor Finocchiaro said during those conversations in 2019, she recalls attempting to put some additional limitations because the original writing of it was rather heavy handed. We made a little bit of progress on that but not much. At the time it was stated that this was a one-time thing, nobody would ever want to use it again for this purpose. This was an exception and she recalled members and other elected officials saying in the event of this going forward. Again, this is not something that we could do. Now we are here and it’s not just a small amount which was $10,000 in 2019. This is for the majority, if not all of the funds, $192,500. That is a big concern for her. When we are looking at equity in our funds across the city where we constantly have a situation where we are put up against some difficulties and forced into situations saying “if you don’t approve X, Y, Z, that we are robbing from one department, one goal to pay for something completely unrelated, then you don’t get that unrelated thing.” This is a situation where you can be completely in favor of the cameras and still vote against this line item because she doesn’t think this is an appropriate place to get the funds. She would support a table and if not her vote would be a “no” because this is a very specific fund that is funded literally by the members of the Task Force and of the employees who have fines and other things and that helps to put money into this account. The point is to save that money. For example, when a condemned building is a hazard to the city and they need to tear it down. It is extremely expensive. And anything from that to boards for a home that’s abandoned and there’s drug activity. There are a million different uses for this fund that’s been used in the past and is ongoing. She can’t imagine a scenario where we gut it and leave this fund non existent for those purposes unless there is some other plan to put this money back in there from some other source of which she is not aware of. “Why would we draw down this account?” When we are doing okay, we should be in a practice where we are saying “these accounts are meant for only what they are meant for”. And if we don’t use them, the money keeps accruing because one-day we will need to use it all. She does not feel comfortable taking money from the Building Safety Task Force and using it for something that we could get with funds elsewhere. That would put them in a difficult situation and we don’t have a plan for where they would get their funding now that she has been made aware of. She would support a motion to table. Otherwise, she can’t support this and maybe we will get some more information to clarify. Chief McNamara noted it seems like the discussion is centered on funding vs. what the value of the program is to the city. Solicitor Rossetti – Point of Order – legally for the body – He said the deployment of security mechanisms by a municipality is a permissible area for executive session for this public body. He cautioned against getting into specifics about the location or contemplated locations of security devices as part of this discussion. 11 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building Councilor Saffie noted the camera system is a great idea and she is in support of this. She asked if there is any foreseeable revenue from it, to be able to fine people for going through stop signs, that type of thing. Chief McNamara responded it has nothing to do with revenue building or anything of that nature, no red light fines or camera fines. Councilor Simard said he would be in support of a table until Council has the CAFO present to answer some of the questions they have. Councilor Faretra agreed with Councilor Simard. A table counts as a first read. The CAFO will be here at the next meeting to answer questions properly and then Council can move forward with this. Councilor Saba recommended going back to the minutes of October 21st 2019, looking specifically on pages 2, 3, and 4. It pretty much gives us a clear indication of what was going on. He doesn’t know if the clerk can find December 16th 2009, which was the creation of this. MOTION BY: Councilor Saba, seconded by Councilor Faretra to table. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE: UNANIMOUS yes Ordinances: TO-22-9 An Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Rezone that Parcel of Land located at 184 Pleasant Valley Street, LLC, Parcel 1010-78E-2000 from a Limited Industrial (IL) District to a Highway Business (BH) District MOTION BY: Councilor McCarty, seconded by Councilor Simard to adopt. MOTION BY: Councilor Faretra, seconded by Councilor Simard to table pending a public hearing with Community Development and City Council. UPON VOTE: UNANIMOUS TO-22-10 An ordinance to establish and authorize a Department Revolving Fund under the direction and control of the Department of Veterans Services pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53E ½ MOTION BY: Councilor Zeigler, seconded by Councilor DiZoglio to adopt. Councilor McCarty said this resolution would be creating a new revolving fund so he would like to hear if there is anyone here who can speak on why we are creating this. Chief of Staff said this particular Veterans department at the current time is doing a lot more events Unanimous vote to table the events cost money. He charges, say the flag event, he charged some money. He needs the ability to quickly collect money and pay for the things that he’s doing. This gives him the ability to kind of run his department because he doesn’t know if has to budget, he comes up with an idea to run an event. This is really just to give him the ability to pivot quickly and to run the events, the great events that he is running. It happens a lot more now than it has in the past. 12 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building Councilor McCarty asked if the fund would be at the complete discretion of the VSO. Tina Conway responded there would be some limits to what he can spend. He certainly can’t spend more than he has. It is not anticipated to be a fund that gathers a lot of money. It is more of an operating account. He sells tickets to an event that people buy the tickets and he’s got to pay for the meal or whatever so he would have to come to Council for expenditures. Councilor McCarty said if it is less than $25,000 will he execute the expenditure. Tina Conway said she doesn’t know the specifics of that. All she knows is the reason for it and that is the reason for it. Councilor McCarty said he knows Paul Jensen wouldn’t do anything the Mayor didn’t want him to do. He is just thinking down the road when everyone here is gone. We are creating a fund. He is just trying to figure out the rules for the road with it. Tina Conway said the rules for the road are the same as with any revolving fund. It is a functional operational account. For the most part the money comes in. You need to spend it, you spend it. It is always going to be around fundraising and then giving back to the Veterans, doing things for the Veterans, like with the money he raised when he sold the flags, he’s had a couple of different events for the Veterans. That is the idea of it more than going and building a slush fund and spending $25,000 at a time. Councilor Faretra said it sounds similar to what Director Angelo does. He takes in registration fees, for T-shirts, etc. Councilor Faretra requested that this be added to monthly reports distributed to Council for review. Tina Conway agreed. Councilor Finocchiaro noted for the record two items Council was given with regards to this agenda item. One is from the fiscal stability officer and it says that this calls for the establishment of a revolving fund for Veterans services. As proposed, the fund complies with MGL Chapter 44 and it also notes that the spending ceiling set for $50,000 in FY’22 needs to be set annually as part of the budget process so that is something to make sure that we are looking out for annually and also to understand that as proposed the max spending ceiling at a time is actually $50,000. In addition, our CAFO’s impact statement notes what it is for and it says “to generate fees receipts to support all or some of the expenses of those programs and/or activities without further appropriation. This fund would need to be approved annually and has a maximum allowable spending limitation of $50,000. Funding for this fund would come from fees charged and received for participation in special events and activities related to Veterans affairs to be spent on events and activities for Veteran Affairs. The establishment of this fund does not appear to have a financial impact as it shall be self-funded; but will allow the department to expand events and activities provided to for the city’s Veterans. Solicitor Rossetti Point of Order on a legal matter related to this proposed ordinance. - Under the Mass General Laws the citation that is noted in this agenda item, a revolving fund, in order for this to be effective, based on the Mass General Laws, that this cannot be effective until the beginning of FY 23. He read from the statute “the establishment of any fund shall be made not later than the beginning of the fiscal year in which the fund shall begin. Since we are passed 13 Methuen City Council – Regular Meeting Monday, February 7, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. Great Hall, Searles Building the beginning of the current fiscal year, we’re past July 1st, 2021, he would submit that this cannot be effective until July 1, 2022, at the earliest. He would recommend an amendment to the pending ordinance to reflect that. He would also add that if there was a request to increase the amount of the ceiling under the revolving fund, that is subject to approval by the Council. That cannot be automatically undertaken by the executive. If there is a request to increase the amount of the ceiling under this provision of Mass General Laws, that would require Council approval. MOTION BY: Councilor Simard, seconded by Councilor Saba to amend the effective date of this ordinance at 7/1/22 (FY’23) UPON ROLL CALL VOTE: UNANIMOUS yes MOTION BY: Councilor McCarty, seconded by Councilor Zeigler to adopt as amended. UPON VOTE: UNANIMOUS yes REQUEST OF COUNCILORS – None ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE GOOD AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY Councilor Zeigler reported the “light the falls” show is taking place this weekend on the 12th, 13th, and 14th from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. She encouraged everyone to check it out as it is a vibrant light show on the water, iced over, and snow. Councilor McCarty noted the central district is full of flower shops and he encouraged those who are shopping for Valentine’s Day to shop local. Chairman Beauregard wished everyone a “Happy Valentine’s Day” ADJOURN MOTION BY: Councilor Saba, seconded by Councilor Zeigler to adjourn. UPON VOTE: UNANIMOUS yes. I do hereby certify at a meeting of which a quorum was present, the foregoing minutes were approve by the Methuen City Council by a unanimous vote on March 7, 2022. Linda Gagnon COUNCIL CLERK 14