City Council

METHUEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M. SEARLES BUILDING, GREAT HALL METHUEN, MA 01844 Chair Marsan called the Special Meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Members present: Councilor Faretra, Councilor DiZoglio, Councilor Saffie, Councilor Soto, Councilor Surillo, Councilor Campagnone, Councilor Pesce and Chair Marsan. Councilor Valley was absent. Acceptance of Agenda MOTION BY: Councilor Campagnone, seconded by Vice Chair Soto to accept the agenda. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE: 8 yes, 1 absent (Clr. Valley) Public Participation • Linda Soucy – 10 Kirk Street, Methuen – “I read at the last meeting about being in favor of the Methuen Police Budget, the Fire Department, and the DPW. Please don't make any cuts to those departments. They're already as slim as they can go. I'm also going to tell you I'm in favor of TR 25-33. That's on the agenda this evening. And then I would hope that everybody has an opportunity to watch Channel 5 News from yesterday's programming about cannabis and the horrible effects it can have on people. So, please look it up on your little magic phones and it will be there telling you. Okay? So, that's it. Thank you. Have a good night.” • John Drew, 6 Spring Valley Road, Methuen – “Good evening. My name is John Drew. I live at 6 Spring Valley Road. Here tonight is a father, taxpayer, homeowner, and voter. I'm going to quickly touch on three items here. If I misunderstand anything, I welcome corrections and constructive discussion. Let's start with the City Solicitor. I want to be clear. I'm not questioning Mr. O'Neill's skill or dedication. He is well qualified. I'm questioning the structure of the proposed contract. We budgeted $151,646 in the Solicitor's office in FY’25. This new agreement, if passed tonight, would set the base at $160,000 as of today. Then in eight days, we will see an increase to $164,800 due to the COLA increase. In January, that will climb to $173,000. In July, we'll top out at $178,000. In our FY2026 year budget, the contract would set us roughly at $168,000, roughly $8,000 more than what we're allotting to the budget lines. So, to see whether we're in line with other communities, I did my own homework. I brought some of the following up at recent meetings. In Salem, with approximately 44,000 people, their City Solicitor makes $130,000. Twice the size, in Lowell, with 115,000 people, they make $128,000. North Andover, with 31,000 residents, the City Solicitor’s budget is $152,000. And just for a bit more context on that, their City Solicitor does the city and the schools. These towns vary in size and tax base, yet their top legal salaries cluster around $130,000 to $155,000. Methuen, by contrast, is poised to exceed that range once the automatic steps and COLAs kick in. Here's my simple ask on this. Set the base salary at $160,000 if this body feels that amount is correct and has done their due diligence. Effective July 1st, skip the immediate cost of living impact and honor the January step increase. That 1 METHUEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M. SEARLES BUILDING, GREAT HALL METHUEN, MA 01844 should save the city about $5,000 in FY’26. Next, the Chief of Staff’s role in the Mayor's office. I want to stress that I don't know this gentleman. I've only met him a few times in the hallway. My concern is not with the person, but about the position. As a Chief Executive, Mayor Beauregard needs the right-hand person that he trusts. But at the same time, the Chief of Staff position sits at a higher step than many department heads. Whenever a new hire starts above entry level or salary scales, taxpayers deserve to know why. What specific experience, specialized skills, critical responsibilities justify that step? Again, this isn't about the person. It's about making every dollar that is earned and every decision explained. I do want to make another note when I was reviewing the budget. I noted that the Mayor's salary’s line item. And I asked the Mayor about this and he confirmed it. That he does take less than his full salary. And shows that he's willing to take on that burden when times are tough. And I respect that. Just something I wanted to commend him on. Finally, our schools. Thanks to the circuit breaker funds, we will bring back 30 teaching positions this year. And that's great news. I'm grateful for everyone who fought for that. Whether it's Senator Payano, Representative Hamilton, Mr. Mayor. But we remain 12 teachers short of last year's staffing level. Every spring we hear from educators who leave because they don't feel secure in their jobs. And this year is no different. We sadly had many teachers give their notice not to return next year. We talk about valuing students. But until we give our teachers stability and a clear path forward, our words will continue to ring hollow. We need a multi-year staffing plan that guarantees these positions. Not just for one budget cycle. We need professional support, mentorship, and competitive compensation to our teachers who want to build their careers here in Mason. Finally, we've earned a bit of breathing room with this circuit breaker. But that's not an invitation to relax. It's an opportunity to sharpen your focus and your pencils. Let's align the city's solicitor contract with what our peers pay. Let's determine clear public justification for every step on every salary scale. Whether that's legal counsel, executive staff, front-line workers. And let's commit to long-term stability for our schools. So, every child and family know Methuen stands for educators. When we treat every dollar with respect and demand transparency, you'll strengthen our community's trust. Show we can prioritize and build a stronger Methuen together. Thank you for your time and thank you for all you do to keep moving our city forward.” 1. Unfinished Business • TR-25-27 - Resolution Authorizing Transfer of $252,795 between various General Fund Personal Services and Other Expenses budgets to fund various approved contracts and agreed upon Collective Bargaining Agreements – Motion to approve by Clr. Campagnone, seconded by Clr. Surillo – UPON ROLL CALL VOTE – Unanimous - 8 yes, 1 absent (Clr. Valley) 2 METHUEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M. SEARLES BUILDING, GREAT HALL METHUEN, MA 01844 •TR-25-14 - Resolution Authorizing Expenditures of $5,000 from the Edwin J. Castle Fund for the Comprehensive Grammar School – Motion to approve by Clr. Campagnone, seconded by Clr. Surillo – UPON ROLL CALL VOTE – Unanimous - 8 yes, 1 absent (Clr. Valley) 2. New Business • TR-25-33 - Resolution Authorizing Transfer $1,000 from General Fund City Council Other Expenses to General Fund City Council Personal Service Expense to fund year-end personnel expenditure (Sponsored by Chair Marsan and Vice-Chair Soto) (EPA Requested) – Motion to approve by Clr. Campagnone, seconded by Clr. Surillo – UPON ROLL CALL VOTE – Unanimous - 8 yes, 1 absent (Clr. Valley) Motion to approve EPA - UPON ROLL CALL VOTE – Unanimous - 8 yes, 1 absent (Clr. Valley) • 3. Contracts C-25-92 Agreement with Paul T. O'Neill for City Solicitor Position (remove from the table) – Motion to Remove from the Table by Clr. DiZoglio, seconded by Clr. Campagnone – UPON ROLL CALL VOTE – Unanimous - 8 yes, 1 absent (Clr. Valley) – Motion to Approve by Clr. Campagnone, seconded by Clr. DiZoglio – Discussion – Chair Marsan recognized Clr. DiZoglio, “I just want to note for the record that we received some notices from the Solicitor today, too, on other cities. And I just want to make it known that I think this is in the ballpark where we are currently today. I have been an advocate, though, of large jumps, though, in recent years. And I do want to talk quickly here with the Solicitor and the team. Currently, the Solicitor is receiving an interim salary of the previous Solicitor, am I correct? And that's $155,000?” CAFO Maggie Duprey said, “That's the step he's on right now is the $155,382.” Clr. DiZoglio continued, “And that $155,000 is step three, correct?” CAFO Duprey agreed. Clr. DiZoglio said, “Previous to that, his salary was $135,000, correct, as an Assistant City Solicitor, correct?” CAFO Duprey said, “Which was the year 25 step.” Clr. DiZoglio said, “Correct. So, we have been paying the Solicitor aligned to our current Solicitor's former salary. I do think a few of the step increases coming up would put him above a big jump in the position. And I think if we were to hire anyone else, we would be in a different position. $160,000 is not a step. $163,000 is a step if you look at step three to the max step. So that's where my question is now. Is he going to be staying at step three at the $160,000 salary starting today if we were to appoint him? And then the COLA increases would move him to the next step, which would be the maximum level. Am I correct in that statement?” CAFO Duprey said, “So, the ask that's on the floor tonight is not a step. It's within the City Council's jurisdiction to appoint at any level the City Solicitor's salary. So, the ask tonight, as I understand it, is that it’s $160,000 and then would go from there. So, it would move now from $155,382 to $160,000, which is really as of agreement, which would be tonight because this is a second read. So, it would really be one week at that rate. And then it would change for July with the COLA that is consistent with all the other department heads.” Clr. DiZoglio said, “Correct. So, with the COLA 3 METHUEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M. SEARLES BUILDING, GREAT HALL METHUEN, MA 01844 increase, though, that would put him over a step three. It would put him at the max level.” CAFO Duprey said, “It would not put him at a step at all, but it would put him at $164,800.” Clr. DiZoglio said, “Which technically would be five-year. If I'm looking here at FY25, we've broken up to maximum. And then the former Solicitor did a 5, 10, 15, 20-year step after that. So, we would put the new solicitor, at a “five-year” tenure. It would be in that range?” CAFO Duprey agreed. Clr. DiZoglio said, “Well, I'm following the step right here. So, again, I'm not looking at trying to change this agreement. I'm just trying to align this correctly from a step position. So, I would like to align the solicitor to step-three, which would be $155,000. At that point, there would be a COLA increase that would put him at probably a $160,000 range. And then there would be a year-one, which if I look at that in FY2026, he would be asking for a step increase, which would then put him at the max level. And then a 3% COLA increase again in effective July 1st of 2026. Am I saying anything wrong there that would then entitle a motion?” City Solicitor Paul O’Neill said, “So, I mean, your choice, it doesn't work that way. There's the salary administration plan, which you're welcome to use. What's before you is an employment contract, just like you had with the CAFO, or with an Assistant Fire Chief, or a Deputy Chief, or any of those other things. We can get into how these five-year steps got in here, but they weren't in the Solicitor ordinance. They came in through TO-24-17, which you just passed recently, that gave five- year steps to Department Heads, which I'm not sure the Council was fully aware of how that worked, but it also gave contracted department heads a step increase. I don't really think that that's part of what I should be getting. I think my salary should be set by the council, including the COLAs. And I don't think that those are appropriately a part of this salary administration plan. The charter says you get to set the salary. It's separate and apart from the salary administration plan. You can do it through a salary administration plan if you want, but this salary administration is the amalgam of two different ordinances that were passed, one of which conveys additional increases to Department Heads and contracted Department Heads, which, you know, I was not a part of. So, you know, it's certainly at the will of the council. I will just note for the Council that I'm already at step three, at $155-382. So, I wouldn't expect that to be my salary set as of today. But again, it's at your discretion, obviously. I think that the email I sent around today, with all due respect to the person who testified here at public participation and who has been here right along providing information, I verified my figures today. And today, first let's start with the School Department. The School Department spent $175,000 in outside counsel in FY25. So, if they're looking to save money off of the Legal Department budget, maybe they should stop spending it over there. In FY24, they spent $184,000 in outside legal counsel. The person testifying referenced that some towns allow their City Solicitor to do schoolwork. Happy to do it. Ordinance laid on the table, which would allow just that. Happy to consolidate that over here. And we would be able to do most of that work for them. So, if we look at the other surrounding towns, the first one cited Salem, he's incorrect. The budget for the City Solicitor is receiving a raise this year, $156,000. Andover Town Counsel, 4 METHUEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M. SEARLES BUILDING, GREAT HALL METHUEN, MA 01844 $190,000. Braintree, the City Solicitor, $179,000. Waltham, $182,000. Weymouth, $174,823. Somerville, $196,000. Lawrence, $160,000. Framingham, $200,000. Medford, $159,000. So, I think my request is very reasonable, very in the middle. I don't share my qualifications to any of these people. If you look at the list that I sent you, there's a few people that have more years of public service and more experience, but most of them have less. I have 30 years of legal experience both as a litigator and attorney, and also in the State House, which I apply every day here for the city. So, I do think that I'm worth what I ask for, and I hope that you support it. But obviously it's at your discretion to choose what you feel is appropriate. Thank you.” Chair Marsan recognized CAFO Duprey, “I just want to caution the Council not to compare it to the prior City Solicitor for two reasons. One is their experience is not equal. They're not the same. But also, the prior City Solicitor had done an ordinance that increased the salary for that role, and in that ordinance, he agreed to freeze his salary for the year that it went into effect. So, he would also be getting a significant jump going forward into the next budget cycle if he were to be here, but not for that freeze that kind of held him in that spot. So, I just wanted to say that out loud so that we just don't compare apples to oranges. That's all.” Chair Marsan recognized Clr. Pesce, “Thank you. So, I think we're splitting hairs here at this point. As an attorney, I can say I think we are in line with where the Solicitor should be. I also understand the public's frustration in lieu of everything that's happened this budget cycle, but I also don't think it's fair necessarily and this position is such a very specific position. We put out feelers for this position and we did not get a lot of applicants. This is a very specific area of law and Attorney O'Neill has a very specific area of credentials that the city so desperately needs. My frustration, and this is where I'm hung up, and for full transparency, I've let people know this, I would rather see a higher salary and just put that in and have that be the salary, much like we do some of the other larger salaries in the city. This whole COLA step, hit this, hit that, feels shady, right? To me, it doesn't feel right, but then on the flip side of that, that's the way everybody does it in the city. The same way the school does it, the same way the city does it, so why would we penalize the Solicitor when that's the way everybody else does it? So now I'm hung up between the two. Do we rewrite the whole way his contract is done? And for what? I think Mr. Drew said it was a savings of $5,000. I mean, if that's not splitting hairs, I don't know what is. I don't think it's, you know, my biggest gripe, and I've said this publicly as well, is I really want the morale in Methuen for any employee, the Solicitor, the teachers, to feel appreciated, to feel valued. You know, we don't, we shouldn't make salaries based on what the budget is doing. We should base it on what that position is worth. I think Mr. O'Neill is in line with what the position is worth. I think he has the credentials and the resume to easily back that up, and quite honestly, to get a much higher salary doing something else, maybe even in the private sector. So I am, for one, am happy to support the contract that he put forward, again, for full transparency, I was actually leaning towards what Councilor DiZoglio said, but again, I'm finding myself in the same position to save a few dollars to appease the masses, but what's it really doing, other than making Mr. O'Neill feel 5 METHUEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M. SEARLES BUILDING, GREAT HALL METHUEN, MA 01844 undervalued? So, I'm kind of, I think we're at a crossroads here. I don't like the way all these increases work, and I understand the frustration of the public, I really do, because it feels like a big bump in a very short span of time, but it's the way it's always been done. So, I'm okay with what it is. I think it's fair, I think it's in line with what he should be getting, and I think it's well substantiated by his credentials and his resume.” Chair Marsan recognized Clr. Soto, “Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you, and this may be a question to the Solicitor. So, TO-24-17, in my opinion, was a self-serving ordinance when that Solicitor put it on the table after I reviewed it, because it gave us the confusion of two years, three years, which was my big issue a few months back. My question to you is, if we were to repeal that ordinance, does that change anything with what we set today? If we were to set your salary, as I know, per Charter, the Council sets your salary. Does it affect what we do tonight if it's repealed?” Solicitor O’Neill replied, “No, not if you're adopting a contract, it won't change at all, but I don't think that's necessary. I think that there was clarification. I mean, the City Solicitor is the head of the Legal Department, but he is not an Executive Department Head. The Charter speaks to specific Executive Department Heads, and the City Solicitor is not one of them. It's a Legislative office. It's not the same kind of Department Head as the Charter speaks of in that section. You certainly could repeal that. It would have no effect if you adopted a contract paying a Solicitor whatever was specified in the contract, no different than how the CAFO is paid or the Chief or Deputy Chief, Assistant Fire Chiefs. They all have contracts. Mine's a lot simpler than theirs and doesn't contain a lot of the perks that are in the other ones. Not interested in that. So that's why it was straightforward. I would also note as well that I have been effectively doing this job since January and doing both jobs. So, we're down one whole person who's an experienced person, but it does affect the ability to get the work of the city done without another person available.” Chair Marsan recognized Clr. Faretra, “I'll be quick. It's more of a statement than a question at this point. We are reaping what this Council has sowed when it comes to all the CBAs we've approved with the 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 step increases. The solicitor wants a piece of that pie. And why shouldn't he get it if the Council's already voted on every other CBA getting the same? So, I agree with Councilor Pesce, which seems to be a trend recently. I don't know how long we can keep this going. But when you look at it and there's raises every couple of months, it doesn't pass the smell test. But this is in line with what everybody else is getting in the City as a Department Head. If you're here for so many years, you get a bump. And then you continue to get bumps on top of your coals. So, we can't say that the solicitor isn't eligible for these when every other department head gets them. My only gripe is after talking to Ms. Duprey, is steps seem to be retroactive to when somebody went into the interim position instead of when they were appointed. And I disagree with that policy. I feel like the step increase should not start until the person has been officially appointed and hired. They are being compensated for that interim position by a bump from their original salary from the role they were in before. Now getting that director's role and have the interim title. But for, in this instance, the Solicitor to get a step increase starting in January when today is June 6 METHUEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2025 @ 6:00 P.M. SEARLES BUILDING, GREAT HALL METHUEN, MA 01844 23rd, and he was just approved last week, I feel like that step increase should be a year off the approval, not a year from when he took that interim role. To me, the interim is an interim. It shouldn't count towards that step. But that's all I'm going to say for this. Mr. Chair, because I know we have to go.” Chair Marsan said, “I just want to say one thing. I think for $160,000, that's what the committee chose --- Mr. O'Neill as our applicant. We advertised it up to $158,000 and change. I rounded it to $160,000. I think he's worth it. He's great. I think if we start docking him, and if he was to say no, we'd have to start over, and that's not a threat to anyone. But even at $180,000, he works at 40 hours a week. That's 2,080 hours a year. That's $86 an hour. You're not going to hire a lawyer that's competent going to trial and doing everything for us for that pay. So please consider it.” Chair Marsan recognized Clr. Valley, “I wouldn’t like to see the City of Methuen going through the same situation that the City of Haverhill went through. They posted their position for the City Solicitor with a salary of $94,000 to $120,000. So, they couldn't find any professionals. And now they are outsourcing all the legal work. And they budgeted for FY26, $582,000, which I think is an outrageous amount. For that, for that reason, I will support the City Solicitor’s contract. Because I don't want to see Methuen in the same position that Haverhill in right now.” UPON ROLL CALL VOTE – 8 yes, 1 no (Clr. Faretra) MOTION TO ADJOURN by Clr. DiZoglio, seconded by Clr. Campagnone – Unanimous - at 6:37 PM Respectfully submitted, Lisa Yarid Ferry Assistant Council Clerk 7