Methuen Council approves contract for city solicitor after debate over salary steps and COLA

METHUEN, Mass. — The Methuen City Council voted 8–1 Monday to approve Contract C2592, an employment agreement with Paul O'Neil for the city solicitor position, after a lengthy debate about salary steps and automatic cost-of-living adjustments.

The vote came during a special council meeting held June 23 in the Great Hall. The contract passed on a roll call of eight in favor, one opposed; Councilor Ferretra cast the lone no vote.

Councilors and public speakers focused on the contract's immediate base salary, future step increases and whether time served as an interim should count toward longer step schedules. John Drew, a Methuen resident who testified during public participation, urged the council to alter the contract so the base salary would be $160,000 effective July 1 and to delay automatic COLA step effects to save roughly $5,000 in fiscal 2026. “I want to be clear, I'm not questioning Mister O'Neil's skill or dedication. He is well qualified,” Drew said, then pressed the council on the structure and timing of increases.

Paul O'Neil, who addressed the council during the discussion, said the solicitor's salary ultimately is set by the council and explained that recent ordinances and the salary administration plan had layered additional step increases onto department-head pay. “I think my salary should be set by the council, including the COLAs,” O'Neil said, and noted he had been performing the solicitor's duties since January while also carrying prior responsibilities.

Councilor DiZaglio pressed for aligning the appointment to a specific step, saying he preferred appointing the solicitor at the step-3 level (noted in council materials as $155,382) and then allowing scheduled COLAs and future step increases to follow in the normal cycle. Other councilors defended approving the contract as presented, saying market conditions and experience made the proposed package reasonable and that the city risks losing qualified legal counsel if it reduced the offer. “At $160,000 … you’re not going to hire a lawyer that’s competent going to trial and doing everything for us for that pay,” Chair Marston said during discussion.

Council discussion also referenced an ordinance passed earlier this year (TO 204-17) and the city's salary administration plan, both of which some speakers said contributed to how multi‑year step increases now apply to contracted department heads.

Council action on the contract followed other routine business at the meeting. The council unanimously approved TR 25‑27, a transfer of $252,795 among general fund accounts to fund approved contracts and collective bargaining obligations, and approved TR 25‑14, a $5,000 expenditure from the Edward J. Castle Fund for the Comprehensive Grammar School. The council also approved a $1,000 transfer (TR 25‑33) and added an emergency provision to expedite that transfer before the fiscal year end.

Discussion versus decision: the meeting record shows a mix of policy questions and a formal vote. Several councilors raised procedural and equity concerns about retroactive counting of interim service toward step increases; one councilor objected to the contract on that basis and voted no. The council did not change the contract on the floor; it adopted the agreement as presented.

The contract sets a base salary and schedules that, as discussed in public comment and council remarks, would move the solicitor's pay from a step‑3 interim level of $155,382 to $160,000 upon appointment and to higher amounts as COLA and step provisions took effect (speakers referenced future figures of $164,800, $173,000 and $178,000 at various future points). The meeting record shows disagreement over whether those step changes should begin from the date the interim began or from the date of formal appointment; those procedural details were not altered by the council vote.

The council did not provide additional appropriation specifically for the solicitor contract at the meeting; funding implications were discussed in the context of broader personnel spending and earlier transfers the council approved that evening.

The contract vote concludes the council's action at the June 23 special meeting; councilors indicated further budget hearings were scheduled to follow later in the evening.