Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 3-1-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 3-1-22 Minutes

Please note this transcription is unofficial. If you find an error, use the contact page to notify Plymouth On The Record.

Dick Quintal:

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Plymouth Select Board’s meeting of Tuesday, March 1st, 2022. Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

In accordance with Section 2475, and pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means and in-person. Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so in the following manner: tune in to PACTV government cable access channels Comcast 15 or Verizon Channel 47 and watch the meeting as it is aired live, or watch the meeting live at the PACTV website at www.PACTV.org.

Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting may do so in the following manner: please go to the Town website under the Select Board page and click on the Zoom Webinar Registration box or click on the link below on the agenda.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Call to order. The first order of business is the Public Hearing. In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Massachusetts General Laws as amended, notice is hereby given that a public hearing would be held remotely on Tuesday, March 1st, 2022 at 6:00 PM to consider the application for an operation on premises from 1620 Wine Bar Corporation doing business as 1620 at Cordage Park, 55 Cordage Park Circle, Raquel Mullaney, manager/holder of an Annual All Alcohol on Premises License. Description of premises is as follows: event venue with outdoor patio, first floor has the ballroom area, ceremony room, four bathrooms, second floor has three offices and storage. The ceremony room: two bathrooms and a bower added. So, that’s the alteration. I now declare the hearing open. Chris, is there anyone here on behalf of the 1620 that would like to say something?

Chris Badot:

Not at the moment.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Because last week, when you’re doing it this week, you can’t really see. So, as I said, the hearing is open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application of this hearing? Chris, anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Chris Badot:

No, sir.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Seeing not, I’m going to bring it back to the board.

 

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? The hearing is closed and it’s unanimous. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Chairman? Just so maybe PACTV can realize, Chris you can up the mill, when the date comes at the bottom of the screen it says February 22nd.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. We’ll have to cut their funding. We got to go to Town Meeting Article only after the next election. I’m only kidding.

Article 14 (Agricultural Commission), we have Mr. Farah, I believe.

Chris Badot:

They’re on their way in.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Patrick Farah:

Good evening, everybody!

Dick Quintal:

Good evening, Mr. Farah. How are you?

Patrick Farah:

I’m doing wonderful. Thank you so much for hearing Article 14. If you remember Article 27 back in the fall was to transition the Agricultural Committee to a Commission and this is simply a housekeeping measure based on that article. If the Chairman doesn’t mind, I’d like to read Article 14, if that’s okay.

Dick Quintal:

Absolutely.

Patrick Farah: 

Excellent. The seat of the town will vote to amend this town bylaws Section 63: Right to Form by deleting Section 63, Section 2 definitions containing at least 5 acres and inserting Mass General Law Chapter 14, Section B, establishing a municipal Agricultural Commission in removing Chapter 63, Section 6: Agricultural Committee or take any other action relative thereto including future additions, amendments or modification thereto a copy of which is on file with the town clerk or take any other action relative thereto.

0:05:33

Patrick Farah:

To simply put, Article 14 is basically to amend the town’s existing right to farm bylaw to incorporate the Agricultural Commission’s duties and responsibilities. By the way, Rich Vacca supports that. He is here with me tonight. Last week, at the Advisory and Finance Committee, they voted unanimously in favor to support this article. So, we are simply looking for the Select Board’s support also so we can move this to town meeting. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you!  

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from board members? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Yeah. Patrick, under Section 2 definitions, it looks to me like you are removing the language containing at least five acres. So, it goes from the word farm shell include any parcel or to use parcels of land or water bodies containing at least five acres to no definition of the amount of space.

Patrick Farah:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Patrick Farah:

Sure. I’d be happy to. So, as part of the Agricultural Commission’s mission and vision statement as well as, and I believe Richard and I had been before the Select Board to speak to you about Civic Agriculture, we are looking at 21st Century farming methods and techniques, which include rooftops, native lots, indoor farming. And last time I checked, I don’t think we have any 5-acre indoor buildings. So, this is part of encouraging and advocating for innovative and 21st Century farming methods.

Harry Helm:

So, a question for you, say–sorry, Charlie, just to follow up.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s okay. It’s okay.

Harry Helm:

Say for instance, somebody owns two parcels in town that are contiguous with each other but are separate parcels. They have not been blended together. One has the house on it, one is an unbuildable lot of let’s say 0.13 acres. Can they farm on that?

Patrick Farah:

Sure. Yes. Now, the thing is, again, what we want to do is get away from this conventional 19th and 20th Century thinking of farming. We’re not talking about 400 acres running a John Deere coal mine. We’re talking about small lots micro farming. So, what you want–I’m sorry go ahead.  

        

Harry Helm:

No. I understand that, Patrick. It’s just that how–is there any regulation on that .13 acre for livestock? Because in reading the code, livestock is allowed: cattle, poultry, swine, lamas, camels and other domesticated animals for food and other agricultural purposes. Is there anything to prevent somebody from filling it up with chickens and roosters?

Patrick Farah:

Great question. And the thing is the Board of Health as well as the Town bylaws have whole sections of animal control and restrictions and conditions. It’s funny you should mention this because Richard Vacca and I, we talked with Karen Keane, the Director of Public Health today, she emailed us a lot of literature regarding that very thing. And just as a side note, we discovered that there was a law against back in maybe the 20s that prohibited anyone from walking their swine along public ways and railways.

Harry Helm:

I agree with that. So, you’re telling me that my concerns along these lines, public health rules and bylaws take precedent over the right to farm?

0:10:10

Patrick Farah:

Yes, absolutely. Chairman Quintal, if I could, if you look at Section 6 of what the Commission actually has the authority to do and that’s on page 11. It’s really advisory. They have no will. This bylaw just recognizes the importance of agriculture. So, they service facilitators, they promote agriculture, they act as advocates, they work to preserve ag land, they purse initiatives to create sustainable agri and they encourage resolution upon dispute. So, they don’t have any real authority to do much of anything except really support our tourism–sorry, our agricultural community. So, again, this is a group that’s out there to help promote but they don’t have any real enforcement. They’re not allowing anything more or less than what you can already give today.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

My concern, the same with Harry, is the person who moves in next door to me raises goats and chickens down from Billerica. He’s got a half-acre, three-quarter acre piece of property right next to my property. And it’s a problem. I’ve seen it in court first hand. We’ve had more than three restraining orders because of the noise that the animals make and it’s just something we got to be really careful now. I’m a proponent of agriculture. I saw a wildlife resource up there at Long Pond Road, that reservation and they have the community farm up there, which I think is a phenomenal idea. I’d love to see more of that around Plymouth where maybe if you live in an apartment but you want a gun, you can drive out there and you have your own little piece of land that grows some vegetables. So, I just want to be careful on this that people don’t take this and abuse this and really hurt their neighbors.

Patrick Farah:

And what Lee Hartman said is actually true. There is already laws on the books regarding livestock. So, what this Article 14 doesn’t give the commission any power to overturn anything like that. Any kind of changes in the bylaw would have to come through town meeting, would have to come before this board and Advisory and Finance. It would be a whole process like any other bylaw I’m in.      

Charlie Bletzer:

Are there any tax advantages if they’re farming on the land?

Patrick Farah:

Well, there wouldn’t be any changes to that. Like for chapter line, you’re talking about?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yup.

Patrick Farah:

Yeah. I mean, this doesn’t give the Agricultural Commission any power to create any type of chapter designation on smaller pieces.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Patrick Farah:

You’re welcome.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

 

Betty Cavacco:

Just real quick and I’m just wondering if it would be too difficult, is there any way in that new bylaw that you’re proposing that we could put reference to the part of the Board of Health directive regarding farm animals because I mean, we’ve all been on this board and have had major issues with roosters and neighbors and goats and all that stuff. So, I just don’t want anyone to look at this bylaw. I mean, being on a small piece of land. I mean, I’ll have all the animals I could possibly feed on my little piece of property but I don’t want it to become an issue not only for the resident but for the board as well to have to be in these types of argument situations because someone will say, “Well, the Commission says that it’s not 5 acres now and I can do this and I can do that.” I just think it would be neither if we had some kind of reference to what the Board of Health says. And if you can’t then I get it, but if you can, I think that’d be great.

Richard Vacca:

Lee, do you have the–good evening, everybody. Rich Vacca. Lee, do you have the language in front of you at the moment?

Lee Hartman:

Yes, I do.

Richard Vacca:

That paragraph that they mentioned at the Advisory and Finance Committee, the first paragraph is a reference there to other regulations.

0:15:00

Lee Hartman:   

Yeah. So, it says, “Moreover, nothing in this bylaw should begin to authorize the acquisition of any interest of land or impose any land use regulations, which actions are properly the subject of state statute of regulation or local zoning laws or vote of the town meeting.”

Richard Vacca:

So, there it is, yup.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Just real quick point of clarification. These zoning laws that are mentioned, is that where the health department comes into play?

Lee Hartman:

No, it would be the health code. So, actually, zoning and I don’t want to complicate it like I did at Advisory and Finance, but actually, once you’re over 5 acres of land, you’re exempt from zoning for an agricultural use. So, it’s really Board of Health regs that are covering what you can and can’t do on properties.

 

Harry Helm:

But in your mind, even though Board of Health regulations or bylaws are not mentioned specifically in Paragraph 3 in Section 1 that it is covered?

Lee Hartman:

Oh, yes, yup.

Harry Helm:

Okay. All right.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions or comments? I see a couple of hands up here. Mrs. Davis, I believe. Ginny, did you want to speak?

Virginia Davis:

Yes. I just want to say I think probably before you do ahead of these things, wouldn’t you have to come before the Agricultural Commission and say, “I’d like to propose blah, blah, blah,” and then get permission? I think that would eradicate any of the fears that all of us would have if something happened next door to us. But I think I agree. I can think of people putting things on their roofs or in their walled side gardens, just this all kinds of things but they should be approved before they do it. That’s all. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Malaguti?

Everett Malaguti:

Good evening. Thank you. I just have one question. I’m supportive of this but I just have a question that may come up either to your offices or town meeting. With this change of the acreage and the uses and all of that, will this affect any Chapter 61 for agricultural land now? Will this open it up to different interpretations to tax code or will it just stay the same?

Richard Vacca:

Stay the same.

Patrick Farah:

It’ll stay the same.

Everett Malaguti:

Okay. So, even though they are becoming a possible farm now on less acreage on, they won’t be exempted or the lower taxation as we have for other agricultural, correct?

Lee Hartman:

Correct. Chapter 61 requires a minimum of 5 acres. So, anything in this file or even anywhere else wouldn’t, you need to have that minimum acreage to comply with Chapter 61 Ag.

Richard Vacca:

Just to clarify too, Lee, Chapter 61 is a state regulation not a local regulation.

Lee Hartman:

But it’s a tax incentive and you have to have that minimum 5 under 61 Acre Ag Use.

Everett Malaguti:

All right. Thank you so much.

Patrick Farah:

Thanks, Everett.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Sorry, I have one more question. In regards to Ms. Davis’s question, I believe she asked if under this bylaw, there is the facility that somebody who wanted to farm those in front of the Commission, is that part of this?      

Lee Hartman:

If you look at the language here, this script is just simply here to encourage and assist agriculture, not to make an approval to say yes or no. It does include language that would encourage people of others maybe to go through a conflict resolution through the board, through that committee, but that’s it. Yes, I mean, if you want to do something more than a cat or I’m going to say a couple of chickens, you’re going to be at the Board of Health getting approval from them to move forward with whatever you’re doing. So, it’s really the Board of Health that has that control and I have it now and I have it with or without this bylaw.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions? And I think if somebody has a problem, there’s going to be a way to handle it with hearings and all. Anyhow, back in the day not to keep dragging this out, through and out Plymouth where it all began was farm country. The actual houses I’ve lived in and all were actual small farms. If you look in the history, all Park Ave., Centennial Street, Nicks Rock Road, Sandy Shaft, those are all small little farms. I mean, we’re not talking about a herd of cattle being next door to you, which is giving people the right to farm in.

0:20:14

Dick Quintal:

I think it’s great. I think you know agriculture too and I’m in that business, but I think everything is changing for fresh and healthy and see what happens. Is there a motion from the board?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.  

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second it.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you all very much.

Patrick Farah:

All right. Thank you, everybody and have a great night.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. 16A? Mr. Keohan, I believe.

Bill Keohan:

Good evening. Bill Keohan with the Community Preservation Committee. Tonight, we’ll be presenting Article 16A, which is the restoration, rehabilitation to Stephen’s Field. Now, I want to take people back to 2014 when Community Preservation Committee first approached town meeting with the request for a $190,000 to begin the planning process. That article passed. The article also included the language of the formation of the Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee that was made up of residents, staff. It was made up of town meeting members and they have worked tirelessly for a number of years. That would be Jerry Sirrico representing Precinct 3, Diane Harting representing the neighborhood, Joan Bartlett representing the Community Preservation Committee, Gretchen Moran, Friends of Stephen’s Field, David Tarantino was also on that representing the harbor interest and then we had Mike Paul representing the recreational issues. Over the years, we had Barry DeBlasio and David Gould and Jonathan Beder and Nick Faiella involved in this process.

As the years transpired, we came up with a plan in 2016, which was the plan we went to town meeting. We had approval on that article for $2 million to build that plan out. We started going through the permitting process back in 2016, ’17. We came into a condition with the permits, were going to be problematic related to elevation changes at Stephen’s Field in terms of building seawalls and dealing with a waterfront park. We had to start to look at that permitting process. During that time, we experienced some flooding at Stephen’s Field and some recent NOAH maps have kind of directed the Community Preservation Committee and the Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee to revisit the plan because we felt that if we were going to make investments in Stephen’s Field, we needed to really strategically stop moving back infrastructure, revisiting the original plan to control cost and to deal with the realities of expected sea level rises along the coasts and Stephen’s Field being a low lying area that we thought it might be best to focus our attention on pulling back the infrastructure. So, a modified committee began to assemble in 2019. Obviously, the pandemic came into play and has been problematic in terms of the pace in which we could pursue this. But Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee and interested parties met at Town Hall, looked at different opportunities to come up with a revised plan.

That revised plan was worked on by the Town Engineering Department and eventually currently being worked on by Beals + Thomas, an outside engineering firm that’s been working with the committee and staff. I want to show you the plan that we have currently. If I can share my screen, is that possible?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, it is, Mr. Keohan.

Bill Keohan:

Okay, here I go.

Dick Quintal:

Do what you need to do, sir.

Bill Keohan:

Okay. Can you see that?

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Bill Keohan:

Okay. So, here is the revised plan that’s focused mostly on moving infrastructure away from the water and opening up spaces for the recreational purposes. One of the things that was thought of mostly was around the baseball field. This location was originally the high school football fields, when the high school was on Lincoln Street. In the 1960s, when the high school moved up to Obery Street, it was renovated into a little league field and then modified in the 70s and 80s again to a softball field.

0:25:04

Bill Keohan:

So, this field is in this location. To control cost, we decided not to move it, deal with the realities of what is happening there in the winter months. We get some flooding, the water rolls in, the water rolls out and this is something that we have noticed in other park designs and also communities looking at creating absorption areas, keeping impervious material away from the water so when the water comes in, it can be absorbed into the ground. This field does act nicely as that absorption area. The plan does call for some improvements to the backs, the fencing and the backdrops and things like that of that nature. The same thing with the basketball, there will be improvements to it but there’s not going to be a demolition of it or moving it somewhere else and completely rebuilding it. So, that area is going to stay its current location.

There will be a parking area coming in off of lower Union Street and Fremont Street over by Stephen’s Lane, additional parking there. The existing 1917 bathroom will be salvaged and repurposed as a storage building so that when there are events at Stephen’s Field, that building can accommodate things being stored for the winter. Years ago, there were numerous buildings at Stephen’s Field and there were ample opportunities to store athletic equipment. In recent years, that hasn’t been the case and you can get a greater length of time out of some town owned equipment if you have a place nearby to store it. So, we feel that that building would serve that purpose.

Now, the original plan did not call for this but the modified plan is calling for it and we’ve added pickleball courts. One of the reasons we were able to add those pickleball courts is because we had a series of meetings and discussions and it’s a growing interest in the town. The Community Preservation Committee has already built six pickleball courts out of Forges Field at the earlier town meeting but we still wanted to make pickleball available at Stephen’s Field. So, the courts were included in this design.

If you look in this area over here as you head toward Sandwich Street, if you can see this cursor, you’ll see that this area here and these parcels up on Sandwich Street were once owned by the Romano Family County Auto, and that was the family that we entered into a discussion in 2018, 2019 and the 2020 and that was the acquisition. The town meeting authorized the acquisition of these parcels. We have closed on those parcels. The town now owns those parcels. The family did make an accommodation on the appraised value. They were not selling at the $400,000 appraised value. They were going at $350,000 so there was a $50,000 savings in that acquisition. That money has been set aside and dedicated to some of the cleanup costs associated with this parcel that we have as a result of Clean Harbors and their testing of this location as they were taking those buildings that were requirements, which David Gould has been working on and I’ll speak to that in a few minutes. But I just wanted you to show these added parcels allow to us to move things back and add other recreational components to Stephen’s Field and mostly will be used as a scenic overlook. As you can see here, there is a path that walks through the area. The family did ask that the parcel be named the Chet Downey Scenic Overlook. The family knew of Chet Downey, they knew of Chet Downey’s commitment to the community. Chet Downey, if you were a kid in Plymouth and you grew up between 1955 and 2005, you knew Chet Downey. He was the guy that ran all the athletic programs throughout the town, he ran the concession stand at Stephen’s Field and at Little Pond. He ran the boys and girls club on Middle Street and he was also the town officer. So, there’s a lot of stories about how Chet was a very important person in the lives of a lot of young people growing up in Plymouth at that time and the family felt that Chet should have that scenic overlook. His family recalls in his retirement, he liked to go to Stephen’s Field and look at the ocean. So, we want to provide that experience and maintain that experience for people visiting this park. So, there’s a scenic overlook.

This is just the parking area that would be pulled back in the vicinity of the Old Finney building, or the most recently, they’ve added a DPW barn. This was a parcel that was slated for sale. The precinct 3 got together with other town meeting members who went to town meeting and had this parcel here, the Old Finney Building incorporated into Stephen’s Field making Stephen’s Field bigger. That was really one of the first actions at town meeting as early as 2010 that was spearheaded by Mary Henry and others who felt it was important that that piece of land go with Stephen’s Field.

0:30:10

Bill Keohan:

and here it is today and it’s serving the purpose of a parking area that was once on the waterfront. There was a lot of focus on parking in the waterfront area. This is going to be moved back into this vicinity. And then important to the committee and a lot of the neighborhood input and the community input was this idea of opening up the park. So, this area that’s kind of an area that is a parking lot, we would pull that away and that would be replenished as a green open space for impromptu activities whether it’s throwing a frisbee or a ball or going down there and doing some impromptu activity, that would be an area for that condition. And then obviously, it would be better suited to absorb any sea flooding in the off season. There would be maintained this darker green location. This is a mesh material that grass can grow through but can take the weight of a very heavy vehicle so that the town has access to the water here to launch boats and the public will have opportunities to launch boat. There will be a turnaround point for these trailers. And the trailers as you can see in this back parking lot will be set up to accommodate trailer parking kind of like the state boat ramp. We would have some additional parking for trailers and their activities.

Now, the beach is not going to be altered in any way. Obviously, we don’t want to enter into a permitting issue with the boat ramp but we’ll basically maintain what we have today and that’s rolling on the beach and rolling off the beach with a trailer taking advantage of the tide. The window is small there for launching boats and the draft there is only a couple of feet. So, you can really just get a very small boat in and your window is limited but we still wanted to maintain that opportunity where people have free access to launch a boat and get out there and recreate in Plymouth Harbor, lot of kayaks we see going in and out of this area. In the fall, actually, fishermen come down and draw pots and move them and we’ve been talking to some of the agricultural, aquacultural elements of the community about using parts of the storage area in this area for equipment in the off season. So, the maritime experience with Stephen’s Field would be maintained. We don’t want to encroach on that but we did want to move all this parking in this back location.

The existing bath house and concessions inn would stay where it is with some minor improvements to the building. We would add a pergola off the back, a sitting area so you can either look out at the ocean, enjoy the vistas of the ocean from this pergola or if you have children that are playing in this playground area that they would have ability to get shade in this area, the playground area. There will be parking very close to the part of the play area so people can get out, get to the play area safely. The play area is going to be moved away from its current location where it’s over here. It’s going to be moved to a higher elevation away from the water. This area here has prone flooding. This area will be mostly picnic benches and opportunities kind of for people go out, put out a chair, look at the ocean, read a book. It’s kind of an open space area with picnic tables. There will be a recreational path that goes around the park. You can see it over here by the duck pond. This duck pond will be improved and cleaned up. There are some invasive species in the area called phragmites that have grown that would be removed. There’s a little bench here, right here, and that bench is dedicated to the Baying’s [?] Family that built this part of Stephen’s Field in the 1920s. So, it’s kind of trivia pursue 12-question with Baying’s Park and it’s a little park within Stephen’s Field over in this vicinity here.

This is the other entrance to Stephen’s Field coming out on to Sandwich Street. We’re incorporating sidewalks on both sides coming into this area, not only rotating around the playground area and the duck pond and through Baying’s Park but also, continuing through the park and out onto Union or Fremont Street at Stephen’s Lane. So, we do have a network of paths that take you through the park if you’re jogging through or bicycling through. And then this area here is the playground. Now, the playground, Nick Faiella with the Parks Department has been working for some time with different firms about the design. The design of this will be sensitive to ADA Compliancy and beyond.

0:35:03

Bill Keohan:

Meaning that we’re going to have equipment there that if someone has a highly mobility issues or if you’re in a wheelchair or something like that, there will be equipment for kids in swings for someone who is in a wheelchair or who has mobility issues. It’s very important that young kids of different levels of mobility play together. It’s important. We want to incorporate that in our playground. The playground is going to have some amenities that you don’t see in other parks of Plymouth. So, we’re very excited about that design.

I guess, one of the things that we’re looking at too and Dickie Quintal mentioned it last week is the lighting. The lighting will be solar. It’s a good approach, cost-saving measures but also you have groundwater issues when you start digging around Stephen’s Field with conduit, you’ll probably run into some water issues. So, we’re going to avoid that and go with the suggestion to focus on the solar components.

One of the other elements to Stephen’s Field here is another open green space here that will be a field, a flat level field. We’re going to have electrical service to this location. It was important for the committee that they have some sort of functional space. We realize that Stephen’s Field is not just this neighborhood park, that it is a park that is a town destination for residents, an area people coming into Plymouth and that this venue is a supportive venue to waterfront activity if there’s a parade or if there is a festival downtown. Stephen’s Field picks up a lot of the parking. It does pick up some of the logistics, road races, things of that nature. So, the idea is to have this function space for these temporary events that take place and having electrical power to this if you would have a road race or if you were to have movie night or some sort of recreational program.

We also wanted to make sure that this area was supportive of a seasonal skating rink possibility location by making sure we have electrical power and that it has an area to support that. When we start going to design spec level that we’ll make sure that this area is the committee wanted so leave it in a condition that if the town wanted to do something here, they could. If they wanted to do some structural permitted skating rink or some other venue, we wanted to leave this site in a condition that the town could do something with that in the future. We weren’t doing anything to make it hard for the town to use. There’s been some supportive way for other activities in the future.

So, that is the design. I went through it. I’ll start to take questions. Before we go into the cost estimates, was anybody had any questions about the design so far? 

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Go ahead, Charlie.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, Billy, it looks great and I’m very excited for this. I’ve been waiting for this for years. The solar laying is a great idea. The PGDC has been doing that for years in all their parking lots and they work well. When Nelson Park was done, it was such a huge hit. My kids were young and then I used to bring them down there. They’re older now but it was such a huge hit down there. The only problem and I hope we don’t run into the same problem here is parking. Nelson Park had 49 parking spaces and it was a nightmare. It was a nightmare for the PGDC, the main enforcers. People were parking everywhere in the grass. We put rocks up there to stop them. So, we ended up luckily, we’ve been able to for all these years, we’ve been leasing. PGDC leases those dirt parking lots. They’re free and we lease that for the overflow for Nelson Park and a lot of people don’t know about that. But that’s how that parking came to fruition is because of the inadequacy of the parking at Nelson Park. Now, it was because it was such a hit. My question here, I’m hoping this is a big hit too, how many parking spaces, Billy do we have in this field?

         

Bill Keohan:

Okay. That’s a very good question because it was a lengthy discussion with the Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee. We went out and looked at the existing area. It’s an undefined parking space, but we wanted to get an estimate of what the location was accommodating.

0:40:06

Bill Keohan:

It was good for 80 parking spaces. So, when we designed the parking that you see today, it’s at 86 spaces. And we knew that when we build out the park and it’s improved that we’re going to get a high level of traffic. So, we’re anticipating that these parking spaces will handle that with great ease but more importantly, we went beyond that and pushing close to 90 parking spaces. We wanted to be supportive of events in downtown Plymouth because we know that when there’s a big event in downtown Plymouth, fireworks and parades, people will go to Stephen’s Field and they’ll park. If need be, this crushed area can act as an overflow parking during events in downtown Plymouth. We’ll have a controlled area here so the key people office but there is ability to utilize this area for events, for event parking to support downtown Plymouth. So, there was a great discussion about parking at this location, recognizing it was not just about absorbing parking for the people visiting Stephen’s Field but also supporting the activities in downtown Plymouth. The park that you speak of, Nelson Park is kind of the sistership to Stephen’s Field waterfront and bookend by two parks and both of them do attract quite a few people. But in the interim, they will support activities that take place on our waterfront. 

      

Charlie Bletzer:

I mean, I see the little large boats. You’re not going to have big boats but I think kayaks. It’s going to be huge for kayaks. You don’t need a trail for a kayak but–

Bill Keohan:

We’ve had people come down with trailers with multiple kayaks and they launch them in their clubs and their group that’s when they go out. So, we’ve seen that.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, I’m concerned that you’re going to see people, they don’t care, they’re going to park anywhere. So, they’re going to park all over this lawn right here. I just don’t want to see and get discouraged but just be prepared. 

Bill Keohan:

So, yeah. So, that was a discussion of the Stephen’s Field Planning and Design very recently in the last couple of meeting saying, “We need to take baby steps here.” We want to make sure people can get down and drop a boat but we’re going to have signs there that say, “Now, you need to take your car and put it here.” This is the area, which is designated, and see how that goes because we don’t want this area that’s designed for an open field to become encroached upon by vehicles. But at the same time, we want to be flexible for those events that might happen downtown.  

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. What about up top here? Is there any parking where the auto task force was–

Bill Keohan:

No, it’s just going to be–that’s a hill. There’s a hill there.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay, yeah.

Bill Keohan:

So, the grade of it is not really conducive plus the level of cleanup that bill that we require to do under MassDEP, we’re going to D restricted. So, that doesn’t–you can’t put up building on it because that would require a level of mitigation that was not sought. The type of mitigation that we’re looking at with MassDEP is to pretty much cap it and just have this path that as you’re walking down Sailor Street, you can stop, walk in and there will be benches. There’s actually going to be story boards there in the park that will describe the history of Stephen’s Field and maps of what you’re looking out. There’s the Gerneth, there’s Long Beach, there’s the harbor. So, there’ll be like information there. So, it will be kind of a walk-through, sit down, look out information area. But we’re not going to be looking at altering that for parking.  

Charlie Bletzer:

But this is going to be–with this completed in which you’re going to anticipate to get this done?

Bill Keohan:

Yeah, I got my estimate here. Did anybody want to–have any other questions before we move on to that segment?

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, I just wanted to say I’m in with this and we can talk about numbers and all that. This is going to be great to somebody for these people that like to walk and like to bike. It’s that right here. You go right down the waterfront, right to Nelson then go right down the bike trail then to Cordage and then come back. It’s a nice little safe route for bikers and walkers. So, when this is completed, this will be a nice little touch for the town.

Bill Keohan:

It definitely will be because it’s amazing when you talk to people about the–when you talk to people all over the Town in Plymouth and some people who visit Plymouth, they talk about experiences at Stephen’s Field and how important it is to them growing up in the area and going down because let’s face it, there’s limited waterfront access for 67,000 people in Plymouth. Waterfront property is becoming more and more expensive.

0:45:00

Bill Keohan:

The experience with the residents is limited. The beaches are taking their hit in terms of some of the maintenance issues and we’ve seen more and more each year people going to Stephen’s Field because as we know, we’re not buying a lot of ocean front property for the Town of Plymouth and its residents and giving the Town of Plymouth more access to the ocean. So, anyway when we do have access to the ocean, we should maximize that for the residents especially when it’s in the downtown supporting the economic.

Charlie Bletzer:

And now, we get stuff where everybody seeing here’s the pickleball, not seeing is–actually, seeing there’s like two but you got activities for the kids and you got the kayak boating stuff for all ages. So, this is going to be nice for this town. 

Bill Keohan: 

Yup, okay. So, I want to draw your attention to–can you see the sheet I’m showing?

Betty Cavacco:

No.

Bill Keohan:

Okay. Let me try that again.

Harry Helm:

Hello?

Dick Quintal:

Harry?

Bill Keohan:

Yeah, go ahead.

Harry Helm:

Could you bring that back, please? I had a question.

Bill Keohan:

Okay. Sorry, go ahead.

Harry Helm:

Bring it back.

Bill Keohan:

Okay. I’m going to bring it back. How am I going to do that? I’m going to share screen.

Harry Helm:

I don’t know.

Bill Keohan:

I’m going to pull it up. There it goes. Can you see that there? Is it there now?

Harry Helm:

There we go. Part of it.

Bill Keohan:

How about that?

Harry Helm:

That’s enough. That’s perfect. I can’t help noting and well, now I can’t see it. If you’d minimize it a little bit, shrink it down a little bit so everybody can see it. Okay. Right in the center there, currently, there is a roadway that goes basically from the Union Street area all the way through the parking dog legs up onto Sandwich Street. And I see that in the current plan, you no longer can traverse the entire park. Okay. I’d like to know your thinking on that but also, I’d like to know has anybody thought that it might be a little bit difficult if people say for instance, it might get kind of busy in that neighborhood to the Northwest Union and the streets there if people, for whatever reason, come down to the baseball field and the 10 spots they’re all taken then they have to come back around and then come down Stephen’s for the other parking or vice versa?

Bill Keohan:

So, the traffic flow issue became a big discussion with the neighborhood and with the Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee. Now, for the longest point in time, this area was always gated, always gated. There was a gate down there. It was only opened on different occasions but very limited. About 15 years ago, the Nathaniel Morton was running into issues on Lincoln Street. For many years, Nathaniel Morton would line their school buses up in front of Nathaniel Morton. Everybody would come out of Nathaniel Morton and they get on their bus and they’d go home. But as time passed, quite a few cars came into the scenario picking kids up. So, there was a major coordination of vehicles coming and going from Nathaniel Morton. So, the idea was to allow these buses to line up down the field because at that time, you had a Town Hall and you had literally over 60 or 70 employees in the building in their parking. So, when you came to visit Town Hall to do work, you were not only competing with the people who work in Town Hall but the work at the Nathaniel Morton and then at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, when the buses came to drop kids up, pick kids up, it became problematic. So, the decision was 15 years ago for the first time is to open up the park. The gates were left opened and it became this freeway through a playground. So, it’s something that the Stephen’s Field Planning and Design did not want to see this as a cut through anymore. There are signs up there that say, “This is not a cut through,” but people do tend to bond through the park and just knocked on wood that no one’s been injured to dates really from cars coming to this area. But it was a decision by the committee to go back to what it had been since 1917 and it was not a fly through. So, that ended and will end under this plan. Now, that the Town Hall has moved through Russell Street-Court Street, the traffic issues on Lincoln Street had been limited. So, the Nathaniel Morton has quite a bit of control down there for that.

      

0:50:11

Harry Helm:

Just real quick for clarification, Bill, I just want you to know, I’m not questioning the shutting down of a throughway. What I was questioning was, was thought put in to what would happen say there is a game at the ball field and you’ve got tennis courts, pickleball courts, thought was put in and the neighbors understand that there will be people who will come down looking for one of those 10 spots, not be able to get it and come back immediately? So, the traffic could get a little bit interesting and the neighbors are okay with that.  

 

Bill Keohan:

It was discussed by the neighborhood and they recognized that people may be coming up at Fremont Street or coming down Fremont Street as associated with this park. It was understood. But the family in the neighborhood was greatest concern of their safety. So, yeah, the neighborhood did talk about it but in the end, they felt that it was more important that people come into the park from different angles, that was their hope.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

Bill Keohan:

Okay. All right. Let me see if I can stop sharing this and share something else. Okay. Can we see the estimates? Can you see that?

Dick Quintal:

Yeah.

Bill Keohan:

So, Stephen’s Field worked with Beals + Thomas Engineering. Beals + Thomas worked with the Committee on the design and then they started taking these costs out for estimates. Also, they recently just this past week been meeting with the Department of Public Works, JB, meeting with Nick Faiella, who runs Parks, David Gould who is over the Office of Marine Environmental Affairs, along with Lynne Barrett and Lee Hartman. There was wanting to make sure that the estimates were going to cover the expected costs of what is being proposed. As you can see through the first description of the demolition and site proposition, you can see all the activities that are taking place down there in terms of the responsibilities of removing aspects: tennis courts and doing drainage and moving things around. That’s a $97,000 estimate on the demolition at Stephen’s Field for the areas in which we are going to be addressing. Then they go into a section here where we’re talking about walkways and concrete curb cuts and parking areas and things of that area and you’re looking at over $608,400 in those paving elements.

And then there’s the grass pricing that I talked about, that area in which will act as a grassy area but also be able to support traffic for dropping boats. There is electrical services coming into the area. We have lighting and electrical services, estimates coming in at a $110,000. The earthworks and grading and planting, this is for those elements. The Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee was adamant that we need to be streamlined in our planting, have some shade trees but let’s not overdo with the ornamental grasses and shrubs. Let’s keep it as maintenance controllable as possible. So, that was one of the thoughts at Stephen’s Field. Keeping the area open but shaded. Then there is the drainage system that we’re looking at in the vicinities of these parking areas, handling the water on the surface water areas. As you can see, it outlines those costs associated with draining the parking lot appropriately.    

We get into the areas of fencing. There’s going to be fencing associated with making sure we have a nice fence that abuts our neighbors now on Sandwich Street as we acquire this new check down this scenic overlook area. The thought would be fencing there and other locations. We need some guardrail fencing that we’re putting up for safety purposes around the play area so where the cars pull up and the kids get out. The appropriate fencing is located in that area, and that is $78,900. The site plan amenities that we talked about earlier: the playground, the tennis court, the pickleball, the pergola, the storage building.

0:55:10

Bill Keohan:       

The storage building is really going to be just kind of taking down off. It’s elevated due to drainage for plumbing. The plumbing is going to be taken all out and it’s going to be just kind of a storage shed and placed on slab cement pad for storing equipment. And then there’s bike racks and there’s picnic benches and viewing benches and things of that nature and then there’s some fencing estimates on repairing some fencing around the ball field, which in the subtotal of $1,265,000. The site plan cleanup is something that David Gould has been working on with MassDEP. This has been an ongoing project over the last year. Well, it was JB who discovered some elevated soil conditions at this location as he was preparing to put in some drainage that was going to require some mitigation. David going forward with Clean Harbors and MassDEP and have come up with an estimated of $350,000 to do the cleanup in those parking areas that we need to put sub-surface drainage insulations. So, that was estimates that David has been working on.

We felt a contingency of 30% sounds high, but it was clear that JB was concerned about the estimates that are going out right now. We’re in an economic climate where there’s a great deal of demand. We want to put this out. We wanted to make sure that we had a contingency that would absorb the conditions that if we go to town meeting and town meeting votes to do this, we want to be prepared to get this out July 1st and JB wanted to make sure that we were reflective of what he’s seen right now in real-time. So, it was great to have David Gould and JB working with Beals + Thomas because these guys were in the office doing their estimates based on six months ago and JB is dealing with the reality in real-time right now. So, we wanted to make that accommodation, the 30% contingency of $1,021,500. And then there’s the final specs in design and engineering. That brings the total cost to $4,926,500.

Now, don’t forget, you have that article from 2015, Article 16B which set aside $2 million. There is just a little less than $2 million still in that account from town meeting. That is $1,998,000. So, if you take that $1,998,000 and you deduct it from the $4,926,500, you come down to $2,937,500. That $2,937,500 is what we’re going to need. The Community Preservation Committee has voted to send this article to town meeting at $2,950,000 just to build a little buffer into that element.

Lynne Barrett has joined us. So, if I have overstepped anything, Lynne, feel free to clarify me.

Lynne Barrett:

No. I just wanted to make sure that the article that remained has $1,980,000 in it.

Bill Keohan:

Sorry.

Lynne Barrett:

That’s okay.   

Bill Keohan:

Okay. So, these are the cost estimates. And as I said before, it’s really exciting to get to this point in time with a plan that the committee has come up with. It’s exciting to sit down with staff and get their enthusiasm from moving forward on this park. It’s a park that has been long slated for these renovations. It’s amazing. Even in the current condition, people go down in that park and they use it every day. When the weather is great, it even gets heavy traffic. So, it’s about time that we knuckle down and do what we could do to get the ball rolling at Stephen’s Field. So, I hope that you support it and if you have any further questions, I’m here and available.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Bill, can you drop the screen down so I can see who’s out there? Thank you very much. Mr. Helm?

Charlie Bletzer:

You’re muted, Harry.

1:00:04

Harry Helm:

Thanks, Charlie. The materials that we received in the packet at the end of last week on Friday have the total construction cost at $2,973,000. I can see that about 800,000 plus nearly a million of that is made up in a couple of line items at the end. The increase to the 30% contingency and then there’s some extra line down towards the bottom that makes up a million. Could you just explain to us the difference? What’s been added since last week?  

              

Bill Keohan:

So, yes. So, after meeting with David Gould, David wanted to make sure the Beals + Thomas would include the 350 for the cleanup. JB was concerned about the contingency being moved to a higher amount based on what he has experienced. That’s the contingency of the 30% at $1,021,000. There was also the concern of making sure that we had funding for the specs that we needed to fund the completion to move forward. JB is here tonight. If JB wants to speak to any of those concerns.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, Bill, those changes approximate a million dollars and the price has risen nearly $2 million between the materials we have. I’m not questioning that it won’t end up costing $4,900,000. I just kind of want to know where that other million dollars? Where did it come and play? What was added?

Bill Keohan:

So, it was 1 million–the 30% is the $1,021,000.

Harry Helm:

Right. But you had already had $250,000 in the $2,900,000 so that brings that down to $850,000.

Bill Keohan:

And then we have the 350.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, we’re up to a little bit over a million.

Bill Keohan:

Right. And then you have the $250,000 for contingency, the engineering design, final plan of engineering.

Harry Helm:

Okay. All right. So, I guess, there are some other things in here that make up that 500,000?

Bill Keohan:

I guess, the 250,000 general condition from insurance. I think that wasn’t there before.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, it was there, 200,000 for that. I think I saw JB had his hand up.

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, I’d like to touch on that. They’re really good questions, Harry. Bill, nice job on the presentation. We added some fencing, some details with the actual line items and the cost estimate, Harry. We added post tensioning of the courts. We’re looking for some really beefy product here. So, those are some of the details in the cost estimate. I asked Beals + Thomas to increase the thickness of the parking lot into two and a half inches for a parking lot. For a playground like this, you need something a little bit more beefy. So, those are some of the details within the line items. I’m sure if you compare and contrast the two, Harry, once you see them, you’ll see those differences. But as Bill mentioned, it was critical given the market right now that we had a health contingency especially, we don’t think we’ll do this until the fall or summer this fall. So, I mean, it’s a very competitive market out there so we want to make sure we have enough money.

Harry Helm:

Thanks, JB.

Jonathan Beder:

You’re welcome.

Dick Quintal:

Questions from other board members? Seeing none. I see Mrs. Davis has her hand up.

Virginia Davis:

Hello?

Dick Quintal:

Hi there.

Virginia Davis:

Okay. I just wanted to share that I am on this committee, the Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee. Before that, I was on the Friends of Stephen’s Field from 2012. I’m 80 years old and as a young child, I took swimming lessons from each night at Stephen’s Field, swim with the tide and swim with the sewer because we didn’t have the sewer system we have now. So, not only this just resonates to me that it’s going to be a wonderful thing. And as far as flooding, I want us to all remember that Brewster Gardens was built in 1924 and redone in I think in 2005, it floods and this will flood but it’s amazing, if things are built correctly, they are most resilient from these floods.

The other thing I want us to recall and Mike Paul who’s on our committee also reminded us all of Forges Field, which is so spectacular and how there everyone parks and even handicapped people come in their wheelchairs and they go to the fields.

1:05:14

Virginia Davis:

So, the fact that people are going to have to walk to places or maybe you bring a handicapped person, you bring in the wheelchair and you walk them on these paths, it will be accessible to people. Yes, it will change and people will say, “Well, I can’t park where I used to,” but things change. So be it. So, I just want to say that I appreciate all the questions that you’ve asked. They’ve been wonderful, all of them. And you will support this project because it will be great. As far as parking, again, when you think of it now, Stephen’s Field, the parking lot is there. None of us have been able to use because it was used by the town. And once that opens up, it will allow much more parking. If you ever travel and you go to Europe and you go to a village, you have to park. If you’re handicapped, there are some handicap parking which you’ll walk and you get there some other way. And just like the Agriculture Commission wanted to just to all think of agriculture in a different way, I think we have to think of this in a different way. So, thank you for allowing me to speak and support of this. I hope I live to see it. I’m 80, going to be 81. I’m very healthy but I’d be very excited when this opens up as a new park. So, thank you.    

        

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Bill, I want to start by saying thank you to you and your committee and thank you for all the time and effort that you’ve put in into these projects. I know you really put your whole heart and soul into this community and I want to say thank you.

Bill Keohan:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

With that being said, I also want you to forgive me for not calling you today because I was in negotiations. Lee can vow to that for five and a half hours. So, it’s just–and so can Lynne, she was there also.

Bill Keohan:

Probably sponges getting stuck on the bone with me.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. Okay. So, I just have a few quick comments or questions. One, and I may have missed it. The other flagpole going on in your new park, American flagpole.

Bill Keohan:

There was a flagpole in the outer field. So, there will be a flagpole but that’s a good thing to know to get on the plan to make sure that happens. Thank you.

 

Dick Quintal:

And the second thing I noticed in here, it says a bike rack and I’m not positive but the PGDC may have a few extras and maybe they don’t because I know at a time, we’ve got a bunch. Right, Charlie? They might have some.

Charlie Bletzer:

I think they do. It’d be a nice little donation, so.

Dick Quintal:

Yes, thank you. So, you can save money there. And then the last question, if this is approved at town meeting, which I hope it is, who will be the clerk of the works, Billy? Are you going to turn it over to JB? 

Bill Keohan:

Yeah, that’s going to be–it’s going to be–that’s David. It’s going to come out of the Department of Public Works and that will JB. But JB is going to be Nick Faiella, the Parks is going to be spearheading that with JB. We will do what we usually do. Anything we can do to support them. We do have an article that is designed that it does reference to Stephen’s Field Planning and Design Committee that if there’s any major changes, they have to come back to the committee to run those changes. But in the end, the town is going to be moving forward on this and we’ll do whatever we can to support them.  

Dick Quintal:

Since you’re here, JB is that cool with you?

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, very cool. So, as Bill said and everybody is onboard with this, if we’re successful at town meeting, we’ll take this and get it out to bid and put shovels on the ground as soon as we can, everybody.

Dick Quintal:

Great. The last thing I was going to comment on, sooner or later I believe, we’ll probably see headquarters go by the way side for a couple of different reasons. We won’t get into it tonight. But if that does happen, this will be another piece of this puzzle, I’m hoping and assuming.  

Bill Keohan:

Yeah, absolutely. We’re paying attention to that.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, you designed it, I guess where it’s a possibility it becomes online, it will be part of the packet a future date, you’re already part of that.

Bill Keohan:

Yeah, we’re not doing anything that would inhibit that.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All right, okay. Any other questions from the board? Mrs. Cavacco and then Mr. Helm?

 

Betty Cavacco:

No questions really, but I am liaison for the CPC and I have to echo your accolades, Chairman Quintal that this group has done an enormous amount of work for this property.

1:10:04

Betty Cavacco:

And I think it’s going to be a great addition to the town. I mean, we know that we’ve tried to have things there and it does compliment downtown any kind of whatever we have going on. People are always there and there’s been plenty of parking. I mean, when there’s ever an event, they’re not going to be able to fit everyone but where in Plymouth would they ever be able to fit everyone that wants to come. So, I just want folks to know as liaison for CPC that this group has done an enormous amount of great work. They’ve had a lot of outreach. I’m thrilled to hear that once it’s approved through town meeting, it will go right under Mr. Beder’s little wing and Nick Faiella will be taking over the project. I love the way Bill make last names and I have to wonder if we have a new staff member every now and then. So, Nick is great. He does a great job with our park and I support this completely.

Dick Quintal:   

And Harry, do you have your hand up?

Harry Helm:

I sure did. Sorry, I just had to deal with a little issue here. Bill, funding. Is any of this borrowing or is it coming out of the CPC accounts whether currently available or coming to us in this coming year?

Bill Keohan:

The language of the article does reference borrowing. We will be borrowing a component and if Lynne wants to speak to that any further, she can.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. So, this article is structured in such a way that it’s making an amendment to the original article which has the $1,980,000 left. So, it’s increasing the authorization to borrow for this project and as we did with the courthouse and the meeting house project over the years, we’ll pay down that debt with available funds from the CPC fund and not long-term borrow for this project.

 

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Is there going to be any availability for grants that you know of, Lynne?

Bill Keohan:

So, we were looking at self-helf–there’s a park’s grant and we looked at some of the stipulations and some of the requirements if we were to apply for would generate a cost higher than the grant money that we were looking at. It wasn’t a good fit but we did look at it and we will continue to look at other options as they develop because like you said, this isn’t going–like JB mentioned, it’s not going to bid until after July 1st. So, we’ll continue to look for other grants that might be a better fit to Stephen’s Field. We haven’t given up on that endeavor but we have nothing–we haven’t zeroed in on anything right now.  

‘’

Dick Quintal:

Great. Any other questions? Comments? Do we have a motion?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve Article 16A.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Keohan.

Bill Keohan:

Thank you very much.

Charlie Bletzer:

Good job.

Bill Keohan:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Article 7A (Operating Budget), Ms. Barrett?

Lynne Barrett:

Hi. So, what I provided to you guys tonight was basically two items. One is requesting you to vote an amendment to Article 7A. As you know, the budget was presented to you in December. You gave a recommended budget to Advisory and Finance. And at the time, I had said to you that as we go through ratifying contracts with the different collective bargaining groups and the non-union group that we’d be coming back to ask to increase the budget. So, that increase would require you to just vote on that increase, which is $2,339,307 that can increase to the salary reserve budget, part of the general fund. And so, Article 7A would have a new total of $256,206,771. So, that would be basically one vote on the 2.3 and then a vote on the total for 7A.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions for Ms. Barrett or comments? Lynne, if I may, we have all the groups settled this up with you, is that correct or pretty close to what we have tonight?

1:15:11

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. So, what I did was we have two small groups left that we’re negotiating with and hopefully we will come to an agreement that we can come to town meeting with. So, this number actually includes an amount that I reserved for potential settlements with that group. So, we won’t have to come back again and make another adjustment to the budget.

Dick Quintal:

Great, thank you.

Lynne Barrett:

Yup.

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a motion on number 1?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:  

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Then we have the number 2.

Lynne Barrett:

Yup. So, Article 7B is the Water Enterprise Fund, and Article 7B, C, D, E and F, those are to the enterprise fund budgets. None of those budgets have changed since you voted he budget in December and gave to the Advisory and Finance Committee. So, I could read each total and then you could maybe make one motion and vote them all together, if you want to do that.

Dick Quintal:

I love that idea. Go right ahead.

Lynne Barrett:

Okay. So:

• 7B is water – $5,142,557;
• 7C would be sewer – $8,124,779;
• 7D is solid waste – $815,019;
• 7E is the airport – $2,889,188;
• 7F is the cable enterprise fund for $1,495,000.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Lynne. Are there any questions on any of these articles that Lynne just read off and that’s in your packets? No. I just have one comment, Lynne on the cable one.

Lynne Barrett:

Sure.

Dick Quintal:

I noticed there’s a drop in revenue and I understand that, but I mean is that something we should keep an eye on? I guess, what happens if it goes down enough where it can’t support the budgets that they’re used to like the school and PACTV, right?

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah, it’s definitely something to be concerned about and something that we’ve talked about internally with PACTV, with the Cable Advisory Committee and with the schools. I mean, they recognized it and mentioned it in their budget discussions with the School Committee and Advisory and Finance. Because customers are no longer necessarily going with cable and paying that little fee that gets added to the bill that we end up getting a portion of. So, it is concerning and I think it is something that we’ll have to look at for the future. And that’s the reason for the decrease here in that.

Dick Quintal:

Right. So, do you think–we don’t have to start this now, but do you think in the future maybe next year starts talking a little aside? So, as you’re seeing this drop off, we can keep going or have you really given it any thought or am I like way too early?

   

Lynne Barrett:

Well, I think what we’d like to do is probably work internally like with the schools and with PACTV to maybe brainstorm some ideas and maybe once our new town manager is here, he may have some ideas. So, definitely, it is something that we should look at for the future.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, I think I’m on board and we’ll put it on our goal list. That way, they were proactive instead of reactive and that’s where I’m really going with it.

Lynne Barrett:

Sure. Yup.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, great. Do we have a motion?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve 7B, C, D, E and F.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second that motion.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you, Lynne.

Lynne Barrett:

Thank you very much. Good evening.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Now, we’re going to go to virtual town meeting. And Lee, before we get started, I know Mr. Triffletti wanted to speak. He should be coming up probably a minute. Would you just tell us how we got here, what we’ve already doing what we can? Could we give them an account in light for the meeting tonight so just bring everybody up to speed so everybody knows where we are?

1:20:04

Lee Hartman:

Sure. So, a couple of meetings ago, Mr. Triffletti asked you to allow for the option of a virtual meeting, which requires a vote of town meeting to support that. So, at that meeting the board voted to allow and authorize to go ahead with a virtual meeting of at town meeting. As we discussed it, we realized that if that vote wasn’t successful at town meeting. We would have to reschedule and repost the warrant and go through the whole legal procedure for declaring a new town meeting. So, we went back to you at the last meeting with a revised memo that said; you voted previously to allow this to be in-person but just in case town meeting–I mean, virtually and just in case town meeting votes not to go virtually, we had a second option, which would be to postpone it for two weeks and allow us to assemble the team we need to put together, the room we needed to do for the logistics of an in-person meeting. And so, that was the discussion last night. I again, talked to town council today about the issue. I know that there’s been discussion about a hybrid. He is the town council, Mark Rich is adamant that the language that the state crafted was narrowly crafted to allow for this exception, which is the virtual meeting. That there were really no language at all that says you can do a hybrid, and his term is it would be very risky to do a hybrid type meeting since there’s no reference to any alternate, adequate alternate provisions for that hybrid. And he also went on to say that that language is expressly included in the open meeting law for groups like the Select Board, Planning Board and those groups, but that language was not included in the legislation that allowed for a virtual meeting. So, again, the hybrid option I think he’s very definitive on is not an option for town meeting. He’s not aware of any other communities that have ever decided to do that. So, tonight the decision before you is really one of two. One would be to rescind your previous vote to allow for the virtual meeting and go straight to a live meeting or the second would be to approve a revised memo that would allow for the virtual meeting to start and should town meeting decide not to go ahead with a virtual meeting that they could then go ahead on a recess for two weeks and come back in a live format.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Mr. Triffletti, welcome.

Steve Triffletti:

Yes, good evening. Thank you, Chairman Quintal and members of the Select Board. I’m delighted to be back before you. As you may recall, initially in early January when we began to aggressively plan for our spring annual town meeting, I had determined that the option for town members to participate remotely would be desirable. I contacted the legislative delegation, and they worked with the legislature and ultimately with the governor. I then appeared before the Board of Health, which you appointed, and they voted unanimously to recommend that town meeting participate remotely with a virtual town meeting. As Lee Hartman stated, you did vote 3-2 in support of that, and the statute does require notice in posting. So, I understood last week that in your administrative notes, that was going to be considered. I have contacted the various groups that support us, PACTV, OTI, technology, the virtual voters, the school department, town council and it was determined that if we needed to meet in person after April 2nd that the next available date would be Saturday, April 16 at 8:00 a.m.

I did attend two committee precinct chair meetings, most recently the one a few weeks ago in February. I did review the survey that was conducted. It was an interesting survey, because it included a hybrid question and certainly while that is a concept that is supported by a majority of town meeting members, I have reviewed with town council as Lee Hartman said, the hybrid is not an option at least not for this town meeting. Whether it would be for a future town meeting would depend on whether or not the legislation would change. With respect to the remainder of the survey, not all town meeting members were surveyed, but those that were, it was fairly divided between those who wanted in-person, those who wanted to participate remotely.

1:25:07

Steve Triffletti:

There were a few more who were surveyed who wanted in-person but of course, the only vote that would control would be that at town meeting if we have that available as an option for town meeting members to decide. I would also note that the Committee of Precinct Chairs did not vote whether to support an in-person or a virtual town meeting. There were a minority of members of the community precinct chairs who did speak at the meeting, but we never had a vote nor do we hear from a majority of the members of the Committee of Precinct Chairs.

Today, I did contact Dr. Potvin, Chair of the Board of Health. I asked him whether or not he thought that his board would be reconsidering of their vote, he did not. I also communicated with the town clerk because I was interested in the town meeting demographic. And while we can all look out in the room at town meeting and have our own estimates, the town clerk estimated that over 60% of town meeting members are likely to be over 65 years of age or older, and we can certainly quantify that. I would report to the Select Board that several town meeting members have contacted me since the planning of this virtual town meeting and have indicated to me that they prefer to do virtual rather than in-person. In fact, the chair of COPC at the meeting stated publicly on the record that if in fact a town meeting voted not to participate by remote participation, she would not be able to participate in-person.

And finally, the one thing that Mr. Hartman did not mention is that if for any reason; either the Select Board does not allow town meeting members the option to decide for themselves whether they want the virtual or if in fact town meeting members do not vote for the virtual option, you may recall from two years ago when COVID first hit me at a shutdown that the moderator has statutory authority to continue town meeting for up to 30 days at a time if the moderator determines that it is not safe or healthy for town meeting members to assemble and meet in-person. So, that is something which I would have to review if town meeting members were not to vote for a virtual town meeting on April 2nd. But I wanted to remind the Select Board of that since many of you may not have been on the board two years ago when we had several continuances of town meeting. You may recall I continued from April to May, May to June, June to July and finally July to August when we finally had a virtual town meeting as a result of the enabling legislation. So, that would be my initial presentation for this evening. I’d be happy to answer any questions that the board may have or anyone else may have.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board for Mr. Triffletti? Not seeing any. Okay. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Just real quick before we go any further, this is more of a housekeeping sort of thing. In the materials that we received was an interoffice memorandum to Pearl Sears and Christopher Badot, in which he points out that on February 22nd, the Select Board voted unanimously to approve and authorize the spring annual town meeting to be held virtually. We did not vote unanimously, it was 3-2.

Betty Cavacco:

I didn’t think there was a vote on the 22nd. I wasn’t here.

Harry Helm:

Whenever there was a vote.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

It was 3-2. And last week, if whenever this went out and whatever date, we didn’t even vote last week.

Betty Cavacco:

Right.

Harry Helm:

Yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

1:29:55

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes. Mr. Moderator, the Board of Health has rescinded the mandatory mask policy. The kids are going to school without masks. All public buildings now don’t have to wear mask. I don’t understand why it’s not safe for us to do an in-person? And as a former town meeting member, in-person is much more effective than doing it from my home, because I’m able to talk to people whether it’s before or during recess to talk about the different issues, and I’ve gotten a lot of information on the town meeting day. So, I feel it’s– even though the attendance has been great, it’s just not as effective. It’s easy to get up and speak when it’s in-person, but it’s also easy to get information from the people that are at town meeting. So, if our Board of Health who is very strict, and they’re the experts, those are the folks that we rely on. If they tell us that it’s okay to go without masks and be close, but again, I don’t see why there’s a problem with that. So, I’m not–I’m all fought doing the impression.

Steve Triffletti:

Mr. Chair, if I may respond. Mr. Bletzer, your concern was–

Charlie Bletzer:

I’m 65.

Steve Triffletti:

Your concern was the very reason why I called Dr. Potvin today because I was aware that there have been some changes in the Board of Health. However, the Board of Health has not voted to rescind its vote regarding town meeting. And as Dr. Potvin explained, it’s a very different situation. We’re talking about a large gathering, hundreds of people in one room with the demographic that I cited earlier and the vote to allow people to participate remotely is a vote for town meeting members to make, it’s an option. And town meeting members have the opportunity to debate it, to discuss it and then to vote as to whether or not they wish to do that. And so, at this point, I’m following the recommendation of the Board of Health. I’m also responding to the statistically significant number of town meeting members who do not wish to meet in-person. And so, for those reasons I continue to endorse your earlier vote, the Board of–the Select Board’s earlier vote to allow town meeting members to be able to utilize the recently passed enabling legislation that would allow them the option to participate virtually if that’s what they choose to do on April 2nd.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions or comments? Mr. Costello, you have your hand up.

Alan Costello:

I do, Chairman, thank you very much for recognizing me. My name is Alan Costello, the town meeting member representing precinct 10. I spoke before you last week. I’m also a member of the Committee of Precinct Chairs. Mr. Triffletti is correct, town meeting members were involved in a poll. We discussed the results of that poll. I believe it was last Monday night. There are three questions in that poll and there were a hundred I believe 106 or 108 town meeting members that were involved in the poll. Of the three questions, there was no mandate. I’ll give Mr. Triffletti that word, but all the three questions were in favor of an in-person meeting, a hybrid meeting and no virtual meeting. We have told that to the moderator, and we’ve talked to the moderator and he suggests leading up to this town meeting, and didn’t seem to carry any weight. The Committee of Precinct Chairs is not advocating for an in-person meeting as much as it is a hybrid meeting. Now, we were sort of stopped in that tracks by the moderator, by him spouting out that a hybrid meeting is not allowed per the legislation of 2022.

1:35:07

Alan Costello:

And he’s gotten that information as the temporary town manager has from town council. Well, I went out, and I took the step and I talked to our state delegation Mr. Muratore, Ms. LaNatra, and actually other representatives throughout the Commonwealth that represent people that have town meetings. And what had happened, he’s correct, there’s no language and legislation that says the word hybrid. So, when they realized this, Mr. Muratore told me that they went to the attorney general’s office. The attorney general gave them direction that it can happen, but what they were going to do was leave it up to the individual communities in their town councils.

Now, our town council Mr. Rich has determined that Plymouth cannot have a hybrid meeting and I have the documentation that was the email thread that says that. And it’s anemic, it’s very weak. I’m very unimpressed with this determination. And like last week, I asked if this board would allow a second opinion. I think the town of 65,000 people, a budget that we just voted on in excess of $255 million deserves a second opinion. We have an individual to the best of my knowledge who does not live in town who’s dictating how this form of government is going to conduct their business for the people coming up this spring. Now, the Committee of Precinct Chairs would like to explore a hybrid meeting. It takes care of the best of both worlds. If someone’s not comfortable attending the indoor meeting, they’re welcome to stay at their own location. We certainly have the technology for that. But if you’re able and you’re willing to meet in a central location, Plymouth North High School, Memorial Hall, any venue you might suggest, there’s a majority of people that answered that poll that would attend and that’s what we would like to do; get back into that room, and that is what we’re striving for. We still have time to do it April 2nd. Save the town a pile of money. If we get into that town meeting on April 2nd, based on the poll, there’s a very good chance town meeting members will override what both the moderator and the Select Board have put before us and we will put the meeting off until I guess April 16th is when you may have the secondary date, which will be an in-person meeting. It won’t even have the luxury of hybrid, it’ll be in-person which we’re not advocating for. We understand this that people still have some concerns. So, I would like–you were asked last week by the acting town manager to see if you would give Committee of Precinct Chairs or some other group access to town council or access to legal representation so we can get a second opinion. I think, if nothing else, the residents and the town meeting members deserve that. So, I’d like to see if you could make some allocation for a second opinion, so we can get to the bottom of this hybrid. What Mr. Triffletti is telling you, and what the town council is telling you is not 100% factual, and we’d like to get to the bottom of it. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Brewster, new information?

Wrestling Brewster:

Yeah, no. I’d like to echo what Alan has said. My concern is that we’re getting away from what town meeting is really about. We talked about Kenny Howe and Charlie Bandini, members who are up in their age who make it to town meeting, and I’m very distressed that town meeting members are saying, “Well, it’s so much easier to make it virtual. I could be in another state. I could be completely out of town and come to town meeting.” It really distresses me. My father was a town meeting member for over 40 years, and he took it very seriously and it’s a commitment to come to town meeting. For Committee of Precinct Chairs is made up of representatives of the town meeting, and we did take a poll.

1:40:06

Wrestling Brewster:

There was over, I believe 95 members who answered the poll. It was open to all town meeting members, and I just would like to–I’d like it to be known that a lot of the public, of the town meeting public is looking for representation. There is a fair amount of people who want an in-person meeting and I don’t think they feel that they’ve been heard. I think that it’s been mandated on them. Town meeting is supposed to make up what town meeting is all about. The time and the place is up to town meeting, and it hasn’t been up to town meeting for quite a while. And I think that the people that we’re trying to save are not really want to be saved. They want to have a town meeting. I just would like this board to really think hard, and I caution them that town meeting is losing what it’s all about. We’ve made it so easy. We can sit in our jammies or we can be in another state and still come to town meeting. That to me is not town meeting. Thank you for listening.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Mr. Tavares?

Matthew Tavares:

So, I know I’m going to be the third person here to speak on the same sentiment as Mr. Brewster and Mr. Costello and I thank Mr. Bletzer for his comments. I agree with them a hundred percent. Instead of repeating everything that they just said because I agree wholeheartedly, I would also like to point out that a number of months ago, we had hoped to explore a hybrid option. On Monday night during the Committee of Precinct Chairs meeting, we discovered that the questions to that to town council is just a one-word question. It just said, “hybrid?” to get an answer. I would like to think that we would have done more due diligence particularly when the Committee of Precinct Chairs asked for, we should have explored this option of these two lanes a number of months ago. I feel like it got cut short and then was dropped, so now we’re in this predicament. I mean, we’ve even seen–I saw a news article today and granted it’s not my hardest hitting news source but from patch.com citing the state’s information. We’re a green zone. We’ve come way, way down. Our numbers are down, and we should have been prepared for something like this. I’m just more disheartened that we didn’t go to an avenue where we looked down both lanes. So, I definitely know that and I’m on the record of stating this at the COPC meeting on Monday night, I will probably vote no towards a virtual town meeting, but it doesn’t mean that I’m 100% in-person. I was looking for a hybrid option, so that we could have these max participations that we have been seeing through the virtual, but we definitely lose the big piece of the ability to communicate with each other on the floor and during breaks, and that’s a big piece that we’ve seen actually legislation change, bylaws change, different things change, budget items in the history of town meeting. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Just so everybody’s clear before we go any further, there is no legislation for hybrid right now on a state level. Am I correct, Lee? Mr. Hartman, are you muted? I’m sorry.

Lee Hartman:

My fault, sorry about that. I specifically talked about this to Mark Rich, town council, again today. So, he never said you can’t have a hybrid. There’s nothing that says that you can or can’t. He just says since the language is not there and doesn’t expressly allow it like it does for other types of meetings that it’s extremely risky for the town to conduct it in a hybrid format. And he’s very definitive about that. So, again, I think what people are saying is that since it’s silent, you could do it, and he’s saying that that’s very dangerous, and we should not proceed down that avenue since it’s not expressly allowed like other forms like other meetings like the Planning Board or Board of Selectmen.

1:45:13

Dick Quintal:

Is it probably fair to say that KP law does probably 90% of the towns and cities in the commonwealth, if not all of them?

Lee Hartman:

It was well over 150 communities.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So that being said, as they said there’s any other community, other than America’s hometown done this?

Lee Hartman:

And again, he said to me, he’s not aware of any other community that was looking at a hybrid option under the current language that’s out there now. It might have done it previously but under the current language.

Dick Quintal:

So, there we have it. Mr. Costello?

Alan Costello:

Yes. As a matter of fact, just to answer that question, our representative Ken Gordon from the 21st Middlesex District representing the Town of Burlington, he amended the legislation and the Town of Burlington has had their town meeting, and they had it as a hybrid model. And I’m almost embarrassed to say this because I’m sure you probably partook in this but KP law just spoke at the Select Boards’ association meeting touting the fact that hybrid meetings are up and coming, and they’re the way to go. I’m sure you saw that. I think it was January 28th. I’m sure you had a representative there. So, KP Law is on board with this. What we have is one individual attorney that’s telling you one thing. All I’m suggesting, and I can’t imagine there’s any problem with this, is that we get a second opinion. You have recently just done that yourselves as a board. I would like you to extend that courtesy for the Committee of Precinct Chairs and town meeting members to allow us to get a second opinion. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hartman?

Lee Hartman:

I would just say if you have a second opinion that is contrary to one now you have two opinions and now, you’re going to choose which opinion you want to go with. I don’t know what a second opinion accomplishes. And again, they never said you couldn’t do it. They’re just advising against it because it’s very risky. And if the Burlington had to be–this language that we’re talking about was just recently approved. It just happened. Did they have that meeting within the last couple of weeks or is this under some old legislation?

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Costello?

Alan Costello:

For you, Mr. Chairman, they proposed it on the 18th of January and they had their meeting on the 28th of January.

Lee Hartman:

So, that was under old rules. That’s not under this new law that just passed.

Alan Costello:

Could very well be, but you would hope that our town council would know that, he would advise you on that.

Lee Hartman:

We were talking about the new legislation that was just recently passed. Not something from January.

Alan Costello:

Yeah, it’s House Rule 4043, I believe or 4340 to be correct. It had a host of amendments and one of the final amendments was for Mr. Gordon to allow a hybrid meeting. I’m sure if you ask Mr. Rich, he probably can look that up for you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hammond?

John Hammond:

Thank you. I’ve been thinking about all this a lot in the last few days and I actually wrote an open letter to the town meeting members and the moderator. I hope it’s going to be distributed over email. I don’t think it has been yet. What I said was that of course, we miss town meeting and of course, the remote meetings are not great substitute, but as a person in my 80s, I’m very well aware that the people as old as I am and there are quite a few of us in town meeting are considered immunologically compromised just by our age. There’s a risk that if we are exposed, we will get hospitalized and there’s some risk within the hospitalized group that we will die. I did sign up to go to town meeting, and I’ve always honored that obligation. I didn’t know when I signed up that I would be risking my life though maybe I should have given that a thought at some town meetings. So, I would not be opposed. I hope we could find a hybrid meeting. I think it’s probably awkward, but I proposed postponing town meeting and having an outdoor meeting in-person.

1:50:10

John Hammond:

 If we were outdoors and masked and allowed with widely spaced seating, it would be much, much safer. I can’t imagine going into a large crowd, no masks, everybody talking to their neighbor for several hours. That seems to me very dangerous. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment?

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Hutchinson has his hand up, Mr. Chairman.

Dick Quintal:

Where is he? I don’t even see him, Betty.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Hutchinson?

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hutchinson?

Joseph Hutchinson:

Can you hear me?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, sir.

Joseph Hutchinson:

Okay. Basically, I would echo much of what Mr. Hammond had to say. Although, I’m dubious about outdoor meetings, but I can tell you as the caucus chair for Precinct 12 that many of my town meeting members are older and have asked me to say that in fact, they would prefer to have a virtual town meeting at this time. I’m not sure. You can sort of look at Mr. Costello and Mr. Brewster and you could see that they’re much younger and they probably are not nearly as vulnerable as those of us into our 80s. So, I just wanted to make that point for Precinct 12 members and to support John’s comments. Thanks.

Steve Triffletti:

Mr. Chair?

Dick Quintal:

Yes?

Steve Triffletti:

Yes. I just wanted to update the board. I have in front of me Chapter 22 of the Acts of 2022. I believe it was signed by the governor on February 15th, and so that is the current enabling statute as of mid-February, and it does not provide for a hybrid alternative. And so, as moderator, I’ve been following the advice of town council and I would agree with Lee Hartman that with a month to go before town meeting, it probably doesn’t make sense to do what we would call in the legal world “forum shopping” where you shop around to try to get the answer that you want. We’ve got an answer from KP Law and at least for now, I’m following their legal opinion.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions or comments from the board? Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, whether this is a popular opinion or not, I’m just going to tell you how I feel. First of all, I know that I believe it was myself and actually Selectman Mahoney at the time have asked for a hybrid option right from the very first time that we had to go in virtual. So, I’m rather disappointed that we haven’t gotten to that point yet, and it’s been two years.

Second of all is that I believe this will be the last virtual town meeting that we will have. Now, I’m not trying to be negative, but as I think everybody on this panel knows that if there is any way, shape or form that someone will disagree and make an issue of having a hybrid meeting when town council or something else told us not to that will be an issue, and we’ll end up in an entire town meeting probably in some kind of legal debate for probably a very long time to come.

1:55:13

Betty Cavacco:

I personally don’t have a problem meeting in-person. I don’t want to force anybody to have to meet in-person, and I think that until we have that option that we can do hybrid. I mean, I kind of want to say this is the last virtual one that I can see us having. So, like I said, it’s very disappointing to me because we’ve been talking about a hybrid for two years now. We should have already got it together and moved forward. As far as the legal opinion, I don’t have any problem with legal opinions but Mr. Hartman’s right, what happens if we get two different legal opinions? There’s going to be another problem. I mean, it’s almost to the point of I feel a little gun-shy because I know if there’s an opportunity especially in the atmosphere that we’re in now that someone will question if we do hybrid, and we’re going to end up in more litigation than we need to be in. And I’m thinking that this is the last virtual. I 100% am for a hybrid town meeting. I’m for a hybrid everything meeting. I just don’t know unfortunately if we moved or were able to move quickly enough, and we have something definitive that we say that there’s not going to be any issue to say that we did something wrong. You got to remember, we have a big budget, what happens if we start special town meeting, we start spending money fairly quickly and then someone brings up the fact that, “Well, this wasn’t done properly. Well, that wasn’t done properly.” I think it’ll be a nightmare for the town and although like I said, I have no problem meeting in-person, but I think for our town meeting members that do have a problem, we should kind of do this one virtually and then move forward and either get a hybrid option or the next one is just 100% in-person. That’s just my opinion.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Betty. Anyone else wishing to speak on the matter?

Al DiNardo:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Yes?

Al DiNardo:

Hi! My name is Al DiNardo. I was recently appointed to the precinct 12 town meeting. On this one, I agree with Selectman Cavacco. We had a saying in town meeting that I would never push something in your precinct that I would not want in my precinct. And I feel very similar to this issue, the few town meeting members that I’ve met, I have a problem with this. I’m relatively still young but in my circumstance, I care for an 88-year-old mother-in-law, so that’s my issue. I was just surprised at the legislation. It is vague. It could be read both ways. I mean, in one sense they’re saying that the public can come in person or remotely, but I agree with the town council taking on the conservative end. Again, I repeat what others have said remote hybrid is the future. I think it would allow younger people to be involved in the process, it could allow shut-ins to be allowed. We had an issue of the chair of the Disability Commission in my own town, it was a big deal for her to come to town all to these meetings. So, I think this is the good out of all this is it’s opened up this idea that we can conduct these meetings both ways. And I know you’re in a tough situation tonight. It’s really up to town meeting and the moderator is not doing anything wrong in my opinion. We’re under an emergency order, and they gave that authority to the moderator because we’re in our emergency order. We had no choice at the time. So, I just want to leave you with that, and thank you for your time.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment on this? Mr. Costello?

Alan Costello:

Yes. Mr. Chairman, just one final thing for the record, town council, who was the client the town council was addressing their determination to? Was it the moderator? Was it the taxpayer or was it town management?

2:00:17

Dick Quintal:

Lee?

Alan Costello:

I’m sorry, am I not muted?

Lee Hartman:

Again, I did that twice now. Town council represents everyone. Everyone you mentioned so there is no specific client.

Alan Costello:

But in order to access town council, you have to be town management or moderator.

Lee Hartman:

Well, town council advice isn’t for free. We don’t open it up to all 60,000 residents of the town to just ask town council questions, that would be a very expensive proposition.

Alan Costello:

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

So, bringing it back to the board. Wishes of the board? If there are any wishes. Okay. So, I guess it stands as is.

Lee Hartman:

The vote that stands now has only one option and that option is to do a virtual meeting. If town meeting does not agree with that then we will have to go back through the whole process and repost everything and start over to do an in-person meeting.

Dick Quintal:

Right. So, they open up their meeting and do their stuff there.

Lee Hartman:

Well, no. If town meeting votes not to do a virtual meeting, then we will have to then talk to–we’ll have to repost a new warrant, pick a new date and go through the whole posting of the warrant all over again as if it was a new town meeting.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, it’s either in-person or virtual?

Lee Hartman:

No. Your vote that stands right now says it only can be virtual and if town meeting does not agree with that–

Charlie Bletzer:

If I make a motion to have an in-person meeting, can I make that motion?

Lee Hartman:

Yeah, you would vote to probably–I think to rescind the previous vote of the board to allow.

Charlie Bletzer:

But I need somebody on the ascending side to do that.

Lee Hartman:

I would disagree. I mean, those are Robert’s rules, and you do not go by Robert’s rules as a board.

Al DiNardo:

You just need a second.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, I’ll make a motion to have an in-person meeting for town meeting.

Al DiNardo:

Is it seconded?

Harry Helm:

I’ll second that.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Wait a minute. Harry, hold up. Did you want to comment, Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

I did. I mean, I understand Mr. Costello and the other folks on here. Are there specific questions that they’re looking for council to answer that we could send them? I don’t want anybody to feel like we’re trying to do something and not be transparent about it. I mean, if our town meeting members have questions and our Committee of Precinct Chairs have questions, I want them to be able to get them answered.

Lee Hartman:

So, if the board’s preference is to make town council available for a Committee of Precinct Chairs meeting, we can certainly do that.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I’m more thinking that if the Committee of Precinct Chairs can put together their questions that we can send to town council. I don’t have an issue with getting those answers. And I’d also like to know if there’s any type of legislation that we can move forward with for a hybrid meeting. Because I agree, this is the wave of the future. I mean, we can’t hide from it. Some people love in-person, some people love virtual. So, I mean, there are plenty of studies out there where we have more interaction or more people involved in the virtual process, probably more with hybrid. So, I mean, is there anything we as a town or a board can do to say, we are looking for legislation for a hybrid option.

Lee Hartman:

Well, I would say that my recommendation would be for you to vote tonight to instruct me to contact Matt Muratore and ask him to file legislation on behalf of the town, whether that goes somewhere or not, but we can certainly ask him to file that legislation to seek that hybrid option.

2:05:11

Betty Cavacco:

Well, there’s a motion on the floor right now, but I would certainly be happy to make that motion after this motion is heard.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. I would have to say I agree with Betty on pretty much all the points, but I am not comfortable as I said last week making a decision to make people go to town meeting who are very uncomfortable and who are a certain age that it’s not a good idea. I mean, any doctor will tell you that. And I feel my job number one and foremost is the health and security of all the residents. So, I will agree, and I will support answering some questions if you have some to send to a town council, but I am not going to vote in favor of in-person especially without the Board of Health lessons with it, so. Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

My reason for doing this is that if we can get the votes to make it in-person then it might get some people to get a little aggressive to try and get the hybrids. Okay? To make that work so, and I wouldn’t be opposed to this, but I think if we vote for virtual, nothing’s going to be done. It’s just going to be virtual. So, I’m hoping that if we can get a three to two vote here in favor of in-person that wheels will start turning and something might happen, and we might get a hybrid meeting and that’s what I’m hoping for so people don’t have to come in-person if they don’t have to. But if we go and vote for a virtual, nothing’s going to be done. It’s just going to be virtual. So, that’s my motivation for this.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

If I might speak to Mr. Bletzer and his concerns. I understand exactly where you’re going with this, but I do believe that Selectman Cavacco and Chairman Quintal have given us something to go forward with today in exploring the idea of a virtual without forcing us into making a decision tonight. I mean, I’m not the chairman but do you want to reconsider your motion? And then Selectman Cavacco will likely move some sort of format to explore the idea of a hybrid, and we will not have made our final decision until we’ve been able to research a hybrid to see if it’s possible rather than to vote on something tonight and force us in a particular direction hoping that it helps us explore a hybrid option.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Actually, Charlie, I strongly disagree with you, but respectfully of course because we can’t leave it up to someone to maybe move to say, “Oh, we’re going to have a hybrid.” What I’d like to do is and we can after you’re done with this motion, I will make a motion to instruct Mr. Hartman hopefully with the board’s support to figure out whether he has to talk to our town delegation, speak again with our attorneys whatever it takes and after our town meeting members and the Committee of Precinct Chairs get their questions answered, but we have to take action. We can’t wait for someone to take action. If we want to do nothing, if we say, “Oh, it’s going to be virtual.” Guess what? It is going to be virtual. But if we say, “Lee, we want you to go to our state delegation and find out what we have to do to propose legislation for a hybrid meeting,” that’s what we have to do not just leave it up to someone to say, “Oh, well, Plymouth’s pretty upset, and I’ve got some people calling me that are my constituents. Maybe I should think about it.” I think we have to be proactive. And actually, like I said before, totally disappointed that the hybrid option was mentioned two years ago, and I can’t even believe–I mean, maybe now is the time.

2:10:08

Betty Cavacco:

It wasn’t the time before but now is the time to move forward with hybrid. If the boards and committees can do it, anybody can do it.

Charlie Bletzer:

You get a month.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah, Chairman Quintal, if I could, we’ve got four and a half weeks before town meeting. The likelihood that something would ever be put in place in time for this town meeting would be again, we’ll try, but that will be a real challenge.

Dick Quintal:

I understand.

Betty Cavacco:

And so, do I.

Dick Quintal:

Especially legislation. They usually get stuck in committee for quite a while, all kidding aside, but Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Well, another avenue of exploring a hybrid relates to something that Mr. Costello brought up, and it would be the Attorney General making an evaluation of whether or not we could do this because it doesn’t seem to me that our attorney’s opinion that we can’t do it. It’s that our attorney believes that there are risks involved in going forward. Nowhere did I hear him say that we can’t do it. So, another avenue besides actual legislation would be inquiring with the Attorney General as Mr. Costello brought up which no one has done. So, just another option if we vote to explore a hybrid tonight.

Lee Hartman:

I can certainly ask town council to follow up with the AG’s office.

Dick Quintal:
Okay. The Attorney General said it was up to town council in each city and town to determine if this legislation allows for it. She would not get involved. It’s clear the intent of the legislation is for remote only or not and do in-person with some restriction. That’s from Matt Muratore.

Steve Triffletti:

Mr. Chair, if I might just respond. One of the things that I’m concerned about as moderator is that all the votes that we have at town meeting are legal, and they’re not overturned. And I’ll give you an example, in particular, when we have bonding items. We not only have town council, we have bond council and every time we want to change a word or a comma and punctuation, we have to run it through bond council to make sure that it passes their opinion. So, I only mention that because I would be very concerned if Plymouth did not follow the advice of town council or bond council particularly when the Attorney General has advised us to follow town council because I wouldn’t want the budget or any of the other items that are coming before town meeting to be overturned because we haven’t had a process that is consistent with the statute.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead, Betty.

Betty Cavacco:

And I think that’s exactly what my concern is as well. I don’t want anyone to be able to turn around and say, “We had a hybrid, or we had an in-person meeting,” and now we’re going to go through all of these things. It could be just as simple as someone not liking the way a vote turned out whether it was an expense, a capital expense, a project, whatever it may be, and then we’re going to end up in litigation because of that. So, like I said, there’s a motion on the floor. So, I don’t know what Mr. Bletzer plans on doing with it.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll take the motion off the table.

Betty Cavacco:

And Harry, are you going to withdraw yours?

Harry Helm:

I’m going to withdraw my second

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, with that being said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to have Mr. Hartman pursue possibly legislation with our state delegation regarding a hybrid form of town meeting and whatever other meetings that we need to put under this purview.

2:15:07

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I’d like to add to that motion that Mr. Hartman also contact the Attorney General’s office for a more recent decision like a current decision on this rather than relying on something that was stated several months ago at the minimum.

Betty Cavacco:

And if I may continue adding is that Mr. Hartman reach out to the COPC and get their questions for our attorneys that they may have regarding this hybrid meeting.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second that motion

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Lee Hartman:

So, Chairman Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Yes, sir.

Lee Hartman:

Just want to be clear that at this point, the only motion you have is to allow for a virtual meeting only with no option of an open town meeting if town meeting doesn’t support that. So, just so we understand that’s where we are now.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

But correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Hartman, that does not mean that after this process of exploring and granted it will have to be quick, but we’ve dealt with things quickly such as the realigning of the precincts. We could go back to the proposed motion from last week and this week, correct?

Lee Hartman:

Warrant has to be posted 15 days before town meeting, so we have a couple of weeks, but only a couple of weeks.

Harry Helm:

Okay. We have a couple of weeks.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

You got a lot done in a couple of weeks.

Al DiNardo:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Yeah? Who’s speaking?

Al DiNardo:

Excuse me?

Dick Quintal:

Who’s speaking?

Al DiNardo:

Hi! This is Al DiNardo, Precinct 12, town meeting member. The Attorney general’s office came out with a list of explanations and explanations recently. And under the section where it says when what other requirements apply to remote learning, as you get out of the paragraph it says, “In particular, when any or all public body members participate in a meeting remotely, the following requirements apply,” and it goes on. That’s not my point. The beginning that says, “When any or all,” it is very vague, and I think they just did this maybe assuming that we would pick it up and say, “You could have both ways.” Why would that say when any or all? And one other thing, Mr. Chairman, what this act does is suspend the open meeting laws. Right now, we have to physically be in a room. That’s what really this act does when it goes back to two years ago. So, they could change that as well. Technically, if the way I read this is you could technically have a physical qualm in the room and still have people remotely. So, it’s very vague. So, I agree with the board. We should dig into this. Thank you for your time.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Lee Hartman:

So just one more time from my standpoint, I’d recommend that you allow for the second option and change that vote so that you allow not just simply for the virtual as you’ve done but to amend that. So, you can allow for the in-person if town meeting doesn’t do it. We can always come back and revisit it later for a hybrid if for some reason that happens. But at the very least giving the option for town meeting to hold town meeting in-person if they choose, I think is pretty important. And then again, we could revisit the vote if somehow, we get something for a hybrid.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, we’ll just make a whole other motion. Don’t you think so, Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

So, I’d like to make a motion as you stated, Lee, that if town meeting decides that they want to be in-person that that is allowed to happen.

2:20:05

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. And the adjourned session would be that Saturday.

Betty Cavacco:

April 16th, the adjourned session would be April 16th.

Lee Hartman:

And then that way at least we’re covered for this and if we can work out something else beyond the hybrid, we can always revisit that.

Dick Quintal:

Did you make a motion, Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

I did.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, just checking. Second? Do we have a second?

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? I just have a question, town meeting opens. Now, they’re going to have either option if we vote for this. Now, my question would be to the moderator at that point, you have an authority and correct me if I’m wrong Steve because I’m not positive, you can also say, “I’m going to postpone town meeting for 30 days.” You can also do that, right?

Steve Triffletti:

Yes. So, that is correct. So, if you take this vote tonight and I agree with Mr. Hartman, that is probably a good housekeeping vote so as to avoid having to come back and post the warrant. However, as the moderator, I have statutory authority to continue town meeting regardless of that action that you might take as a select board.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Any more discussion or questions? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

So, a question I would have for the board is given Moderator Triffletti last statement, why are we even bothering?

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. That’s why I asked the question. That’s it. I mean, that’s what it says. I mean, it is what it is. I mean, we’ve all been respectfully trying to get the answers and we’ll get them. So, are we moving ahead with this motion?

Harry Helm:

That’s why I’m going to vote no, because several weeks ago, I voted no to a virtual meeting, and I’m going to stick with that because I really in this case don’t feel–

Lee Hartman:

But that’s the only option we have. The motion on the table now will allow for the in-person meeting if town meeting chooses it.

Harry Helm:

But it doesn’t allow for Moderator Triffletti to continue the town meeting every 30 days. So, once again, I ask why are we even bothering?

Lee Hartman:

We can’t control what he may or may not do. You can only give the option. And right now, the only option is virtual. So, this motion will at least allow if town meeting decide that they want to be in-person and then Steve will have his second decision to make independently of yours. But again, I would strongly recommend to at least give the option for the in-person meeting should town meeting choose it. Right now, the only option is virtual.

Dick Quintal:

Any more discussion? All right. Betty, what was your one more time, give me a motion just so everybody just watching those.

Betty Cavacco:

The motion is to hold an in-person meeting on April 16th.

Lee Hartman:

Okay. So, the whole the virtual but then to go if town meeting doesn’t vote to do virtual to go to town to–

Betty Cavacco:

I was getting there, Lee.

Lee Hartman:

Go ahead.

Betty Cavacco:

To allow an in-person meeting on April 16th, if town meeting members decide that the virtual is not their option. How’s that?

Harry Helm:

At the April 2nd town meeting?

Lee Hartman:

Correct.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Lee Hartman:

And I will ask Chris to post an update on this for the next agenda too, and we can report back. Alan can give me his questions and I’ll forward them to council. I’ll ask council to reach out again to the Attorney General and I will give you an update on my discussions with Matt Muratore about filing legislation.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect.

Dick Quintal:

Just so you know, I did check with Matt Muratore two minutes ago and that’s where I read you the Attorney General’s decision not to get involved. And I’ve heard from Mr. Muratore in the past that they weren’t going to file legislation. So, maybe he’ll have a change of heart.

Lee Hartman:

Well, again, I would say that if we request him to do it, that’s a little different.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All right. So, if this fails this vote here that means I have to go virtual?

Lee Hartman:

Correct.

Dick Quintal:

But this vote passing can give them the right–

Lee Hartman:

The option.

2:25:01

Dick Quintal:

Right. The option, I’m sorry to go virtual or in-person. And that’s still, even if they change that at the first town meeting say what is it the second? I’m not sure of the date then Steve has the right to say no go for 30 days.

Lee Hartman:

Correct.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, all the options are still in play. Okay. All those in favor?

Betty Cavacco:

I think we needed a second.

Dick Quintal:

Well, I thought we have. I’m sorry, I thought Harry second it. I’m sorry, Harry.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second it.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Charlie. Discussion? All those in favor? 2 in favor. The motion does not carry.

Lee Hartman:

Okay. So, we are then down to a virtual meeting only for town meeting at this point.

Betty Cavacco:

But we still have the motion that you’re going to find out all the information and get their questions answered.

Lee Hartman:

Correct.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I’m not sure exactly what happened. I saw that Betty and Charlie voted, yes. I was going to vote no. Did you also vote no, Mr. chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you. Moving on to in-person meetings for the Select Board. Mr. Hartman?

 

Alan Costello:

Thank you for your time.

Lee Hartman:

So, unlike the previous, the board has the option to go hybrid with your meetings too. That is allowed.

Betty Cavacco:

When is PACTV going to be ready for us?

Dick Quintal:

Right. What day and all that good stuff?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah. And what’s going on with the planning board, our meeting on the same night, been hearing about it for a year, tired of hearing about it.

Lee Hartman:

Again, I’m getting a little testy here I apologize, but I just can’t–as soon as I get downstairs in a couple of weeks, it’ll be one of my top priorities to work that with the board. I just haven’t had the ability right now to sit and try to coordinate that, but my goal is if this board chooses to stay on Tuesday night to talk to the planning board about moving them to Wednesday night and into the court room. I just haven’t done that yet.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Badot, did you want to add some stuff about the mechanicals?

Chris Badot:

Yeah, PACTV said they’d be ready for the Great Hall and the 1820 courtroom for the week of March 14th. The other smaller rooms, they’d probably need a little more time.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All right.

Betty Cavacco:

And that’s for a hybrid?

Chris Badot:

That’s for a hybrid, correct.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, if we can just–I know what you said, Lee, I heard you but see if we can get an answer, so we know on the 14th because that’s actually the day that Derek comes on full-time, right? The 14th.

Lee Hartman:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Lee. Okay. Town manager’s report?

Lee Hartman:

Just one thing to update the community on. We have plenty of test kits. They’re here at Town Hall. We’re actually now starting to make them available in different offices. People want those rapid test kits for COVID, they should contact us, contact the Board of Health. There are quite a few left in the town after we’ve done our giveaway. So, shout out to Board of Health and their groups. I would even say if there are places like maybe the VFW or the Legion who are interested in picking up a couple boxes to make them available, we have plenty of kits. So, come on down and get them.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Lee. Anyone wishing to speak in public comment, Chris?

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

I’m sorry, go ahead, Betty.

2:29:57

Betty Cavacco:

I’m sorry. Before public comment and I know that there are some attendees regarding White Horse Beach and I had every intention of doing this under new business but wondering if I could actually raise an issue that I would like to make a motion regarding if that’s possible before public comment.

Dick Quintal:

Sure.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, after discussions with the White Horse Beach Parking Committee, I’d like to make a motion to reinstate that committee at least for another year to go through another season. I know we only went through one season and the folks are a little concerned that we may not have every little bit of all the little glitches out. So, I’m actually asking to reinstate the White Horse Beach Parking Committee for another season, and we can revisit it after next year. So, I’d ask for a second.

Dick Quintal:

Second?

Charlie Bletzer:

Second it.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Excuse me, before we vote, Betty, is this putting the original? Is that your motion, the original people back on?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, yes.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All right.

Betty Cavacco:

The group wasn’t aware and all of us are aware that once a committee finishes its charge, it’s normally disbanded. And I’ll take responsibility of not communicating that with them and I should have communicated it before I disbanded it. So, after listening to their concerns, I would like to reinstate that.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All those in favor? Unanimous.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

You’re welcome. Chris, is there anyone wishing to speak in public comment?

Chris Badot:

There is. Hold on. Mr. DiNardo again.

Al DiNardo:

Mr. Chairman?

Dick Quintal:

Yes.

Al DiNardo:

Al DiNardo, town meeting, Precinct 12. Just a matter of procedure, it’s not a criticism. Please, just let me finish very quickly. I believe in free speech obviously and in any debate if we agree with it or not, it is a courtesy that any motion gets second and there was an incident last year which kind of shocked me that a motion, and I’m not getting into those details, that’s not my point. What I’m saying is normally and sometimes there’s a hesitation for a second. Where I come from everything should always be second, that allows a debate. And normally, the chairman would just do it as a courtesy. So, it’s just an FYI not criticizing. We all learn as we go. It’s just I’m for debate and even if I were on a board and I disagreed if they were building whatever, and I disagreed with it, I would always second a motion. It’s just proper courtesy. I’m just leaving with that. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. No, we don’t want to respond public. We really need to get out of that habit. Is that what you’re going to do?

Charlie Bletzer:

I know, yeah. You probably don’t want me to.

Dick Quintal:

Well, we really shouldn’t. It’s just good policy. I learned it the hard way. I’ll be honest with you. Anyone else wishing to speak on the public comment? Harry, don’t be laughing at me now.

Chris Badot:

Not that I see.

Betty Cavacco:

I think–

Dick Quintal:

Was there anybody else, Chris? No?

Chris Badot:

No one has their hand up, no.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. I’m just asking. I want to hear it from you. Okay. We’re going to move on to licenses and if somebody should pop in.

Chris Badot:

Hold on one second, a hand just came up. Nope, she took it down. I’m sorry.

2:35:05

Dick Quintal:

That’s all right. So, we’re going to move on to the Licenses and the Administrative Notes.

Second Wind Brewing is looking for a One Day Wine and Malt License for March 17th from 2:00 to 10:30 pm.

Charlie Bletzer:

Move it.

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

The Jordan Hospital Club polar plunge, Amplified Music Permit for March 5th 2022 from 10:00 am to 12:00 noon at Nelson Street Park. And I want to remind all the people watching and the board members, Charlie, if you want to take a little dip that that’s going to happen this Saturday.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ve done it before.

Dick Quintal:

And I’d love to sponsor you, Charlie, I’ll get you a lot of money. And it’s the 20th anniversary. So, I missed the bear. He used to come to the Selectmen’s meeting, Jordan, that’s his name.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, I did it 10 years ago.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. I’m just thinking about that. Yeah, on Lincoln Street. Yeah. So, anybody that can go help them or make a donation, you know what to do. It’s for a good cause and it’s a good time to have a lot of laughs. Do we have a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll move it.

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second?

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor?

New Camp Corp doing business as The Store at Sandy Ponds, a Pledge of License and Inventory to the Rockland Trust Bank.

Charlie Bletzer:

Moving.

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Eversource and Verizon, Pole Petition Work Order number 6814648, one new pole.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor?

We have another one. Eversource and Verizon, Pole Petition work order number 6915974.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

We have the second administrative note has been withdrawn, so we have one as it’s listed here: number one, three and four.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Dick Quintal:

Move them all?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Committee Liaison updates? Designee updates? Old business? Letters? New business? I’ll be looking for a motion to adjourn.

Charlie Bletzer:

Motion to adjourn.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion

Dick Quintal:

And I want to thank everybody for watching. We’ll see you next week, and please keep in your thoughts and prayers the people of Ukraine. Thank you and good night.

Betty Cavacco:

Good night.