Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 3-8-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 3-8-22 Minutes

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

Dick Quintal:

Welcome back to the Selectmen’s meeting of Tuesday, March 8th, 2022. We’re going to move on to the Special Town Meeting Articles. Article 8 (Affordable Housing) and that would be Mr. Golden.

Lee Hartman:

I’m sorry, I need Chris.

Dick Quintal:

It’s okay.

Lee Hartman:

Let me see.

Dick Quintal:

You have to promote Mr. Golden.

Lee Hartman:

I’m getting there.

Dick Quintal:

No, no problem, Lee. Oh, that’s right. You can see it through. This is a little more complicated. There we go.

Lee Hartman:

Mr. David, you’re on.

David Golden:

Hi, good evening, folks. Thank you for having me here tonight. My name is David Golden. I am here to present on behalf of the Plymouth Redevelopment Authority where I serve as the Program Director. I’ll have a brief presentation and then I’m happy to take any questions that you folks might have regarding our article. Is everyone seeing the presentation?

Lee Hartman:

Yes.

David Golden:

Again, my name is David Golden. I’m here for the Plymouth Redevelopment Authority. We’re presenting on the special town meeting Article 8. Our proposal is to transfer tax-title property to the Plymouth Redevelopment Authority from the care, custody and control of the Town of Plymouth to us.

The property that we’re looking at is 31 Strand Ave and it is a relatively small property consisting of .25 acres situated between numbers 29 and 35 on Strand Avenue. We are looking to build an affordable housing unit, a single-family residence on that property. In addition to coming before you folks, we received the unanimous support of the Advisory and Finance Committee last week, two weeks ago.

We’ve also applied for a federal grant money through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’ Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant Program. We’re waiting a decision on that from our source. We really want to make this a community-based project and so we’ve engaged the folks at Plymouth South High School’s technical program in order to integrate students into the billable project.

You can see in the bubble here to the left the map of the property. Again, it’s an odd-shaped lot, relatively small, situated between two existing single-family residences. Also, for your benefit is the property record card from this office.

I went and took some pictures of the property but it’s not much to show. It was after one of the storms so it was significantly covered by snow but what you could see was that the property is relatively undeveloped. There’s a post fence on three sides as well as the stock fence at the front of the property it’s not completely enclosed. You can see there are gaps in the fence at various points on the property. Most of the ground is covered by overgrowth and some downed trees. There is a small shed on the property that has additional fencing that is not connected to the rest of the fencing around the property. The shed was I believe non-permitted installed on the property a number of years ago and does have electrical line running to it. The intention would be to demolish the structure and clear it up before adding our single-family residence.

The home that will be built a modest likely cape style home. We’ll be sort of adding affordable rate based on our market situation. So, that’s all I have. Happy to take questions from you folks.

0:05:05

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board for Mr. Golden?

Betty Cavacco:

No.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Do we have a motion?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr, Bletzer. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you for all your work, Mr. Golden. Good job.

David Golden:

Thank you. Have a good night.

Charlie Bletzer:

Good luck on that.

Harry Helm:

Thanks, David.

Dick Quintal:

Article 2 is I believe Lynne Barrett, Lee?

Lee Hartman:

No. It’s Lee Hartman. I’ll take it.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Lee Hartman:

So, we have as you know have gone from 17 precincts to 18 because of the increase in precincts. We have an election coming up this year. We have additional election workers co-custodian overtimes, the AutoMark programming as well as coding and balloting printing and voting bills. So, we’re looking for this year, for this election coming up for $5,522 to be added to the budget to handle those increase cost for the year in the precincts.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions for Mr. Hartman? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

Motion to approve.

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Motion by Mr. Bletzer, second by Ms. Cavacco. All those in favor? Unanimous.

Lee Hartman:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Article 7. Mr. Hartman?

Lee Hartman:

So, this is when the board is somewhat familiar with. As you know, since the power plant is no longer producing power, we’re no longer able to have a PILOT because it’s a non-functioning power plant. So, what we’re seeking to do is something very similar to some of the communities in New York has done seeking special legislation, which requires a vote of town meeting and a filing with the state to seek state approval for special legislation to give us the ability to negotiate a PILOT, a Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes agreement with Holtec for the as I said before the privilege of having us be one of the only communities in the United States second store spent nuclear fuel. So, again, it gives us just one more tool to try to negotiate with Holtec to deal with as I would say the privilege of being able to be one of the few communities that has to store spent fuel within the boundaries of the Town of Plymouth indefinitely.

Dick Quintal:

Comments from the board? Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. As the board knows and maybe the public doesn’t know is that this was very important article to move forward for the Select Board. It was much discussion along with our special council. I’m hoping this will pass through town meeting to be able to give our residents a little bit of relief on their tax payments, so.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone else wishing to speak? Do we have a motion from the board?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Dick Quintal:

Second?

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Bletzer. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Article 14. Mr. Hartman?

Lee Hartman:

Sure. So, I’m going to start with this one and I know that Attorney Bill Sims is here representing the petitioner on this article, but I’ll start. So, this is a petitioned article and I’ll just do a quick share screen. So, this shows the property we’re talking about. So, I’ll just give you some history. So, this piece of property. So, we’re located across from Dorothy Road and Lawrence Road, and this is South Meadow Road. We have the catholic church that is just to the north of these five residential homes. And then as you go further south, you approach the airport. So, what happened is in 1972, the town went for a town-wide rezoning all over, a rezoning that affected the entire community. One of the things in ’72 they did was create this airport district, which includes some of these privately owned properties as well as the property that we know as the airport.

Just before town meeting acted on that proposed rezoning, the property owner across the street who owned the Dorothy Drive launched road property which was undeveloped a subdivision plan that protected them from that zoning change and subsequently followed up and completed that plan.

0:10:01

Lee Hartman:

So, in ’72, just before town meeting, the plan was filed ’72. The town adapted the new zoning maps and these five houses were built, constructed. These homes are now occupied where four of them at this point are occupied. At one point, all five are occupied as single-family homes and they were non-conforming because they’re now in an airport district.

What happened was in the 1997, the church purchased the one closest to the church property and that’s the one subject of the petition and converted it to an office for the church and held that for more than two years. So, it lost its non-conforming status as home. So, now, fast forward to currently, the church decided they had no more use for this home as an office, sold it to a private property owner who look to convert it back into a single-family home and was decided by the Building Department because it doesn’t have protected rights anymore. It’s lost–I’m not supposed to use the term but the grandfathering. It’s no longer a grandfathered lot as residential. So, the house itself can’t be modified or can’t be occupied as a home because it’s an airport district.

So, what this zoning changes looking to do is to take these five homes and they look and breath like a residential neighborhood and residential area and put them back into a residential zone. So, these five homeowners can have their property, their home, the place they live. They can continue to occupy it as a home and not have to worry about the non-conformity nature of having a home within an airport district.

So, generally, this would not be the type of article that I would support, which is conversion of commercial land to a residential but in this case, it’s very different because you have five homes here that already exist, had functioned since the 70s as five homes. And so, I think it’s the right thing to do to the four homeowners. In addition, that fifth homeowner, if this doesn’t pass will have no ability to use that house except to maybe try to make it available on the market for some commercial use, which I would argue is not really the best option for the other abutters who would then have a commercial use sitting next to their homes. So, again, I think it’s one of those things that happened in the 70s. Nobody ever really cared until this issue came up recently about the loss of its status as a non-conforming lot. And again, I think the planning board is also looking at this article. Finance Committee has supported it and I would recommend that the board adopt this or support this article for this minor rezoning. Let these homeowners have homes and not be stuck in the uncomfortable position of being in a commercial zone.

Bill, do you have anything to add?

Bill Sims:

Not much, Lee. I think you pretty much captured the essence of the history and the present situation there. I just would like to emphasize that I think there was an application by one of the other homeowners recently for some type of a minor modification to the house, a building permit which ended up having to go to zoning because of the house being rezoned into the airport district. So, that’s what’s going to happen with anybody in those five homes. If they’re in the airport district, they’re not going to have the protection of the residential zone in terms of modifications, additions, anything that has to do with their house. These kids and I say kids, they’re younger than me so anybody’s a kid, I guess but their purchase was completely innocent. They did not get great information on the time that they bought this not knowing that they were in the airport district, thinking they were totally within the residential district and could simply convert this property or modify it, rebuild and found out shortly thereafter that they weren’t. So, I don’t think this is going to create any kind of a hardship to any of the neighbors in that district. In fact, I think it will increase their ability to be able to live, modify, increase whatever they have to do within their house in the residential district as opposed to the airport district. So, I think it’s really in it. I don’t think there’s any objection by anybody there. My clients have spoken to all the abutting neighbors and I don’t believe anybody has objected. It’s gone through administration and finance without any issues. So, again, I would just ask the board to please support this particular article.

 

0:15:02

Dick Quintal:

Any questions or comments from the board? Seeing none. Await a motion.

Harry Helm:

Motion to approve.

Dick Quintal:

Do I have a second? Betty, you second?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, Harry and then Betty second, okay. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Bill Sims:

Thank you all very much.

Dick Quintal:

Event Banners. Lee, would that be you?

Lee Hartman:

Yes, it is.

So, this is an issue that’s come up a while ago. If you recall prior to COVID, we had a banner that was or banner poles that were located on Court Street just as you get to the Court Street, Samoset, Park Avenue intersection. And that banner pole was used for our waterfront festival, the fourth of July, Thanksgiving parade. It was a way to put a banner up and say, “Here is this event coming up. We’re looking for people.” Another way to make the community aware of that we had certain special events going on in the community. When we were dealing with the poles were older, they were undersized. So, we looked to put larger poles in and through kind of a series of situations, we found that the poles can’t go there anymore because the one on the west side of Court Street sits right next to an electric conduit box and so it can’t be there. It can’t be located there. We looked at a bunch of ways to try to figure out how we could put it there safely and there really wasn’t an option. So, what we’d like to ask you tonight is we’ve come up through the DPW with two other options. One would be in front of Memorial Hall and the other one would be down by Brewster Gardens, the KKatie area. So, if it’s not acceptable either of those, we could look at another location. What I would look for tonight is just whether the board has a preference to either one of those or neither and then we can work with DPW and I think VSP for additional funding to see if we can get those poles put back up. It is something that I think the community likes to see. So, again, tonight, we were just looking for a consensus if you’re okay with one or either of those sites. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Lee. Any questions or comments for Lee? Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, I think I’d prefer the one near Memorial Hall. It’s kind of near where the old one was and it’s more downtown and more people go by it there. But I think either location is sort of in the same main drag through town but that seems like there’s a preference for that, we can do it there. It’s like a good choice.

Dick Quintal:

Any other? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I’m in agreement with Mr. Flaherty, but Lee, could you further describe the positioning around KKatie’s?

Lee Hartman:

I think at this point, we just have a general location. We really didn’t specify. So, I think what we would have to do is come back on both of these sites and look at the particulars about exactly where they could go.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. Just in terms of that, once again, I am in agreement with Mr. Flaherty, but I would add besides to sort of a feel of a more central location putting a banner that people have to read down at that intersection. It’s a crazy intersection already and I’m not sure that would really be the most wise. I’m not sure people get time to read it and those who did take time to read it would be endangering safety.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Would I be able to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, at this point or is there more discussion?

Dick Quintal:

I’ll call for discussion again anyway, so.

Betty Cavacco:

I’d like to make a motion to have the pole put in at Memorial Hall, in the Memorial Hall location for the event banner.

Charlie Bletzer:

I second for discussion.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Bletzer. Discussion? Okay. Although I have to add Lee is that down by Memorial Hall just kind of be mindful of the churches there. Actually, there’s two churches there, but one is up level up Saint Peter’s is to go up that high. I’m just thinking the cosmetics and what might be going on there. Other than that I’m good with either side. All those in favor? Unanimous.

0:20:11

Dick Quintal:

Town Meeting Update – Virtual/ In-person/hybrid. Mr. Hartman?

Lee Hartman:

Thank you. So, we have this posted for this week and we also have it posted again for next week to give the board an update. So, the update that I have is the town council has checked with I see some other names here, I’m sorry. Town council has checked with the attorney general’s office. And again, there’s no new information. The same position from council is that hybrids are not permitted at this point. We worked with town council and with Matt Muratore and Matt has filed legislation to allow for hybrids. I’m not optimistic that that’ll be ready for this town meeting. Perhaps for a future town meeting but certainly we’ll keep working on that. We’ll give you an update next week. So, that’s where the hybrid sits. And again, right now, the only option the town has is for virtual only. And I would once again recommend that the board vote to authorize if town meeting chooses not to go virtually by their vote that we have a standby second option which would be April 16th in person at Plymouth North High School.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco then Mr. Helm.

Betty Cavacco:

I actually was just going to make that motion but Mr. Helm, if you have a discussion.

Harry Helm:

Well, not discussion but a question for Mr. Hartman. Lee, you mentioned that if this is not in place that the date of the town meeting would move to and you didn’t define when. You mentioned things that would have to occur that would delay it beyond the 16th. Could you go into detail?

Lee Hartman:

So, what would happen is if we leave it as the vote is now, which is only a virtual option with no option for open and if town meeting by a majority vote says no, we want to do it in person, we would then have to go back out and repost the warrants for the annual and special and go through that whole process again of giving notice and picking the location and just again, re-advertising the whole town meeting for some future date certain. So, this way, if town meeting chooses not to, we just automatically have a date as a fallback.

Harry Helm:

So, given a reposting etc. etc., what would that date be?

Lee Hartman:

Probably a 30-day versus the two weeks that we have here.

Harry Helm:

Okay, thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, I’d like to make a motion that should town meeting vote not to go virtual that we schedule the town meeting for April 16th in-person.

Lee Hartman:

And that would be 8 o’clock AM at Plymouth North.

Betty Cavacco:

Eight o’clock AM at Plymouth North.

Dick Quintal:

Do I have a second?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second it.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Bletzer. Discussion or questions or complaints? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Discussion. I would just like to point out that we’ve been given two options here. If town meeting which is their right to do and actually their duty to determine whether it will be virtual or in-person, if at the virtual meeting on April the 2nd they vote no to virtual, this what we’re passing here would move town meeting to April 16th. The town manager, the acting town manager has told us that the alternative is 30 days after April 2nd. And I would just like to point out once again that twice in last week’s presentation, the town moderator made it very clear that he intends to continue if town meeting votes against the virtual, he has the authority by state statute and the fact that he told us this twice and this is if the past is prologue, I have to believe that he will continue it for 30 days. So, I’m not sure where this really gets us except for kind of making us look happy in the moment because the real thing’s going to happen at town meeting.

0:25:03

Lee Hartman:

Well, I would say procedurally, it makes it a lot easier for staff. Second is if he’s got 30 days and then it’s going to be 30 days from the vote for that date so at least it will get us two weeks in advance. So, if we wait 30 days to post and then he delays for 30 days, that’s two months versus at least posting in two weeks and then having the 30-day delay come from there. So, I still think that this is a better approach to get us there sooner and it’s only an option. It’s not mandatory.

Dick Quintal:

Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Basically, the same that Lee said that we’re presupposing an action town meeting would take in the event that there was a no vote and I think that would have to be evaluated at the time by the moderator and then it would be his decision at that point. So, I think there’s value in putting this through.

Lee Hartman:

I would also say it gives people time to understand what the two consequences are versus a vote of town meeting not the whole town meeting stopping and then coming up with some other day later that people aren’t even prepared for.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

And now, if this vote, this motion didn’t pass that I have just made and it was seconded, would we have to reprint all the books and do all that?

Lee Hartman:

No. We would just have to repost the warrant and we would have to go re-notify town meeting members, probably give them a new mailing to identify the new time and date and we would have to work out the logistics. We know that the 16th works. If that doesn’t work, we’ll have to then again go through the schools, PACTV and other groups to find another date that’s suitable. It might be more than 30 days off depending on what happens and what the availability of the school is and the PACTV people and the electronic voting.

Betty Cavacco:

And I do believe that legislation was filed. So, you never know. They might move fairly quickly or not.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:      

Another question for Lee. Should the town meeting vote against virtual and the town moderator continues it for 30 days, does the town need to go through the process you outlined of the posting, etc.?

Lee Hartman:

I don’t know the answer to that. I think if we have a time and date certain if he chooses to delay, I don’t think it would have to be a reposting but I’m not 100% sure.

Harry Helm:

Does anybody recall from the town meeting when COVID first hit?

Betty Cavacco:

Derek had his hand up.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, Derek.

Derek Brindisi:

To the Chair, no. If the moderator were to enact his authority to delay town meeting because of an emergency event, which I think COVID would be considered one of them, he would then go ahead and then just set the date on the day that he delays it. So, we wouldn’t have to repost, we wouldn’t have to go through that process.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

Just recalling the COVID things just what Derek said, so.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, thank you. Any more discussion?

Lee Hartman:

Chairman Quintal, I would say there are a number of people on. I don’t know if anybody wants to speak to this.

Dick Quintal:

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this?

Betty Cavacco:

I think they have to raise their hand to let Lee know.

Lee Hartman:

Right. I have not seen any.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.  Meaning a virtual hand not their hand hand.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. No virtual hands that I see.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All those in favor? Charlie, you oppose? Are you in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yup.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. I couldn’t see your hand. Okay, unanimous. It passes.

Lee Hartman:

Okay. Thank you very much.

Dick Quintal:

Very welcome.

Town Manager’s Report.

Lee Hartman:

Well, I have just a few things to report. So, first of all, we just got noticed from the clerk’s office that our final precinct updates have been approved by the state. She’s in the process of working with the state to get our voter list out and identifying where people will be voting and working to get those letters out to voters, notifying them of any changes to their precinct and where they will be voting. So, that is in process.

0:30:00

Lee Hartman:

Also, another reminder as I did last week, plenty of test kits here. Anybody interested in test kits, we’re actually talking about expanding the availability. So, for example, if there’s a group such as the VFW, the Legion, other types of groups like that that might be interested in grabbing a few boxes to make them available, we would encourage that. But if you want some test kits, we have plenty of them available to the community.

The next thing I would report is if you look at the town’s main webpage, I’m going to just look at it real quickly now myself. There is a new reporting mechanism that says Report a Road Hazard. So, if you go to the main page–actually, I can even just show it. So, if you go to the town’s main website page, you’ll see in this Citizen Action Center, Report a Road Hazard, and I just clicked on that. And so, we have a new section where you can report a road hazard, where it is located and the type of hazard you have. So, a new way to again communicate. We understand we have a lot of issues with potholes this season. So, we do have that up for citizens to report any issues with road hazards that are out there. And I believe that’s all I had for today. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Lee. Mr. Hartman, is there anybody wishing to speak on a public comment?

Lee Hartman:

Do I see some hands raised yet? It would be your virtual hand. I do not.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Well, we missed somebody or you miss somebody and you see a hand up and I don’t see it just remind me, Lee.

Lee Hartman:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Because we like everybody to feel welcome. Okay. Going on to Licenses, I believe.

Gulsen Inc. doing business as Trailsend Bistro, Common Victualler License. I’m sorry, go ahead, Betty.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second?

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Dillon’s Local is requesting a One Day Wine and Malt Licenses for March 17th St. Patrick’s Day from 9:00 AM to 12 AM.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yup.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

We have eight administrative notes. Any questions or does the board want to take any of them separately or move them all? What’s the wish of the board?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to move as a group. 

Patrick Flaherty:

Mr. Chairman, before we do that, could we just take number three separately?

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, that being said, could we have the motions excluding number three, Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. Motion to approve the administrative notes: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Do I have a second?

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Administrative note number 3: Collective bargaining agreements, April 2nd for the Spring Town meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mr. Bletzer. Discussion? Mr. Flaherty.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you. I prepared a little thing I just wanted to read because I want to make sure I said my words right but it has been something through this process that I’ve really, really weighed heavily on how I’ve voted and decided with the things that I had requested. And my reasons why I’m voting against this, I wanted to have an opportunity to just explain through and leave that out there. So, it’s not too long but I think it’s important for me to read this so I can explain my personal vote here.

0:35:06

Patrick Flaherty:

So, to explain my position today, I want to take a minute to quickly review how we got here. Every time the campaign season comes along, inevitably you hear how Plymouth is much like a 250 plus million-dollar business and you hear how the town should be looking ahead and planning for the future. And I absolutely was one of those people when I ran for this seat.

In January 2020, after going through my first budget cycle as a member of the board, I made a statement in open session. The statement was how I was dismayed at how Plymouth’s budget planning lacked forward-looking forecasting to know how current decisions would be affecting the future of Plymouth. The last line of my statement on January 20, 2020 was, “Let’s get on board with a three-year vision of our town’s financial position so we can make financially responsible decisions, take a long view of Plymouth’s future, get out of this one year at a time cycle and stop planning to spend money that we may not have.” After that, immediately, a motion was passed that through town management a three-year budget forecast would be created that included all departments, debt forecasting, any other items obligated to be added or increased to the budget, and debt that falls off so we know where that spending is. The bottom line is that we as a board would have the baseline budget for the next three fiscal years once we factor in those obligations and the corresponding revenue forecast.

So, at that point, we had an agreed upon plan of how the Select Board approach financial planning. We’re on our way. Shortly after, a financial modeling tool was developed where town management could forecast future budgets based on dozens of variables down to the department level. It accounted for how much every expense would increase using historical averages over many years past including debt, capital expenditures, all revenue sources including state funds, local receipts, property taxes, estimated new growth. It also included the whole school budget as well. It was our whole entire budget. I thought this was a great step forward for the town to allow the Select Board to begin looking ahead and planning for Plymouth’s financial future. The Select Board then after that voted for our new financial policy and it was a simple policy. It was that we would always have the next three years budget projections available to see how the decisions we were making that day would affect the coming years. I thought that was a very good step in the right direction.

So, now in January of this year, we as a board voted to approve this upcoming year’s budget after going through the complete annual vetting process. Since then, the Select Board has voted to add millions and millions of recurring dollars to that already approved operating budget. I had been requesting all throughout that process to be provided the forecast that shows how these budget increases affect Plymouth over the next three years. It was eventually received last week a few hours before the Select Board meeting that we had to approve the final amended budget as a board. So, it has been made clear to me that there’s not an interest in budget forecasting to see how the decisions we are making today will affect Plymouth in the future. But, before there’s any attempt to make my statement a management versus employees debate, I have to say I completely agree that Plymouth needs to set wages to be an employer of choice, attracting and retaining great staff. However, during this process without being able to see any future budget projections, I could not responsibly vote to approve these agreements which add recurring annual operating costs indefinitely. I felt like we were being asked to make an eight-figure operating budget decision in the blind and that is why I can’t support this amendment or this article. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Mr. Flaherty. Any other comments, discussion on administrative note number three? Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. I appreciate Patrick making his comment but we do look to our finance director who has an incredible reputation. The questions that we asked, I felt that she answered in a timely fashion. She gave us the confidence in moving forward. And you’re right, Patrick, we have to do something with our employees and stop being the training ground for people to come in and just leave because it’s costing us way more money than it would if we had to actually give people a raise.

0:40:20

Betty Cavacco:

But I always look to Lynne and our finance folks to give us guidance. I feel they have given us the guidance that we require so I’m comfortable with moving forward and voting in favor of our collective bargaining agreements.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty then Mr. Bletzer.

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, for sure, the numbers that Lynne and the team do provide are always of a quality that you know you can count on. However, the numbers that we were provided along the way were the cost estimates of various things, the total dollar amount. We hadn’t seen how it would look in the future and that was where I had my areas of concern. This has to do with the future budgets not necessarily what it’s going to cost this year, how it fits into the larger budget. In isolation, it doesn’t give a good perspective to know how the decisions are going to affect two, three, four years from now or at all without that. During this process too, I know there was an incredible amount of work that was done in a short period of time but when we’re being asked to vote on agreements and you hear things like, “We hope this is right. We had to race to get this done. We’re under the gun to do this.” It doesn’t inspire confidence to me that the amount of time needed to properly vet this was done during the conversations where we have to vote this. So, that adds to my concerns of wanting to have a look at this with more time. It doesn’t mean I don’t agree this could be the path to go forward. I just felt like what I wanted to have for a comfort level to see what this board as a town had voted on to see fulfilled and then make the decision and we could at least then have a discussion about what it looks like in the future and not necessarily one figure that’s right in front of us.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer and then Betty.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. Thanks, Patrick. I appreciate what you’re saying and Betty is saying too but from my perspective, I’m proud of what we did. We found that the public employees, that town employees were underpaid compared to other towns and we were losing. We’re a training ground as Betty said. We’re losing people to other towns and we were looking to retain our employees. And one way of doing that is to give them better wages and give them better benefits, and we’ve done this and the negotiations were very smooth. Actually, everybody was respectful. They get done very quickly. Everybody’s now being paid fairly. So, I’m proud of that fact. There was give them both sides but there was no arguments, there was no yelling and screaming. Lynne and Marie, they did a fantastic job assistant as Lee did, Derek, Barry DeBlasio helping out, as well as the other selectmen that were involved in the different negotiations. I’m very proud as a board member that we get this done. We hired a new town manager. Our next step now is to let’s get some economic development going. That’s another thing that’s been lacking for the last 10 or 12, 15 years. So, that’s the next thing we want to get done when Mr. Brindisi gets in here next week or the week after full-time. So, get some economic development. So, I’m very proud of this and I think that everything is going to be a lot better. Patrick is worried about the numbers but I’m looking forward to having great revenue streams coming in the next few years and some economic development that’s going to help pay for all these salaries. So, thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Patrick, I don’t want to argue with you but I just have to say with all the contract negotiations that we were in, all of our executive sessions, everything, I never heard from staff say or Lynne or Marie, “I hope this is right.” I just wanted to make that clear. I’ve never heard that. I only missed one session in the past couple years. So, I just kind of want to put that out there as well.

0:45:03

Betty Cavacco:

I never heard that said and I look for all of our–I understand the projections that you want but we can’t really project everything that we need to make that forecast, I guess is what I’m saying in my opinion.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

And to Charlie, to your point, I a thousand percent agree with what you said about being an employer of choice, all these things. I have not a shadow of a doubt there. That was sort of separate from what I had been looking for. I had been looking for the confidence to know that those decisions we were making, is that going to cause a future issue where we might have to give up something else in town? Does it mean closing a school? Closing a library? Looking at an override budget. I don’t know because we never saw the numbers to understand what the impact would be. So, that was the root of my concern. Nothing to do with the merits of paying our town staff raises at all. To Betty’s point, I don’t want to go and necessarily embarrass any town staff. That’s not the point of that at all, but my point is that we had an agreement that we would look at certain numbers. There were a lot of projections, a lot of things that were done and this was not a short period of time. This was weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks of me asking for this, and it never came until hours before the meeting. And so, that was where my concern was that we hadn’t have an opportunity to look and evaluate and then maybe discuss how to play into the bigger picture. This is a really hard thing for me to do. I mean, I’m looking at every single town employee and saying, “No.” I mean, I weighed so hard on this decision because I felt there was a principle here at stake that I had said I would look at this as we made decisions going in the future. It’s not an easy thing to sit here and say on TV to every single person, “No.” It’s very, very hard. So, for me to make this decision I’m saying that those numbers were so important to me, how I feel about the town that I felt it was a disservice to not at least see them to have a discussion about them before all this happened. That’s the point I wanted to make here by voting no even though I know it would be inconsequential. I knew it would be going through but I had to stand for my principle there. And this is not meant to be an embarrassing thing for anyone but there’s no other way to say it. It’s to express why I’m voting no without fully coming through this process here. So, I hope you can just maybe not agree but at least understand where I’m coming from with my vote.

Charlie Bletzer:

I mean, I do. I do.

Patrick Flaherty:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments? This isn’t a rebuttal to go with you, Patrick but this is just my rebuttal to the people as yours was. I’ve done this job many years. I’ve seen it come from different avenues and I always respect the recommendations of the finance director and her numbers. I granted you some of the agreements and I was on many of–well, the schools I think has four or five. I also helped out with this batch negotiations. I listened in one time on library and some of those went to the right before the executive sessions of our meetings and that was going back and forth as MOAs but I saw the numbers that Lynne Barrett showed. She showed the next three years out. There was no sign of an override and I’m not a finance guy like you and her but I was very comfortable with. For many years, the town’s dwelled on. You talked about looking out into the future. Well, we know Holtec and Entergy was leaving. We knew we were losing $7 million there but yet the town still chose to build a $45 million town hall and it’s beautiful. Okay? So, different boards just look at it different and what they feel is important and I get it. And you have every right not to support the raises of town employees, I get it because of the budget for whatever your reasoning was.

0:50:04

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I’m happy that I’m going to lose a briefcase. When I say a briefcase, a Garrett case of just folders of negotiations going back and forth with each group. So, I just don’t want the public and town meeting members watching to think that there was no negotiation on any of the groups that I was on and some of them are still going on. So, I mean, that being said and you’re absolutely right, the new growth in the town is really slacked off quite a bit. I think the board had also put a graph up and I’ve said it before by administration of where do we want to be four years out with new growth? How do we get there? It’s not always about taking the taxpayers and putting it on the backs of the town employees. And that’s what’s happened for many years. I’ve always was under the philosophy being told in school that you’re going to do it all and you’re going to negotiate with this and that’s it. Well, with this environment post-COVID, I don’t know about your industry but I can tell you in my end and some other people I’ve talked with, throwing money at a position isn’t going to fill it. I mean, we got cafeteria workers starting at $14 and change an hour, a DPW dump truck driver at 15.75. I’m going to be honest with you here, you can come to me and peel potatoes and I’ll pay you more than that. And I’m not saying it not to be funny, but that’s how far some of these positions are behind in our community. I was told by the finance director, the acting town manager and Marie Brinkmann that they all went by the HR report that the town did I think before I was here. And in seeing that even with these contracts the way they are brings them with the 75% of the percentile in that group. So, not with the lowest and they’re really not with the highest. I mean, I voted the way I thought was right and was right to the people. Some of these the administrative assistants in our building or I call secretaries, administrative assistants, they were way behind. Way, way, way behind. Dispatchers working three consecutive shifts. I mean, they can’t even fill the positions over there. It’s a safety thing. It’s a hazard. We’re missing 15 employees in DPW, six in the police officers, two at the fire department and I don’t see it getting any better to be quite honest with you.

I mean, I want the people to understand where I come from. I hope people don’t think I’m an idiot. I’ve done this quite a few years and I just have a different opinion, and that’s what makes life beautiful, I guess. That’s why I’m so calm all the time, because everybody’s got the right to their opinion and that’s what makes it work and that’s why we have town meeting. So, I mean, everybody did a good job, the numbers were vented. I understand what you’re saying and I also praised the model that you created, that took a lot of time and I was very impressed with that. Very, very impressed with that, Patrick.

Patrick Flaherty:

I respect everything you said and I cannot emphasize how much I agree with what you’re saying about the town staff. There’s just one very, very tiny thing I just want to make sure because it’s really the whole key of what I’m saying is that the budget projections for the whole town budget, that’s what we didn’t get. The projections for the increases of each agreement, we absolutely did get that but not as the budget as a whole because that’s sort of like the crux of what I’m trying to say that I was looking for. But I agree and maybe we could have afforded even more raises. I mean, we don’t know what the cap could have been to bring equity because we didn’t have a number or a goal post. So, maybe we could have raised wages even higher if we had that number. So, without seeing it, we don’t know. That’s where I get it, but I agree with everything you all said about the staff and the positions 100%. I just want you all to know that and to the town.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. So, any other comments on note number three? All those in favor? Patrick that’s a no. Four in favor, one in–okay. Just checking, one in opposition. Thank you.

0:55:04

Dick Quintal:

Moving on to Committee Liaison updates.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Chairman, before you go on, I just want you to know that there is someone that would like to speak in our–

Dick Quintal:

Okay. I see that now. Thank you, Mrs. Cavacco. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. Hutchinson:

Thank you, Mr. Quintal.

Dick Quintal:

I didn’t see your hand, I apologize.

Joseph Hutchinson:

And that’s okay, because I understand how these are sometimes difficult to manage, these Zoom meetings. I have to confess that I’m not clear on how this conversation drifts back and forth between things that got discussed in executive session and things that were open to people like me to the public, to town meeting members. So, Patrick mentions that there was a three-year plan for revenues. How would you characterize the plan, Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Very briefly, it was back in March of 21 that we would look three fiscal years ahead from the current year we were in as we were evaluating budget decisions.

Joseph Hutchinson:

But it was an overall financial plan, was it?

Patrick Flaherty:

It was voted in open session.

Joseph Hutchinson:

Oh, okay. But an overall plan, revenues and expenditures, you were looking at both sides of the equation.

Patrick Flaherty:

Just to look at what the future budgets would be all sides.

Joseph Hutchinson:

Yeah, yeah, I get it. I, for whatever reason probably my own fault, never saw that model and I would love to see it. What this conversation has made me think is that I would like Lynne who by the way I have worked with many, many times and found to be miraculous. I mean, she’s wonderful. I would like her to do a presentation on that plan before I vote at town meeting. I’d like to know what this is all about. What is their policy for paying town employees? I heard at one point and this was an informal conversation that Plymouth in presenting packages to potential employees gave wonderful benefits and somewhat lower salaries as a policy. And if that’s true, I would like to know that and I’d like to know where that’s written down. There are also things that I’ve had questions about I’d put free cash as one of the items that I’ve had consistent questions on. We had $11 million in free cash, that’s our money. I understand that it allows for flexibility. We paid for the nuclear mitigation with it. I understand that it’s useful. It’s a useful tool, but I would also like to see a policy on free cash. This conversation has made me kind of sit up and take notice. So, is it possible to get Lynne to give a presentation for us, Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

I can ask her.

Joseph Hutchinson:

All right. That’s all I can ask.

Dick Quintal:

Fair enough.

Joseph Hutchinson:

That’s all I had to say. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

You’re welcome. Okay. Any other hands up?

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t see any.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Committee Liaison Update? Seeing none.

Designee updates?

Old business? It’s not really too old, but I want to thank everybody that participated in a polar plunge on Saturday. There were a lot of groups there. I know our police department was there. I believe they were 17 and 20 strong. Both high schools had youth teams in there and there were many, many more. I mean, I don’t want to forget anybody but thank you all for showing up and making that event a large success.

Anybody have anything under Letters? Oh, I’m sorry. Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

I’m going to say old business and new business together. I had sent out our goals, the updated list of what we’ve accomplished and what we want to move forward to.

1:00:04

Betty Cavacco:

I believe the board has it. If not, I can resend it. I know Chris had it. So, it’s that time again. We need to update our goals. I believe Derek has the copy of it as well. I know I added a few things. I know Mr. Quintal added a few things. So, for everyone else, it’s time to add your few things. And if you don’t have that copy, I can send it out to everyone.

One of the big goals and after seeing what Lee had posted about there’s a street thing is that one of mine is the 311 app for the Town of Plymouth because that really takes care of not only roads but it takes care of everything: potholes, there’s an issue, there’s something going on. So, that’s one of my top priority goals that I know Mr. Brindisi was involved in implementing that program in Worcester. Did I say that right, Derek? Worcester?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right. Worcester, yeah.

Lee Hartman:

Worcester.

Betty Cavacco:

Worcester. So, if the board could please get their goals together and send them in so we can make that an agenda item.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, in between we had letters. Did anybody–oh, I’m sorry. Harry?

Harry Helm:

I just wanted to call attention. We all received an email from Nicole O’Brien about pride month. The Plymouth chapter of the Pride chapter had been interested in asking Plymouth last year to fly the pride flag at town hall during the month of June, but it was determined that it was too late in the game. So, they have come forward now well in advance to make that request and they’ve made it of us. I’m not sure if it needs to be an agenda item or how we move forward with that request. Is Nicole addressing it to the correct entity?

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hartman or Mr. Brindisi?

Lee Hartman:

I’m not familiar with this. I don’t think the email came to me.

Dick Quintal:

I didn’t see one either and I could have missed it but I didn’t see it.

Lee Hartman:

You could forward it to us. I mean, I think that’s something we can deal with administratively.

Harry Helm:

Okay. I will. After the meeting, I’ll forward it, Lee, to you and Derek. And Dick, I’ll make sure if you were not on it, I’ll forward it to you as well as any other select board members who may not have gotten it but I think it was to the general selectmen.

Betty Cavacco:

I thought I forwarded it to Lee. I could be wrong.

Lee Hartman:

You might have. I have one unopened email from you that might be it.

Dick Quintal:

There’s always one.

Betty Cavacco:

There’s always one or more.

Lee Hartman:

Doesn’t say just one.

Dick Quintal:

Anything else on letters? New Business?

Betty Cavacco:

I have just a one.

Dick Quintal:

Go ahead, Mrs. Cavacco.

Betty Cavacco:

I know that there has been discussion for green lighting through town so I’m not sure, Mr. Chairman, if you want to make this an agenda item as a possibility to make a policy for green lighting throughout town. We keep talking about going green. I know this is one of your big priorities. So, if we’re going to talk about it, we need to do it. So, I don’t know if you wanted it as an agenda item. I can make a motion to create a policy or however you want to do it.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. I think we should put it as an agenda item and maybe get the Energy Committee there and see how. I know they’ve tried in the past because I’ve actually talked with them a couple times about it before as selectman. They brought up some of these things and they ran into some roadblocks so I’d really like to have them come in, get an update because they’ve been on the list anyway and discuss it because like you said it’s been discussed, discussed and I don’t see no action. So, more action I should say. There is, I don’t notice it. So, I’d like to be–and you know what? Now, that we’re talking about lighting. I see there’s a lot of street lamps all over the town.

1:05:05

Dick Quintal:

I used to actually call the pole numbers in but there’s too many. I never seen this many.

Betty Cavacco:

Tough winter.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. So, we can get that on one of the following agendas, Mr. Brindisi with the Energy Committee.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, we can do that and we’ll take a look at all the street lights that need to be replaced.

Dick Quintal:

Maybe we can just get green ones and call it a day.

Derek Brindisi:

That would be easy. That would be easy.

Dick Quintal:

They don’t put a lot of hours into it. Let’s see what the answers are first. All right. Anything else? People of the public? I noticed the finance director were at this meeting the other night. He asked at the end of the meeting if anybody wanted to speak on the public comment and I thought that was very nice. So, anybody out there want to raise their hands?

Betty Cavacco:

Virtual hand.

Dick Quintal:

Yes, Betty. Thank you.

Lee Hartman:

I see no takers.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Motion to adjourn?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Thank you very much for watching and we’ll see you next week. Have a wonderful week and a good evening.