Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 1-4-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 1-4-22 Minutes

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

Dick Quintal:

Citizens of the Month, Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. So, we have two Citizens of the Month. The first one is Nate Buchanan and for folks that don’t know or didn’t know, Nate Buchanan was the person that was placing all the bicycles around town and people would find him. It was like a little treasure hunt, but it brought quite a bit of joy to our residents. It was around Christmas time. So, it was really great, and our residents really enjoyed it. He was able to give quite a few of those bicycles. I don’t see him here, and I don’t know if he’s here, Chris, but he certainly is much deserving of this because it was a wonderful act of kindness for our community.

Dick Quintal:

I see Kristen.

Chris Badot:

Kristen Buchanan’s here. I don’t know if she’s going to accept it.

Kristen Buchanan:

Hi! So, Nate’s with my daughter. So, he was logged on for a bit but had to log off.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, Kristen, this is for Nate. The board can’t thank him enough for such an incredible amount of kindness that he showed to our residents. We’ll make sure that it gets to you. Chris will frame it and put it in a nice folder and stuff for you, but please send our appreciation to Nate.

Kristen Buchanan:

I will and just thanks to the whole Manomet community for sure that came together to do this.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah, it was wonderful.

Kristen Buchanan:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

You’re very welcome.

The next one is Jeff Cohen. And what can we not say about Jeff Cohen in his generosity? One of the reasons why he was nominated for this time was, and I’m sorry I’m turning my head, but my screen is sideways. So, it was in recognition for purchasing some Chromebooks for a local family with school-age children who needed them. I think we all know that Jeff really provides quite a bit to the community. His Halloween Party is usually given to a family in need. So, Jeff, what can you say? Thank you so much for everything that you do for the community and this board really appreciates it. I’m sure you will continue on your path from the Jeff Cohen Foundation. So, it’s much appreciated.

Jeff Cohen:

My pleasure. Thank you. Of course, my name is Chelsea. I can’t figure out how to change the name.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, you look good as a Chelsea, so you know stick with that.

Jeff Cohen:

Okay. We’ll go with that. Hey, everybody. It’s my pleasure. It’s funny the one thing I don’t post on Facebook I get notarized, I get noticed for. That’s so funny.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, the Halloween Party, what you did this year was great for that family, so.

Jeff Cohen:

Yeah, that really worked out good.

Charlie Bletzer:

Good job.

Jeff Cohen:

Yeah, it exceeded all our expectations. No idea we’re going to raise $38,000.
Wonderful. We did $16,000 a year before. I would be happy at 20.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah, and you know what, Jeff? We’ll be sure that Chris gets this out to you.

Jeff Cohen:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

You’re welcome and thank you.

Jeff Cohen:

No problem. All right.

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. Take care.

Jeff Cohen:

All right. Guys, have a good night. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Public hearing for Black Lantern. In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Massachusetts General Laws as amended notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held remotely on Tuesday, January 4th, 2021 at 6:05 PM to consider the application for a new annual all-alcohol restaurant license from SMG Incorporated doing business as Black Lantern Tavern 1 Greenside Way, Plymouth sign Gulsen, manager. Description of the premises is as follows:

• 3,266 square feet
• Ground Floor compromise of main Dining area
• Bar Kitchen
• Waiting Area and Wheelchair Accessible Bathrooms
• Large Patio and Deck in front of the building.

I now declare this hearing open. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter should plan to attend this meeting naturally. So, we’re now open. And is the applicant in, Lee?

0:05:14

Lee Hartman:

Yes. We have Mr. Gulsen.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

You’re muted

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Gulsen, you’re muted.

Sahin Gulsen:

Hi, everyone.

Dick Quintal:

Good evening.

Sahin Gulsen:

Good evening and happy new year.

Dick Quintal:

And to you. Can you tell us a little bit about what’s going on here with your restaurant? And I believe it’s in Redbrook, correct?

Sahin Gulsen:

Sure. I’m a little nervous, I apologize.

Dick Quintal:

Don’t be nervous. We’re not the planning board. That’s a joke.

Sahin Gulsen:

My name is Sahin Gulsen and my wife, Martina and I have been part of Plymouth since 1995. We have three kids born and raised in Plymouth. We all love living and being part of Plymouth. We have operated pizza restaurant in Sagamore Beach and Bourne for nine years and a concession stand at Scusset Beach for seven years, and our contract is still open with State of Massachusetts on that. I have worked 20 years in restaurant industry front of the house, back of the house. So, we’d like to put our experience into our own business and serve the community in this part of the town, not only for Redbrook also as well as surrounding neighborhoods as well.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. I would ask at this time, does anybody in the audience, Chris is willing to speak in favor of the application?

Chris Badot:

Not that I know of.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in opposition of the application?

Chris Badot:

Also, not that I know of.

Lee Hartman:

I think I saw a hand up, Chris.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, Joe Hutchinson.

Joseph Hutchinson:

I can’t speak enthusiastically enough about the opening of this restaurant. So, I just wanted to put that in. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you very much. Now, I’m going to bring it back to the board for questions or comments. Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

Hey, Mr. Gulsen?

Sahin Gulsen:

Yes?

Charlie Bletzer:

What type of fair would you have in the restaurant? What type of menu? Is it going to be a pizza type part menu?

Sahin Gulsen:

No. It will be a family style American bar and grill, as well as favorite fairs of the restaurants.

Charlie Bletzer:

I agree with Mr. Hutchinson. You should be enthusiastic because they need businesses down there and in Redbrook to create that village down there similar to what Pine Hills has done over the years. They got a village up there, which is great for our residents. So, Redbrook is a great development. I know several people who live there and there’s other neighborhoods nearby. My cousin just moved into a neighborhood that was there actually last night, and I couldn’t believe the homes over there; beautiful neighborhoods. But there’s nothing down there for them right now. So, I think you’ll be a big hit down there. I really do. So, I wish you well. Are you looking to do entertainment or just keep strictly food?

Sahin Gulsen:

As of now, we’re just strictly food. However, it may change as the community needs.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, I know that the community down there does a lot of events. They have an event coordinator who does a great job. So, there might be some fun things in there. The gentleman that has the scone, the coffee shop, he does a great job. In fact, when I was campaigning, I was his first customer. We had a little meet and greet. That’s a true story, but listen, I wish you well. We need businesses like that down there and I hope that you attract other businesses to come into that beautiful neighborhood of Redbrook. So, good luck.

Sahin Gulsen:

Thank you.

0:10:05

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions or comments from the board? Seeing none. I’ll now declare this hearing closed, and bring it to the board for a motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Motion approved. Do we have a second?

Betty Cavacco:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Mrs. Cavacco. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Happy New Year and good luck.

Sahin Gulsen:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Now, we’re going to move on to the Town Manager Search and I believe we’re going to turn it over to Bernie, who will then I believe turn it over to the chairman, but Bernie, welcome. Happy New Year to you.

Bernard Lynch:

Happy New Year to you and the rest of the board and everyone watching. If I just could summarize where we are, and then I’ll quickly turn it over to the Chair of the Screening Committee that was appointed by the board to give the boards with the Screening Committee’s report. We started this process back in I think in earnest back in October after receiving an award from the town, from the board, selecting Community Paradigm to do this search process. We spent quite a bit of time talking to the board members, talking to department heads, gathering information to go out and do this recruitment. During the month of November, we received approximately 25 or resumes and application for the position of Town Manager, which is pretty average for a search of this type. I think our rule of thumb is generally that we see about a third of each of the candidates each of our searches be relatively qualified for the position in varying degrees.

The screening committee that you appointed was an excellent committee to work with in reviewing those resumes. They identified the candidates that they felt were the most qualified and chose those to interview. We chose seven people to interview and Leighton Price, the chair, may repeat some of this, but the committee identified those seven. We scheduled those interviews and tried to conduct those over two days. One applicant actually withdrew during that process and was not interviewed, but the committee proceeded to interview six candidates and was able to focus in on a number of candidates that they felt were worthy of moving forward. And I’ll let Leighton describe some of that in more detail.

We did have a number of withdrawals, which is unfortunately becoming somewhat commonplace in I think in all sectors, but obviously we know the municipal sector the most, which led the committee to think about how they wanted to proceed, and they’ll make that report to you tonight. At this point, I’ll turn it over to Leighton to give his report from the committee, and then we can discuss next steps moving forward.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Leighton Price:

Okay. Thank you. From the beginning, our objective was to have at least three candidates that we could bring forward to the Selectmen for consideration. As Bernie indicated, we screened 25 applicants, we narrowed it down to seven that we wanted to interview. we lost one from a withdrawal and after interviewing the rest, we voted unanimously on three of the candidates that we thought were fully qualified to become a Town Manager in the Town of Plymouth.

In the course of the next couple of weeks, two of those candidates that we had selected chose to withdraw. So, we had only one of the people that we had unanimously selected that was still on the list, and that was a fully qualified person. We had indicated that there was an alternate that we would move forward if we lost one of the candidates, but we still wanted to have three candidates that we could talk to the Selectmen about.

0:15:00

Leighton Price:

Given the way that this has worked out, we decided to have a meeting yesterday and after considerable discussion of this matter, the Selection Committee decided to recommend that the Selectmen should go back out, and re-advertise the position. We did not feel that there were a sufficient number of qualified candidates to be able to put forward names to the Board of Selectmen. And that is the extent of my report.

Bernard Lynch:

I think the committee members that are here and myself will be happy to answer any questions about the process and next steps.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board to the committee? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Yeah, let me unmute. To make sure that we all have this right, okay? You had four candidates that you unanimously agreed?

Leighton Price:

 We had three candidates that we unanimously agreed on.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Two of them dropped out.

Leighton Price:

And two of them dropped out, so we only had one remaining candidate that we had unanimously agreed on.

Harry Helm:

Did the two candidates who dropped out give you a reason why they dropped out?

Leighton Price:

Bernie has to address that.

Bernard Lynch:

Yeah. I spoke with both of the candidates. I actually spoke with all three of the candidates that were through. There were a variety of reasons. I think that one chose to move to a new state and sort of trying to understand what was happening generally with regards to the position, and the move cross-country found that it just wasn’t something that she wanted to pursue at this time. Another candidate determined that she felt that it was more advantageous to stay in her current position, which she was quite stable and quite happy to continue to work on the number of projects there, and another candidate identified some personal reasons why he did not feel it was appropriate at this time for him to stay in the search.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Given that we had, I’m going to guess, what would be considered a good response to our initial going out our hiring request. What makes the committee think that we’re going to get people who are better than these if they hadn’t already applied?

Bernard Lynch:

If I may, I think the committee probably wants to speak to this themselves, but I think the hope of the committee was that circumstances may have changed. Obviously, things are always shifting and there may be people that weren’t interested back in October-November that may be interested now. Other than that, there’s not much that has changed obviously with regards to the town, with regards to the position itself. So, it would be the hope that there may be more people out there now that are looking.

Harry Helm:

Would any of the other committee members like to weigh in on my question? Because I have one more follow-up question after that.

Mr. Steve:

I’ll address it very briefly. As Bernie has indicated, this is a landscape that is constantly shifting. We were made aware for example of one potential candidate, someone who missed our initial deadline by a few days, which the committee did not consider who I believe based on their qualifications would have at least garnered an interview given the various references on the resume and their experience. So, we know that there’s at least somebody out there. The question as to what’s going on in Plymouth and whether or not that will or will not affect people, I can’t answer. But I think our hope is that we will have sufficient qualified candidates to give the Select Board the appropriate choices to find the best possible manager for the town.

0:20:09

Leighton Price:

Also, these applications came on a relatively short time frame. Just a few weeks.

Harry Helm:

The time frame was created with Mr. Lynch’s advice. So, I question using the time frame at our first search as a reason why we would get more. I don’t think there’s a direct connection to that. Mr. Lynch is the expert here.

Leighton Price:

You may be quite correct about that.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. So, question for, and I’d like to hear from each of the committee members. You can do a simple yes or no on this. Are we offering enough salary? Each one of you at any time.

Leighton Price:

Yeah, I have one comment about it. If we’re going to attract really well qualified candidates, it may not be enough salary because they’re already being paid that much elsewhere.

Harry Helm:

Okay, next. Anyone?

Mr. Steve:

I’ll agree with Leighton on that. From what we have seen and from what Mr. Lynch has provided in terms of salary, and frankly just the quick search that I did for all the candidates on our salaries, we are essentially consistent with what is being paid by smaller towns with far less involved and intricate government issues to deal with. If we’re comparing ourselves to the cities and other larger municipalities that we are closer to and looking for somebody who is well versed in some of those areas, we are probably at the bottom end of the salary chain.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer and then Betty.

Charlie Bletzer:

Harry, are you done?

Harry Helm:

We’ve only heard from two of the committee. I’ve asked all of them, so.

Leighton Price:

There are only three of us here.

Harry Helm:

There are only three?

Bernard Lynch:

Brian is here.

Leighton Price:

Brian is here.

Brian Baragwanath:

I am here. Give me a second to speak. Simple answer, salary is too low. And I will reiterate from what Leighton said earlier, that we don’t feel comfortable going forward with two no matter what the circumstances are in this case and that salary is too low.

Bernard Lynch:

I would echo what the committee members have stated. We put the $200,000 plus or minus number out there, and I know that there were some concerns and there were people that they felt that that salary, not on the board but the people that were observing that felt it might have been a little too high. The reality is that if you’re going to attract someone right now, everything down on the Cape is paying 190 plus and so, you’re not going to bring anyone up from the south. In this general region, the salaries have consistently been lower than the rest of the state. Most of the Plymouth and Plymouth County region that you would be drawing from are smaller communities where the managers or administrators are relatively new or close to retirement, and then are going to be moving over to Plymouth. And then when you start heading up closer to Boston, the salaries jump up into the low 200s plus, and you’re up around. There are managers in that region that are making when all is folded in $230,000, $240,000, $250,000 when everything is worked into the equation. So, it’s hard to pull people in from that area which forces you then to look out of state, and it isn’t easy to necessarily to get people from out of state to move to Massachusetts. One, relocation is always difficult anyway, and the pension system doesn’t necessarily entice people to come either given that they’re probably further along in their career and paying 11% into the retirement system doesn’t necessarily make sense to them. So, from a salary standpoint, you are on the low side, and it’s tough to get people to necessarily make those moves.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Charlie?

0:25:02

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. Well, the salary, I said that from the very beginning, the Chairman of the Precinct Chair is Kathryn Holmes question about we’re paying too much, and she makes more than the governor. And I said if she really doesn’t, let’s put that to bed that the contract she gets wasn’t from this board. It’s from another board, but it was a fair contract. She’s middle of the road, and I said that from the beginning. Bernie, I called you about that so that’s what I was talking. I didn’t have the exact numbers. So, let’s put that to bed. But we put out a range, I talked to you about that 200 plus or minus. And again, that’s not the search committee’s job to negotiate. Once we get a candidate, it’s the Select Board, it’s our job to do the negotiating with counsel in our contract. So, we just want you to find us the best candidate.

Now, I got a couple of questions. You have an alternate now, is the alternate qualified to be a town manager in Plymouth? In your opinion, I’ll ask everybody from the selection committee. He or she is the second person, I guess. There’s one that was in your top, three two dropped out, so we brought the alternate in. So, he or she is the second person that we’re going to interview. Are they qualified to be the Town Manager in Plymouth?

Leighton Price:

I’ll answer that somewhat indirectly. We voted unanimously to support three people and it was not that person.

Charlie Bletzer:

Is that because you decided let’s get it down to three?

Leighton Price:

No, we wanted to have at least three.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, your answer is you feel this person he or she is not qualified to be the Town Manager?

Leighton Price:

There was considerable disagreement among the members of the committee with regard to that.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, some were for, some were against, because out of 25 whoever this person was get down to number four. So, I just assumed that they’d be qualified. Next question, number one–

Leighton Price:

This was a strong person, but not as strong as the others.

Charlie Bletzer:

The next question is the number one out of the three that’s left, when did you know that you only had the number one and then you had an author?

Leighton Price:

I think Bernie has to give me the exact on that one.

Bernard Lynch:

I believe it was roughly one week ago, I notified the committee that I had received a call and that’s when we set up the meeting for Monday.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, is the number one notified that he or she is going to be interviewed to be the next Town Manager at Plymouth?

Bernard Lynch:

Both candidates have been notified. Yeah, because both were still in the mix. When we lost the last candidate last week that brought us down to two, all three had been notified that they were going to be interviewed.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, if we re-advertise this, those two are gone, I would think.

Bernard Lynch:

Well, I’ve spoken to both and we discussed this at the committee yesterday, it’s my opinion you put these people into that they should. My opinion, I suppose people could do something different, but my opinion is that they should still be included in the mix.

Charlie Bletzer:

How long will that take, and how long will they wait to see if this position is what they know?

Bernard Lynch:

It could vary. There are a few different ways we could do this and we’re happy to talk about that in more detail a little later perhaps, but you could do it in a span of two weeks. You could turn it around to a posting. I could do a posting tonight, and we could see if people come in over the course of the next couple of weeks.

Charlie Bletzer:

My problem is, I just wish that I’m looking at right here Town Manager Search- List of Finalists on our agenda and I had mentioned to the chairman that if you guys get down to, and you don’t think you have a good group to be finalists then let’s re-advertise before it gets too far. I mean, it’s—

0:30:07

Bernard Lynch:

If I may, I think that the goal of the committee and certainly our goal was to try to meet the request of the board. I think everyone’s going out to this with the right attitude.

Charlie Bletzer:

No, I know. Everybody wants to get the strongest Town Manager but if the search committee brings us three candidates, and I know it up because I’ve been through these searches before a couple of times and after interviewing, we didn’t have anybody. Okay? So, the chance you bring us three, this board may decide we don’t want any of these candidates. So, my question is why not take the two and interview them and see what the board feels. I’m trying to save money, and if we feel they’re not qualified then we re-advertise. I mean, if there’s a candidate you think is a top candidate and there’s an alternate, I don’t know who’s who, because we don’t have resumes. It’s not fair. I don’t have any resumes in front of me. I can’t look at their qualifications. It’s hard for me to do that. We’ve been relying on the committee. We all appointed different people, Leighton was my choice, and it’s a good choice. I’ll let the rest of the board speak.

Bernard Lynch:

If I may, and I appreciate that. You did choose a very good group. I’ve got a very good group to work with. And it’s a cumbersome process here in Massachusetts because of the open meeting law and so on and that’s why we can’t give you resumes until the committee has made their report, and they’ve made their report now and so now we need to determine what the next step is going to be, and that’s why we’re here to talk to you tonight, but I agree.

Charlie Bletzer:

And with not knowing, our hands are tied. We don’t know what happened in those meetings, but I just hope there’s nothing political here going on. That always worries me with what the climate what’s going on.

Mr. Steve:

I’m happy to speak to that.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. Thank you, Steve. Go ahead.

Mr. Steve:

This was a fantastic committee to work with. I mean, I appreciate Bernie’s comments saying it was good. I will stand on record and I will shout it to the mountaintops, this was a terrific group. Everybody worked hard, everybody discussed things respectfully. There was no latent politicization of anyone. To the contrary, there were people who made a very clear statement who said, “You know what? I may personally have some issues based on where I stand. However, I’m willing to overlook those in order to find the best person for the town and pass people on for interview,” and otherwise whom they may have otherwise had personal concerns because they recognized that they stood the best chance to being the right person for the town job itself. So, people not only didn’t stand on politics, people consciously put aside their own personal biases in order to make sure that the people being put forward were the best. That’s how we ended up with three unanimous choices and that’s a pretty unbelievable statement to me. I will be honest with you, I would have been shocked at the beginning of this just based on the diversity of people on the committee that we would have been unanimous on people, and we were unanimous on three after really good, honest and very respectful and appropriate discussion of everybody’s relative strengths and merits.

Leighton Price:

And then two out of three of them pulled out

Charlie Bletzer:

Listen, Steve. I respect everybody in the committee, and we appointed the committee. And so, I would have been disappointed if you told me different. So, I respect and I appreciate what you just said. So, our goal like everybody we all have the same goal.

Mr. Steve:

Absolutely! I wanted to make the statement not just for you, but obviously for everybody else who’s listening and watching because we know that people are always going to have a concern on important appointments like this that there are some other motivations.

0:35:01

Mr. Steve:

And I can at least say as confidently as I possibly can as a member of this committee that from that side, the committee did not do anything other than put its best efforts to find the right person.

Charlie Bletzer:

Right. Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions from Board Members or comments? Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

So, I’m going to have you guys help me break this down in my head. We had 25 applicants, we cut that down to seven, and then it went to six because someone bailed out, then we had three and someone bailed out of that, and then you went to the fourth to make the third, correct? and then someone bailed out of that. So, we have two people that this board approved to interview, correct?

Leighton Price:

That is correct.

Betty Cavacco:

So, we have two people that right now are good to go for an interview?

Leighton Price:

This was until we met yesterday and decided that this was not the way we wanted to do this that we wanted at least three candidates who were strong, and we didn’t feel as if we’d come to the right conclusion of this.

Betty Cavacco:

I understand that, but these two people whoever they are made it to where they are that this committee has notified them that they are finalists and we want to set up interviews, correct?

Bernard Lynch:

They have been notified of an interview, yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, now, you’re suggesting that we don’t do that, and that we just put it out again where I actually agree with Charlie, why don’t we just interview the two we have, and if they don’t fit our criteria as the best for a town manager, or they don’t fit what we’re looking for in a town manager then we go back out. I think it’s a little unfair for whoever these candidates are to kind of have to pull back now when they’ve been told they’re going to interview. And now, people want to go back out and get more people and I don’t have a problem with that, but I mean, we did have 25 candidates. It’s not like we were–I don’t want to say this, it’s not like we were scraping the bottom of the barrel to get people to come in here and where the pay is–

Leighton Price:

I don’t think that very many of those were particularly strong.

Betty Cavacco:

Then why did you put them forward?

Leighton Price:

No. I’m talking about the 25. They’re not very many of the 25 that were very strong.

Betty Cavacco:

But you put the ones forward that we have in front of us right now. This committee put the ones forward that we have in front of us right now, not that we know who they are, but–

Leighton Price:

That’s correct, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

In hypothetical language. And the 200 plus or minus, we were under the impression, I was under the impression that if it was 230 that was under that 200 plus or minus. That’s kind of why we were so vanilla with the whole thing. So, that’s just my thought. I mean, of course, it’ll be the pleasure of the board how we move forward.

Leighton Price:

I should mention I had a brief discussion with Bernie this morning about some of these issues. I pointed out that Bernie was hired by the board to come up with the applicants that we would be screening. The committee was appointed by the Board of Selectmen to supplement the work that Bernie was doing and to come up with a recommendation. These are not totally interlocked. You could decide you’re just going to go with whatever Bernie recommends to the board.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I mean–

0:40:02

Leighton Price:

But the position of the screening committee at this point is that we think you should be going back out.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I mean, and the screening committee did exactly what we tasked them to do. You found candidates, you got them down to a number whether people withdrew or not is no responsibility of the board or the screening committee.

Leighton Price:

But it does leave us in an awkward position that we lost so many.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, but that’s through no fault of anyone else’s, but we still have two people that you folks put forward, and it just makes me uncomfortable because I don’t think it’s fair to these people that now you want to go back out, when they haven’t even had that opportunity. That’s all I’m saying. I think that the committee did exactly what they were supposed to do, and they did their due diligence, and they did all their work and I know that they worked hard, but we do have two candidates in front of us, and I want that to be clear when I said, “So, we have two candidates moving forward, and we had people in the audience shaking their head no.” I just want that to be clear that we in fact do have two candidates that this committee suggested to interview. But like I said, it’s a board decision, I understand that.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Just a question for Bernie. Is your recommendation the same as the screening committee to go back out? Well, I guess, I’ll ask you that question. Do you have that same recommendation to us?

Bernard Lynch:

Well, that puts me right in the middle doesn’t it?

Leighton Price:

You don’t have to agree with us.

Patrick Flaherty:

But you’re the one who we hired to guide us, so.

Bernard Lynch:

I know that. I understand the committee’s perspective. However, I will say that if the board wishes to move forward with–there’s a couple of different options here, let me put it this way. The board can take the invite to take the recommendation of the screening committee, and we can go back out and we can discuss how long to go out for. The board can ask me to bring forward those two candidates, we’ll see if I can put another one or two candidates with them, so that there is choice that you have beyond that. So, those are pretty much the options that we have here. When we go into a community, there are several ways that we do. Some boards ask us to do the search and then identify eight or nine people that we bring to the screening committee, and ask them to narrow it down. Other communities do what Plymouth has done and said, okay give everything to the screening committee and let them do the job that they do. And again, I can’t stress enough how well this committee has worked. Other communities say to us, “We’re not going to use a committee. We want you to come back to us with three or four people.” What we have here is if you wanted to move forward, the screening committee has said that you should go back out. I think that you could use those two, and I think we could probably try to find you a third or fourth candidate to go with that, but we’d be sort of mixing up the different approaches that we’ve used in other communities. So, I think it’s reasonable to do that if that’s what the board wishes to do. As far as my recommendation, I think both of the candidates are qualified for the position.

Dick Quintal:

Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Okay. So, then I guess said in a different way because you do this for a living, and we want to look towards what your recommendation is and that’s a lot of weight because you’ve been in it. You know the people, you know who’s been there, you know who’s dropped out, you know who’s going to be the best. We all have the same goal. We want the best candidate for our town. If there was no Screening Committee, and you were the Screening Committee, what would be happening? Would you bring these two forward?

Bernard Lynch:

Yeah. If I were doing it, yes, I’d bring these two forward.

Patrick Flaherty:

Got it, fair enough. Thank you.

0:44:57

Dick Quintal:

Okay, Bernie. So, we really have three options that you just went over. One, we can have the search committee go out and come back to us with the time and more. The second option is to have you go out or you provide more names, and the third option is to go with the two applicants that we have. Correct? That’s what we’ve been talking about here?

Bernard Lynch:

Probably, yes.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, that being said, if there’s questions or no more comments from the board, what does the board wish to do? I just have to say if I applied, and I was told that I was a finalist and going to be interviewed, and then wasn’t my name would be out because by that time, you’re basically telling me, well, first you told me that I was a finalist. Now, you’re telling me I might be a finalist, but we still want to see if there’s somebody better than you. So, I personally think that we should interview the people that have made it and then if we’re not happy, go back out by whatever the wish of the board or somebody come up and make a motion, and that’s what we’ll do. Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

So, just one more question, because we talked about the salary earlier, and it’s kind of going back to Bernie the one who’s experienced. If we say whichever path that goes forward, we have these two and for whatever reason we go back to a position where we need to go out, would your recommendation be to make an adjustment to what’s on the posting or do you think that would be helpful or would you recommend it as leave it the same if we were to go back out however, we got there?

Bernard Lynch:

If you went back out, I would probably recommend that it go up. I think it’s important to stress that the 200 is plus or minus. I don’t see where you’re going minus on that, but it may be necessary to go above that once you make your decision.

Patrick Flaherty:

And one last super quick question. Would there ever be a path where you could say you knowing the people in the industry, and even people who might have dropped out and say, “Hey, there was an adjustment in like a week’s time,” would you know if there was interest or not on candidates say that maybe one of the finalists who people dropped out for different reasons or if this was to go back out would it be any path forward going back out would be four, five, six weeks, a longer period of time. Could this be done quickly or does it have to go through like a long?

Bernard Lynch:

You could do a two-week posting, two to three-week posting. I don’t see you’re really going much below that. As far as what impact it would have, it’s really hard to say. Again, to draw people from Massachusetts who have the skill set that you need and you want, you really have to be competitive with those communities outside Boston, which are going to be paying substantially more. Otherwise, we’re looking at bringing people in from out of state, which works. Don’t get me wrong. I want to be clear on this that people from out of state can work successfully here in the town-meeting form of government. There’s a long track record here in Massachusetts about people who have come in and have been very successful. In all likelihood, we’re looking at candidates with that. So, I want to stress that if you’re a municipal manager, you can work in different forms of government, but that’s where you’d be really looking to expand out into get build up a bigger pool, probably.

Dick Quintal:

Anybody on the board? Do we have any–Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

Hey, Bernie, we talked about the salary and 200 plus or minus with qualifications and experience, I think if we find the person, we start negotiations. I don’t think we should put a big salary out there. You got somebody’s making $160,000 now might be a great candidate but it might be in a small town. If we throw it up that you’re going to make 240,000, they’re going to expect that.

0:50:02

Charlie Bletzer:

I don’t think that’s what we have to pay right away. I think we ought to save that for negotiations. There might be other things they want like relocation and things like that if they’re coming from out of town. So, I don’t think putting 200 plus or minus is a bad thing. I don’t think that’s going to stop candidates from coming. And I’ll tell you what, I’m glad we’re talking about this tonight so everybody in the public can see that Melissa Arrighi was not overpaid for the job that she did. She was not overpaid and a lot of people made their comments, and they criticized. Well, we got criticized. We’re getting criticized but the last board who did that contract. It turned out to be a very fair contract for the town.

Bernard Lynch:

Yes, absolutely.

Charlie Bletzer:

But I want to save that. We’re not even getting it. Once we hire, the candidates are going to come to us and is going to say, “This is what I want,” and then we negotiate with the town council and work out a deal.

Bernard Lynch:

Right. Yeah, which is why we always put in that plus or minus. The question of whether you get more people with more money, yeah, there’s a wow factor if you move that up. It will get people’s attention. But obviously, it depends upon the experience and the qualifications that people bring to the table.

Patrick Flaherty:

I just have one more question back to Leighton. Leighton, was it consensus, unanimous to do this from the Screening Committee?

Leighton Price:

It was.

Patrick Flaherty:

Okay. Got it. Just after listening, I’ll just throw my thoughts. I think I agree that we have the two folks who have come forward through the screening process. We have the folks who are involved that know the lay of the land. If there was someone who dropped out or was a finalist or was sort of in the mix late in the game that was thought to be maybe they’d come back if we put it out for a week or two, and we had this strong sense that there would for sure be more people putting their hat back in, I would support that. If there was that sort of sense. The idea that it would be going back out to just broadly and there’s really not a sense that there’d be just kind of going out to the ether again, I kind of feel like we might as well just look at the two that have made it all the way through the end of the process now. So, I know it’s sort of hard to talk about the folks at that like open meeting here, but I don’t think there’s an answer that can be given, but that’s kind of where I’m at. We got to this point with two candidates, we can hear them out. But also, if there’s someone who’s like waiting on the wings to come throw their hat back in, I would like to get there. That was already sort of through the process and maybe a finalist or as like kind of in the mix, I would like to talk about maybe opening the door to have more choice there. So, I don’t know where that leaves us. That’s where I’m coming from.

Bernard Lynch:

Those people that withdrew, the two people that withdrew are not coming back. So, as far as going through the process of being picked, they’re not coming back.

Leighton Price:

And we didn’t feel that there was anybody on–well, I’m not sure. This is maybe mostly my opinion, but I didn’t think that there was anybody else in the pool that we could go to add in to this as a possible candidate.

Mr. Steve:

We actually discussed that at our meeting because, Leighton, you actually asked that question of everyone if anyone thought there was somebody else and we were unanimous as well. There were no other candidates either amongst the ones that we interviewed or the ones that we chose not to interview who we thought we would want to put forward to the Select Board.

Mr. Leighton:

Yeah, and that’s why I commented earlier, I didn’t think that there were a large number of candidates who were really strong.

Patrick Flaherty:

Got it. Okay. So, I think my personal final take is if we were not going to raise the salary on the poster, if that was not what the advice is to do or what we should do, which I think that is a good negotiating point, then I think that we are seeing the candidates now. I can’t find a reason why not to.

0:55:06

Patrick Flaherty:

If we were going to put it out there and raise the salary for the posting, I think you might open up possibly another crop of people who would be interested then I would be in favor of that. That’s the recommendation from Bernie, but otherwise if we weren’t going to do that, I think we had the pool who applied and there’s no one else who’s on the wings then it’s tough when you don’t have the visibility into seeing the people, so.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments from the board? Being honest, even seeing the people and going through the whole process and actually picking them, sometimes it comes back again. I’ve been on the board before previously a while, and I’ve seen them come, and I’ve seen decisions we’ve got to do over for whatever reasons. So, it’s all up in the air really.

Patrick, I was trying to follow what you were saying and so am I correct and if I’m understanding you correctly is you want to interview or you feel okay with interviewing the two finalists that we have at the moment. Was I correct in assuming that?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, I would say if the alternative was to post it again at the same pay rate, then I think I’d be fine to have a look at the candidates that we have now. If we were going to post it again at some higher pay rate that might attract a new crop of people, and if that’s what Bernie thinks might happen then I’d say let’s pause and see what crop of people might come forward by sweetening the pot to be more in line with the salary analysis that Bernie’s done. So, it’s kind of is dependent, but that’s where I’m at. So, it’s kind of one depends on the other a little bit.

Dick Quintal:

Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

So, I think that’s where the salary comes into the art of negotiation. So, I think if we raise the salary, I mean anyone, Plymouth is not easy. So, you really got to want it to want to work here. I think that the 200 plus or minus is still could be up to 230 or 240. It has to be for the right candidate. Putting this out there, again, I mean, we started this process in October, and it’s January already and we’re not at the goal line now. So, I think how this board would negotiate a final candidate is how we’re going to I guess get to where we need to be because 200 plus or minus, I think any professional would look at that and say, “Okay. 200 plus or minus. I think my qualifications I could negotiate to 230 or 240 or whatever it is.” So, I don’t agree putting it out with a higher pay scale. I do think that we can start with what we have and then if that doesn’t work out then maybe do something different, but I think the art of negotiation is where we’re going to be able to get the right candidate and not have to come back and say, “Okay. Now, we’re going to put it out more.” And what does it do to these two people that have already been told they’re finalists, and they’re negotiating? So, that’s just how I feel.

Dick Quintal:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

Bernie, can I ask you a question? The resume is coming in. Were there any salary histories as part of the resume or–

Bernard Lynch:

No. Occasionally, people put that in. In Massachusetts, it’s now illegal to ask people what they make.

1:00:06

Charlie Bletzer:

But some people put it in.

Bernard Lynch:

Some people put it in, and we do a little bit of background work to see what they’re making currently. So, we have a pretty good sense of what they were making.

Charlie Bletzer:

I mean, some of the first questions to me if I’m negotiating, what do you desire for salary? I mean, you ask what’s going to be and then you go from there and you’d be surprised. It might not be what you think, but somebody that’s that qualified, you will pay them what they’re worth. I mean, our goal is to get the best town manager available to run the Town of Plymouth, and if it costs an extra 10 grand or 20 grand, it’s worth it, believe me. If I’m a good candidate, I know what I’m worth and I’m going to sell myself to you. Okay? I’m going to come in and sell myself and tell you why I should be making maybe more than what the other person made or the same or you know what I mean? So, if I’m that good, I’ll sell myself to you. So, I wouldn’t worry about salary. I think we just got to get the right candidate and do some negotiating.

Dick Quintal:

I don’t think we should be worrying about that tonight. We really just need to move forward is how do we want to move forward? The salary part is going to come.

Leighton Price:

I would comment that the Select Board is certainly welcome to disregard our recommendation, and decide to work with Bernie on this and not deal with us at all any further. That’s fine.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s not that we’d disregard you or me personally, Leighton, but the worst if the two candidates, now one of them was unanimous with the three and three unanimous. So, what’s to say that if it’s unanimous with you folks, why wouldn’t they be unanimous with the board? So, we might already have the candidates. So, there’s two candidates, we’re going to interview them, he or she, and if we don’t like them, we move on and we go out for another search.

Leighton Price:

That’s why I said you’re welcome to disregard our recommendation on this.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. Well, you might have already found the candidate first.

Bernard Lynch:

Yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

But you are recommending two people, that’s the part that I can’t kind of wrap my head around is that you have two people that you’ve recommended. So, we’re not disregarding your recommendation.

Leighton Price:

One of the people we voted unanimously on. The other was not a unanimous vote by any means.

Betty Cavacco:

But it was a vote to get them to the position or whoever to get them to that position, so.

Bernard Lynch:

The other question is if the board wishes to move forward now, whether you want to move forward with just the two or you want me to try to talk to some other people to bring other people to the table at this point? Not do a reposting but try to just add to your pool.

Patrick Flaherty:

Right on the heels with that to talk to some other people, do you know other people that might be like good candidates? I’m coming at it where we’re looking for the biggest group of the best candidates. So, if there’s people that you know that are itching to say, “Hey, this could be a great fit for me,” that changes it. If it’s sort of this go back to the ether and start fresh and it might take a long, that’s the part where I’m hoping. I would be totally on board with pushing this back out if we had a sense that there’s some candidates that you have, you know.

Leighton Price:

You have to recognize that the pool of candidates that we screened were the ones that Bernie had presented.

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah. So, sorry to keep putting you on the spot, Bernie but–

Bernard Lynch:

It’s alright.

Patrick Flaherty:

Are there people that you know where their situations have changed?

Bernard Lynch:

As we said, it’s always dynamic. There’s always things shifting around. People suddenly are available, suddenly people are interested. There may not be anybody. We were heading down the path of you can’t keep this going forever. Right?

1:05:00

Bernard Lynch:

So, we had three people ready to go and now, we don’t. And so, the question is again, do we keep this going or do we take the two and look at those? Do we look at the possibility of maybe supplementing that with one or two that over the course of the next couple days I could try to reach out to?

Patrick Flaherty:

I like that idea. If there’s–

Dick Quintal:

Well, make a motion because I like it too. I mean, make a motion and we’ll vote it and if it doesn’t pass then we’ll keep going.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Dick Quintal:

I like that idea.

Harry Helm:

Before we go to a motion, Bernie, given what you just said, what’s the time frame? Currently, we were supposed to have the interviews next week.

Bernard Lynch:

Next Monday.

Harry Helm:

Next Tuesday.

Charlie Bletzer:

No Monday.

Harry Helm:

It’s Monday. We’re a Tuesday, how–

Charlie Bletzer:

We will have to delay it.

Harry Helm:

Bernie, I’m interested in what you think. How would this happen?

Bernard Lynch:

I would reach out to people over the course of the next few days, and see if I can identify some people and if I can, I’ll let the board know that I’ll be adding one or two people to that. Otherwise, I would just come in with the two.

Harry Helm:

Would it be next week?

Bernard Lynch:

So, you wouldn’t be interviewing next week at least not on Monday or Tuesday probably maybe later in the week or the following Monday or Tuesday.

Harry Helm:

Okay.

Bernard Lynch:

So, you can talk about adding a week on to the process. Yeah, so that’s what I would say.

Dick Quintal:

Well?

Patrick Flaherty:

I like that. I think that’s pretty reasonable, and we know how these things work at small communities, and I’m sure you’re tied in pretty well to that community, Bernie. So, if it’s one week, and we have a unanimous recommendation from the Screening Committee to at least test the waters again, it’s been a few months. It was the Thanksgiving time when this closed last and maybe there’s someone who raises their hand, but I think the week, maybe to the next week after that like you said, Bernie that’s kind of where I think we would then have to go towards at least acknowledge these two candidates. So, I can make a motion to do that if that’s all right, Mr. Chairman. So, I’d make a motion that we instruct Paradigm through their networks try and secure another candidate or two that they seem to be qualified, and if not, we would set a date of no later than the week of the 17th to have the interviews for the original two candidates on that meeting date.

Bernard Lynch:

Yeah, I will be back to you. We’re scheduled, I think I have it in my calendar here, to meet on the 10th to meet with you, but do you have a meeting on the 11th?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes.

Bernard Lynch:

If you have a regular meeting on the 11th, why don’t I come back with to give you any names and then we do the interviews on the–I think the 17th is Martin Luther King Day or is that the 24th?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah. So, the 18th is–

Dick Quintal:

I mean, if the board’s willing we can do it on an off night. You know what I mean.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, the 18th is on a Tuesday so we can just do that.

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah. So, push it back one week is the motion, and see if there’s an additional candidate or two, right?

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second?

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second by Harry. Discussion? I’m going to do roll call, Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

And myself, yes, unanimous.

1:10:00

Bernard Lynch:

I’ll see you on the 10th or the 11th at 6 o’clock.

Charlie Bletzer:

Bernie, let me ask you a question.

Bernard Lynch:

Sure.

Charlie Bletzer:

These candidates if you do find them, it’s not going to be for the people that the search committee rejected. Is it?

Bernard Lynch:

There may be one in there that I want to talk to and that late entry may be a possibility as well.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, okay. I mean, the search committee, I hope they’re not offended by what we’re doing but–

Leighton Price:

No, not at all.

Charlie Bletzer:

I respect every one of them, and if they’ve already rejected somebody from the first-round way not even finalists, I’d be kind of leery out, because there’s going to be reasons why they did that. I want to thank everybody in this room for what they did for us and we appreciate it.

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, I totally agree with that. The intent of this is that there’s someone, some new interests that didn’t have the opportunity to apply already. I agree. If they were not a finalist in the first round then I would want to know that.

Charlie Bletzer:

Bernie, if we can get the resumes, if you do find it soon as possible?

Bernard Lynch:

Absolutely.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, we can start doing our work.

Bernard Lynch:

Absolutely.

Charlie Bletzer:

What’s that?

Dick Quintal:

Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

I have a comment. Bernie, so the additional people are additional to the two that your group has already agreed to?

Bernard Lynch:

You’re going to have the two, yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

And I’ll let go everybody else. Thank you for all your hard work and your professionalism. I appreciate it, the town does.

Leighton Price:

You’re quite welcome.

Mr. Kevin:

Thank you very much everyone.

Bernard Lynch:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thanks, Bernie. I’m going to move over the airport just for a second and go to Karen Keane, who was not feeling well. So, let’s give her a little time. Hi, Karen! Welcome.

Karen Keane:

Well, good evening, everybody. Thank you, Chairman Quintal. So, I’m here tonight to update everyone on a couple of COVID hot topics, let’s call them. For cases, today in Massachusetts there were 16,621 new confirmed cases, and unfortunately 94 new deaths over the weekend for the State of Massachusetts not for Plymouth. However, today for the Town of Plymouth, we had 128 cases and those numbers are mostly drawn from people 27 to 40 and 60 and above.

We talked about test kits last time. We are in the process of ordering 7,500 at-home test kits. There are two tests per kit where we’re working with Lynne Barrett, and using ACRA money in order to do that. We did reach out to MEMA, and we’re not eligible to use MEMA funds to purchase test kits. So, we’re going the other route. Hopefully, we’ll have those soon.

New guidance was issued. I want to bring to everyone’s attention because it’s a big difference. For isolation meaning you are a confirmed case of COVID, the isolation period has been dropped from 10 days to 5 days. So, what that means is day one to five, you must isolate just like you did before: you’re by yourself, you’re using hopefully the bathroom you’re not sharing with anyone, you don’t go out of your house, you literally are isolating. Then on day 6 to 10, you can return to your normal life; whatever it is it is that you do but you must wear a secure face mask.

Quarantining has also had a change. For those who are vaccinated, fully vaccinated, you still do not need to quarantine. However, the new CDC guidelines does request that if you have been exposed to someone who is indeed a confirmed case of COVID even if you are vaccinated, that you wear a mask for 10 days. If you are unvaccinated, you must quarantine for 5 days and quarantine means again, you don’t go near other people, you stay where you are. And then after day five, strict mask use from days six to ten. So, that’s a big difference. We’re leaving the 10-day period which we’ve had for isolation from the beginning of COVID, and moving down to a five-day period.

1:15:02

Karen Keane:

For quarantine, we’ve always had a little bit of a change because we went from 14 to 10 to 7. Now, we’re going from 10 to 5. So, it’s a little bit of a change, but with the additional days wearing a mask, what the hope is, is that people will be able to get back to work in their normal daily activities sooner than they had in the past.

Pfizer vaccine booster, I know you asked me about that last week, now is indeed eligible for 12 to 15-year-old, so that’s fantastic. Also, there is consideration for children who are 5 to 11 that have immune deficiencies that they would be also eligible for that booster. Now, I know we’ve asked about the hospital, our community partner, BID Plymouth and Kevin Coughlin who is president over at BID Plymouth is nice enough to keep us posted on what’s happening over at the hospital. I’m going to share a little bit of that with you tonight.

As of last week, BID Plymouth had 44 COVID or suspected COVID cases that were hospitalized. 7 of their 14 ICU patients are COVID related. 63 members of their staff are out on quarantine because of COVID exposures, which is already adding to a very high vacancy rate they have with staffing presently. No elective surgeries are being performed. They’re either postponed or cancelled especially those that may result in inpatient admissions because they want to keep the beds open for COVID patients. Currently, there are three national guard troops that are assisting at BID Plymouth.

And then the final item that I have tonight is to talk about the Board of Health meeting, which will be happening tomorrow at four o’clock. As we all know the Board of Health made a decision at the last meeting to mandate masks wearing in all indoor settings for the town of Plymouth. Since then, the department has been inundated with emails and phone calls from residents who are unpleased with their decision. They are going to meet on off schedule, they usually meet the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month. This is an off-schedule meeting, it will be tomorrow at 4 o’clock via Zoom here on PACTV. All emails and voicemails received will become part of the permanent record. However, there’s not enough time to read them all. So, we’re going to take about 10 minutes at that meeting and we’re going to read some of them into the minutes. We’re going to discuss what the Board of Health’s credentials are. There are many emails that questioned the credentials of the Board of Health members to make any type of decision-making process as far as COVID is concerned. So, they’re going to take a little bit of time to discuss what their credentials are.

Amy Naples from the Chamber of Commerce will also be there to discuss the results of a survey that she sent out to businesses, and what the impact is using this mask mandate. Finally, there’ll be a discussion, should the mask mandate be changed? Should it be removed? Should parts of it be changed? An example would be should we remove the item that says mask for 2 to 5-year-olds, maybe that should be removed. These items will be discussed at tomorrow’s meeting at 4 o’clock. There have been several people who have been invited to come on board as part of public comment. So, I would encourage anyone who is concerned about the mask mandate, who has questions about the mask mandate to tune in tomorrow at 4 o’clock. And that’s what I have tonight.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the board? Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Karen, I’m sure you have been inundated. Actually, one of the Board of Health members did take to social media and ask questions about what to do to earn their trust. I know that there were some vicious attacks on that, which were totally unfair because obviously you don’t make those types of mandates. But I have to say that you know from all of the conversations that I’ve had and I don’t know if board members received as much as I had received, and I was tagged in that post so every time someone commented, my phone would go off.

1:20:09

Betty Cavacco:

And there’s over 800 comments on that right now. So, one of the things that, I’m not saying that it’s a trust thing, but I find it very cumbersome or very alarming actually from day one, we always went with how the state mandated. If the state mandated masks, we went with masks, if the state did something, we did something. We never deviated from the state mandates. This time we have. And I think that’s the biggest problem that I have. I’ve asked to speak at the Board of Health meeting as well and not that I want to put the board in a position, but I’m probably going to put the board in a position because when you have no enforcement, we’re not going to do anything if someone doesn’t wear a mask. I mean, honestly, this mask mandate is ripping this town apart. I mean, people are just angry. I understand that Amy has some kind of a survey, but there are other businesses that aren’t involved with the Chamber that have contacted probably each and every one of us. So, I’d like to move forward and say that they should rescind that mandate and make it advisory and let people make their own decision because right now everybody’s fighting. And I would hope that people get to the point where they just want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, sometimes when you try to force people to do the right thing, they rebel like we all did as kids, and it’s really bothersome.

I’ve talked to a lot of the businesses. I’ve talked to 40 of them, 40 business owners I’ve talked to over the past two days and they’re begging for the Board of Selectmen to not that we can step in, but to ask if that mandate would be overturned and actually ask for advisory. I think myself personally, I think that’s something that we should do because if you’re not going to mandate, if you’re not going to enforce it, you’re not going to do anything about it, you have people’s kids that are working in our establishment, they’re arguing with the customers. I mean, it’s a mess out there.

Karen Keane:

I think one thing that everyone has to remember, Betty, and I agree with what you’re saying is that the Board of Health and the Department of Public Health are two very different things. The Board of Health is a five-member appointed board through the Select Board that serves as the regulatory force for public health here in Plymouth. The Department of Public Health are town employees. I think, I shouldn’t say think. I know from some of these emails that I’ve received and phone calls that people don’t understand that there’s a difference there. So, what the board is going to do, the Board of Health, the five-member board who made the mask mandate the vote on the mask mandate that’s why they’re having this meeting. Barry Potvin, Dr. Potvin, our Chair of the Board of Health will be bringing this mask mandate back to the five-member board for reconsideration.

Now, how that goes is totally up to the five members of the board, but people will certainly be there to offer input, we’ll be there from the department to offer input on what we’ve received from residents, and then again though, it will be up to the five-member board who took the original vote to then decide what they will do moving forward.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct. And I understand that completely, Karen. Like I said, my problem is that we have always followed the state protocol and now we aren’t. It’s like mayhem. I mean, I think there was less people upset about it when it was a state thing than there is that Plymouth has gone on their own and Carver, Kingston, none of them have mandatory mask mandates, and people are taking their business elsewhere. And I don’t know if the board wants to even be involved in It. I mean, I certainly think that maybe asking the Board of Health to rescind that and follow the state guidelines. I mean, I don’t know if that would be helpful but I’d certainly like to hear what other board members have to say.

1:25:05

Dick Quintal:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

I agree with what Betty said. Very well said, Betty. I’ll tell you I commend the Board of Health considering what the know the votes. I mean, it’s going to show people that you’re listening. What I would have hoped that would have done is that you had an advisory at first, advising businesses and residents to wear masks. I mean, I wear a mask. I have no problem. I don’t like it, but my wife is a stickler about it. I don’t have a problem, but the mandate is the problem. People are having problems with it because the state has a mandate and it’s a problem. There are business owners that are adamant they’re not going to enforce it. So, somebody goes in, and they go to the next place and the kid at the door, the young hostess at the door tells them, and they give him–Panera Bread, it was on Facebook, an abuse, moving. I hope you reconsider and if it became an advisory and then all of a sudden, the numbers spiral, I know we have a hospital in Plymouth, so the numbers are always going to be high in Plymouth, but if the numbers spiral hopefully the state steps in and mandates it. But I think that would go a long way. I understand the Board of Health, and I’ve told people that these are professional people. They’re volunteers but they’re professional people. Don’t take lightly what they’re doing. They have a real important job. So, in the Select Board really, we have no power. Town council has shown us that we don’t have any legal power to overturn what you’re doing. And I don’t think we were trying to do that. We could suggest it. I mean, I would love to see that you reconsider and try it as an advisory and see what happens with the numbers. But I commend you–

Karen Keane:

Mr. Bletzer, when you’re saying that you hope that we reconsider, you’re talking about the Board of Health, correct? I am representing the Department of Public Health.

Charlie Bletzer:

No, I’m commending the Board of Health. You’ve made the mandate. Karen, I look at your reports. I love your reports. You do a great job. I don’t have them in front of me, but I’m hoping you may relay this thing because I think just the fact that they have a meeting to even reconsider that shows a lot. It really does.

Karen Keane:

Yeah, and one of the things that I think and I’ve mentioned to this group before too when we talk about Massachusetts hasn’t gone to a mandate, but our board did go to a mandate for masks is that our vaccination numbers are lower than the State of Massachusetts. And I’ve shared with the board before that the department, the Board of Health, I’ve shared with the Select Board that the Board of Health is quite concerned that those vaccination numbers are lower than the state average in Massachusetts. And I think that might be one of the factors they took into account when they had the discussion regarding the mask mandate. Also, just one other thing, the hospital numbers, people who are hospitalized in Plymouth do not count to our daily numbers.

Charlie Bletzer:

They don’t? Okay. I’m sorry, I take that back.

Karen Keane:

Yeah. What is interesting however though, the numbers that you count towards our daily numbers are people who are in the correctional facility.

Charlie Bletzer:

The prison, yeah.

Karen Keane:

Yeah. So, those do counts towards our numbers. People who are hospitalized do not count towards the numbers unless of course they live in Plymouth.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. Well, like I said, I respect your job and I’ve told people too, these are volunteers. These people, they don’t work for the town. They’re not getting paid. I’m talking about the Board of Health. They are volunteer board members. People just kind of relaxed a little bit, but I’d love to see them reconsider and wrote an advisory. Let people make the choice. I think most of the people are going to make the choice to wear the mask, I really do. But when it’s mandated, some people just as Betty said that rebellious thing that you’re not going to make me do this. I’m not going to do it just because they’re telling me to do it. And that’s it.

Karen Keane:

Right. And the board recognizes how many people have reached out and how much concern there is about the mandate, and I think that’s definitely one of the factors why they decide to rescind earlier.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ve responded, yeah. I’ve responded to some of the people. I’ve responded to them and try to give them some accurate information about the Board of Health.

1:30:02

Karen Keane:

I would also like to take the second to also give a big shout out to my team. We’re a very small staff. There’s myself, Margaret Coe who’s our health agent, Rachael Milroy who’s our health technician, and we have a new admin who just joined us, Dana Burke. And I have to tell you that we have heard some things this past week that I have never heard in my entire life. I have never seen such a level of hatred ever expressed to another person like I have this past week, so I would hope that those folks–

Charlie Bletzer:

What you told your folks?

Karen Keane:

Yes, and I would hope that people who partake in our Board of Health meeting tomorrow remember that it’s very important to be civil and to follow professional guidelines when we’re having discussions of such great importance such as COVID and mask mandates.

Charlie Bletzer:

You know it’s funny, my wife and I’ll leave with this because we’re going to move on, but my wife said to me these same people that don’t want to put a mask on, they don’t mind when the Water Health is in taking temperatures and refrigerators and checking whether they get gloves on and checking sanitary things in the back of those restaurants, and finding them what they don’t have in other restaurants for not being clean or not having the right temperatures. They don’t mind that but they don’t want to put a mask on. So, it’s kind of funny but good luck and you shouldn’t take abuse. I hope if you can relay this to the health board, if they consider reconsideration, I think it will go a long way in this town and I think more people will wear mask because it’s an advisory and it’s not a mandate. I really believe that from what I’m doing so.

Karen Keane:

Yeah, I’ll definitely bring those comments forward tomorrow, yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. So, anyway that’s it. That’s all I have to say. Good luck.

Karen Keane:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone else?

Betty Cavacco:

Just one moment.

Dick Quintal:

I want to say something to Karen, is that the Board of Health definitely has my full support in whatever decision they make either way. I read the council’s definition if you will or explanation of who has the jurisdiction in the town it is definitely the board. I think it went as far to say end of sea. I’ve heard some of the complaints, and I’m in the food business myself with restaurants and I’ve been telling the people that started telling me in the beginning, and I don’t want to use the word they’re stubborn but sometimes they don’t want to hear the true fact. She said right out loud to everybody, it wasn’t going to be enforced. Nobody was going to be fined. So, I don’t know why people are jumping off the bridge, I really don’t. When you go to a restaurant, at least when I go to a restaurant, if I have a mask on, I have to take it off. How do you eat? How do you drink? You take it off. Especially somebody that was hospitalized a year ago today with COVID, you will never hear me say in public not to wear a mask because how many of you have all seen the news? And the people they’re on the news and if I only knew, I’m telling you now, wear a mask. So, whatever your decision is I want it to be your decision and don’t be pressured, and I think you’re meeting virtual, correct?

Karen Keane:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, it’s not an in-person meeting because if it is, I would advise you to have some uniformed police there and maintain order. And anybody that’s not in order, shut them down and don’t even listen. Just have Barry or whoever it is running the meeting, come right out with the rules in the beginning, just shut them right down. They’re not going to be disrespectful, and don’t take that from anybody, anybody because that’s not the way we should be running. And that’s all. I don’t know if anybody else had to say anything. And I hope you feel better too.

Karen Keane:

Thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Will that be on PACTV?

Karen Keane:

It is, yes. It’s starting live four o’clock

Charlie Bletzer:

At four.

Karen Keane:

Yes, four o’clock.

Dick Quintal:

Betty?

Betty Cavacco:

Just one more thing, Karen. I know that Kingston just implemented a vaccine clinic. Can we do the same thing?

Karen Keane:

We’re trying. In the meantime, I’ve actually reached out to Kingston to see if we can actually kind of piggyback with them in the interim.

1:35:01

Betty Cavacco:

Good. Okay, perfect. I hope you feel better.

Karen Keane:

Thank you. Thanks everybody have a good night.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

We’ll go back on the agenda to the Airport Update. I’m sorry, Mr. Maher and welcome and happy new year.

Ken Fosdick:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. For those of you who I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting yet and I will in the future, my name is Ken Fosdick. I’m Chairman of the Airport Commission. I have Doug Crociati, who is the vice-chair with us. We also have Tom Maher and we also have Jeff Adler our resident engineer here to answer any questions. We thank you for the opportunity to tell you what’s going on. We are charged with the responsibility of managing this great asset the town has and to the best of our ability. We’re about to announce for our stakeholders, our neighbors, our pilots and businessmen, business people here on the airport that we’re entering into a master plan update.

So, what is a master plan? The master plan is the way the federal government and the state organize their capital improvement plans. So, they process over a 20-year period how they’re going to make their decisions for capital improvement funding. And every 10 years, we have the opportunity to update our master plan. I want to be very clear right now from the beginning, we have no intention of changing the category of our airport. It will remain a B-II, and a B-II airport defines the size of the aircraft, the weight of the aircraft. We’re not changing any of that. So, this is just an update so that we can have our funding in place as we go forward. So, the funding and then the capital improvement plan specifically speaks to things like repaving runways over a period of time. Just like the highway department, you have to repave roads, you have to do that. So, we’re in on the schedule for in the next two or three years to have our runway repaved. We also have safety improvements that come up that are the benefit of all of our stakeholders: the neighbors, the pilots and people here at the airport that change over a period of time. And so, we need to go through. We had a major master plan update some 12 years ago. We are not changing that. This is just an update, to update changes at the airport. For example, we’re here in our new administrative building. Well, our old master plan has the old building so we have to relocate it. We have to update the plan. When we do this update, we then go back to the FAA and to the State Aeronautics Commission, and we talk about safety improvements that they think, feel they want to fund and that we feel are necessary to update the airport, and continue to make it as safe as possible.

So, the process starts by us announcing tonight that we’re going to go through this master plan update. We will have a public meeting on January 13th. We will announce it in the newspaper. Unfortunately, it will be electronic and we will tell people that we’re going to enter into this process. We will then go through a period of time where we do this update, where we physically go and our engineers update the plan. And then, we speak to again the FAA and the State Aeronautics Commission as to what they have plans, what our plans are, what our desires are. Once we’ve done that, we then go back to the public. We have another meeting and we tell them what we think we would like to do. We take public comment on that, and then we finalize the plan. And once it’s finalized, we again go back to the public. So, tonight, we’re just announcing that we’re starting the process and we will be going through it. We’re not changing the airport. We’re not making it Logan South. We’re just continuing to maintain what we have and to do it in the best and most efficient way possible. I’d entertain any questions you might have. The process will take several months. Well, it’ll take at least six months in total.

Dick Quintal:

Any questions from the board members or comments? Okay. I guess that’s not.

1:40:01

Dick Quintal:

So, you’re going to do your open forum on January 13th. People can Zoom in, and I have to say I have visited over there to playing games on the weekend here and there on a Sunday and the place looks great. It really does.

Ken Fosdick:

She’s doing a great job.

Dick Quintal:

A lot of changes, it looks really nice.

Ken Fosdick:

Our employees are doing a great job. Tom is doing a great job managing the facility on the whole airport. So, again, we’re not changing. We’re just updating and making sure we’re current.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Sure.

Ken Fosdick:

Thank you very much.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you all. Sorry for the delay.

Ken Fosdick:

Not a problem.

Dick Quintal:

Budget discussion, Mr. Hartman and maybe Lynne Barrett.

Lee Hartman:

Sure. So, at the last meeting, we asked the board if they had any updates or comments. There were some comments made about salary reserve, and I’ll let Lynne speak to that. So, we’ve made those adjustments. We did also forward a copy of the job description for the sustainability planner, and talked a little bit about what that salary would be. So, Lynne, do you want to add anything to that?

Lynne Barrett:

Sure. Basically, what I did was all the adjustments that I made to the budget created about a little over a half a million dollars that was added to the salary reserve account. The budget didn’t change in total. So, all the reductions and moving around, we were able to add an estimated salary of 95,000 to the town manager’s budget for the climate position and then $541,836 to salary reserve for potential contractual increases that that may come up through negotiations and through working with some of those groups that we talked about at the last meeting.

Lee Hartman:

I should point out that that’s kind of our best guess, but we always have October town meeting to make additional adjustments, if necessary, up or down. So, it’s kind of a best guess of what we think we need and depending on how that rolls up, maybe that number gets adjusted up or down in October.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah, I agree with Lee only because we have not started negotiations with patrolman, superiors, library and non-union group. I mean, I know that the Chairman has sort of spoken to them, but we haven’t really sat down and gone over things. So, potentially, we may have to come back and revisit that number. So, we’ll see how it goes.

Dick Quintal:

Lynne, I’m sorry, did you say that the new position, did you say it was 95,000?

Lynne Barrett:

I put an estimate in there based on the information that was given to me initially from Patrick had sent over to us into HR and then Marie came back with I think a salary range of where she thought it might sit into the budget, but I had already submitted the budget document. It doesn’t mean that you have to pay this person 95,000. It’s just that was sort of the placeholder that I put in there for it.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. And if I may, I don’t have it in front of me, what is the salary of the assistant town manager?

Lynne Barrett:

The assistant, if you just give me a second, I can–

Dick Quintal:

I’m just curious, yeah.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. The assistant town manager is in the non-union executive group and that salary is–just waiting for it to open here.

Dick Quintal:

No problem. I just thought it was close to that, but I could be very wrong.

Lynne Barrett:

So, the assistant town manager is an E-4 in the executive group under the non-union and that salary the minimum is $97,823 and the senior step is $123,000 up to $123,677.

1:45:02

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you very much. Questions or comments for the board for Ms. Barrett? Mrs. Cavacco?

Betty Cavacco:

Some of these new positions that we may have to hire, I mean, we heard about the assistant town manager that that pay is pretty low. So, there is room in the salary reserve if we have to adjust those salaries.

Lynne Barrett:

Well, there is money that we have put into the salary reserve. Are you talking about current year or in the budget for ‘23?

Betty Cavacco:

Both.

Lynne Barrett:

Well, we do have money in salary reserve for current year that we have set aside that we can make adjustments in town manager and/or assistant town manager whatever ends up happening. Any changes to the salary range for the assistant town manager, all of those types of changes would have to go to town meeting in an article to change the bylaw because each of the executive group positions are in the bylaw under a certain E-4 as I said before. So, it only goes up to an E-6. So, you go from E-4, E-5 or E-6. So, we have different executive group department head positions that are in those particular areas. I think we can certainly look at that but looking at one position then, you have to look at all those positions. And then the salary range I believe that the HR Director sent to you was also a non-union executive management group salary range, which I believe was an E-7 that she was recommending, which is just slightly below the E-8 who are like captains and deputies and that kind of thing, so.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, like I said, I’m worried. So, let’s just say we hire a manager or assistant town manager. I think it’d be difficult especially after looking at some of the information that Bernie had, even an assistant is anywhere in the vicinity is coming in 150, 140 in that area. So, if we had to hire a position like that now, which we most likely will, what is our ability to hire them at a higher rate than that is what I’m saying.

Lynne Barrett:

Well, again, in the bylaw, there’s provisions if whoever you hire if they have a master’s degree, that master’s degree comes with a dollar amount that gets added to their base salary. As far as hiring someone outside of the range of an E-4, I believe you have to go to town meeting, and you could do it at the special in April. It has to get voted either an E-5 or an E-6 or whatever you’re going to change it to or recommend to change it to, that’s probably the earliest that you’d be able to do that.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. So, there’s a range that the bylaw says we can provide. Anything different than that, and there are also things like the educational incentive that you can provide. Beyond that, if we want to have a higher range, it’s a vote to amend the personnel by law. And again, I think what we keep saying we have to make sure that whatever we do, we look at everybody in that bylaw. We’re not all of a sudden creating a bigger problem by moving one person without looking how that settles with everybody else in that whole group.

Betty Cavacco:

Right, okay. And one of the other things I don’t know, Lee if this is easily accessible, and we’ve had conversations about it before is that legal fees. I know that there was a request for information. I think it was back in 2018.

1:50:04

Betty Cavacco:

It was done by a town meeting member, and our legal fees to our council within the past previous 10 years was like $20 million. Can we get what our legal fees have been for the past–what I want to do is a cost analysis that is it prudent for us to hire our own attorneys? I mean, we’re a big enough town that we should have a town council. And I’m just wondering if there is a significant cost savings there. I’m not saying to get rid of our legal counsel if we need something, but I know it’s been brought up before, and it didn’t pass. It didn’t pass the board to move forward, but I think it’s something that we should reconsider again.

Lee Hartman:

We can look and give you a little summary of the last three years. We have to break it down because in the last three years we’ve had some pretty high expenses because of the sewer main break. So, we’ll have to kind of look at how we put that so you can kind of compare labor to labor, unusual things to unusual things, planning and zoning, legal disputes. We’ll have to figure out how we put that together, but we’ll give you a three-year summary of that.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect.

Lee Hartman:

I was involved in this a few times, you’re never going to find a single person who can do zoning, land use, labor.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Lee Hartman:

I just went blank.

Lynne Barrett:

I know in the last fiscal year, we got some information from town council that approximately 34% of the annual charges were associated with labor versus zoning, and other legal matters. So, that was just in the last fiscal year which was fiscal ‘20.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah. I think it’s some figures that we should take a look at and see if we can do something better, that’s all.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments from the board? I just have one, Lynne that we can work on it if it’s possible. I had said that in the transition here to a new Town Manager and I don’t want to get into the numbers out here, and make anyone uncomfortable. I know there’s a cost associated with that. So, I want to try to find a place in the budget, where we can actually cut or save money to make up for that amount. And I see Harry shaking and saying, “We had talked about it already,” because I did make that comment to the commitment. So, whatever that number is weekly for however many weeks it is, I feel I owe it to the taxpayers. And Harry, you agree with me, you can chime in, but I would definitely like to roll up our sleeves and see if we can so it’s not a burden to the taxpayer. I mean, I’ve said it in public, but we’re talking about the budget. Harry?

Harry Helm:

I can’t agree enough or any more than I do with you, Dick. And I was going to bring it up if you didn’t, I’m glad you did. Thank you very much. We’ve made a commitment to take those costs that have been incurred in this transition and find somewhere in the budget where we can save the money so that the taxpayers aren’t footing the bill.

Lynne Barrett:

I’m not familiar with the commitment that you made. So, if you want me to look for a number–I mean, I’m just not sure what was.

Harry Helm:

Lynne, I will give you a call tomorrow morning and run through what those commitments were.

Lynne Barrett:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

In fact, you’re going to get a call anyway. Unfortunately, I was at a wedding, so I didn’t have time to call you earlier to figure out what those costs would be. They’ll be pretty easy to calculate, but there are number of moving pieces to it. So, better that I give you a call tomorrow.

Dick Quintal:

Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Just if we’re going to have a something that affects our Select Board recommended budget, I just want to make sure that we’re all on the same page about these things. So, I know there’s discussions to be had but if there is a reduction or recommendation, I know you’re going to call for tomorrow, Harry, but can you just circulate what that is?

1:55:09

Harry Helm:

Absolutely.

Lynne Barrett:

So, it’s my understanding you’re not then voting a budget tonight or are we voting the number tonight?

Harry Helm:

My preference would be to hold off on voting the budget until we have that number, because it’s several hundred thousand dollars.

Lynne Barrett:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

But that would be up to the rest of the board.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I think we can pull together. Do you think we can have it pulled together within the week, Harry? So, we aren’t holding up everything.

Harry Helm:

Absolutely.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I don’t know how much it is but, you know.

Harry Helm:

Well, I’ve got an idea of what it is. I also have some thoughts on where we could find that money.

Dick Quintal:

Okay, fine. Is that all right, Patrick? Could you keep Patrick in the loop, Harry? Where did you go? There you are.

Harry Helm:

Absolutely.

Patrick Flaherty:

All right. I know we have like, for example next week we have the joint meeting. So, if we delay this, we know it’ll push everything up that whole schedule back but–

Dick Quintal:

We’re not trying to hold up anything. Is there a way that Harry can talk tomorrow and maybe have up like a place over a reduction? I mean, that’s all I’m looking to do. I didn’t plan on doing it like tonight because it was the budget vote but it’s something that I’ve been talking about, and I want to make sure that we look at it.

Lee Hartman:

So, I’m sorry that I don’t know what just happened. What did I miss?

Patrick Flaherty:

Welcome back, Lee.

Dick Quintal:

When did you go out, Lee?

Lee Hartman:

Whatever Harry said, I missed completely.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. You want to just try it again, Harry?

Harry Helm:

Well, basically Dick had mentioned a commitment on our part which was expressed, and is actually out there in the public that we find reduction savings in the 2023 budget to offset the costs incurred in this transition from the former town manager to the new town manager, and with the reduction in salary from taking into consideration all the moving parts in it. For instance, your increase the time that you’re spending as town manager plus the costs incurred in what we agreed to with Melissa, and also taking into account that as best as we can that clearly there’s a little bit of a delay in it but we’ll have to do an estimate on the additional cost of Melissa’s salary until the end of July plus another town manager’s salary. So, I mean, I don’t want to give a guesstimate, but I’ve got a thought of what it’s going to come in around, and I think we need to commit to removing aspects of it. We need to reduce the budget by what that amount will be.

Lee Hartman:

My only observation is, I think that goes to the new initiatives we’re talking about, and some of those new initiatives that we added into the budget that would probably be the first place we’d look at to not include on the budget.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. I mean, I’ve kind of thought about that. I mentioned that I’ve had some thoughts on that, but I guess that what we’re talking about is how do we do this, and not delay the overall process.

Betty Cavacco:

Lynne, when do you need the vote on the budget?

Lynne Barrett:

Well, the joint meeting is to like basically physically give your budget to advisory and finance. After tonight, we had planned on printing the books and having everything ready for advisory and finance. They start their subcommittee meetings with the departments after next week’s meeting. So, that was the plan. It sounds like if we are going to be making changes to the budget that you probably will not be able to vote that until next week. At least that’s what it sounds like from your discussions.

2:00:08

Lynne Barrett:

So, we would have to wait to give advisory and finance their books until after next week’s meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Could we postpone the advisory and finance meeting? Should we postpone the joint meeting?

Lee Hartman:

It does start to back everything else up. Everything else is all kind of lined up based on that.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah, their public hearing on the budget is February 16th, so you don’t want to give them three weeks or two weeks even. I mean, I know Harry, you know what the time frame is. It’s pretty tight, and I know they’re chomping at the bit to get started. We have all the subcommittee meetings scheduled and ready to go.

Dick Quintal:

You think you can get it down in a day or two, Harry? We’d call a special meeting Friday, open it just to vote it and let it move on.

Harry Helm:

I don’t see any problem with that. I don’t know if the other members of the Select Board are on board with that. I’d be interested in their thoughts. I’m also interested in Lee’s thoughts on the logistics of this.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. I mean, I would more defer to Lynne whether Friday gives us enough time or not.

Harry Helm:

I mean, you’re talking about printing the budget books.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. We do everything in house. So, Friday, I mean, that would mean that we’d be working probably Monday and Tuesday putting together those books and probably have them hopefully available Wednesday or Thursday of next week, I’m not sure.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry, did you do the figures?

Harry Helm:

No, I needed to talk to Lynne for the figures.

Lee Hartman:

I’m just trying to think of how you do this because again, I think we could come up with a number pretty quickly about what the cost is. The tough part is having to now cut that out of people we already told. They were getting certain expansions to their budget. Am I still on? Yeah, okay. Some people were frozen. So, I don’t know. It’s just–

Lynne Barrett:

I think we are losing you, Lee.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. No, I stopped. I’m just trying to think of what our options are at least maybe a Thursday meeting makes more sense than a Friday. And maybe if you could do a Thursday morning, I don’t know what my schedule is, but do something on Thursday morning, and then that would give staff time Thursday and Friday to make the copies.

Dick Quintal:

I only said Friday because I was trying to give time. I was trying to make it work.

Lee Hartman:

I think the number is fairly easy to come up with, and I think there are kind of two numbers to keep in mind whether it’s just as we look at 2023’s budget, or if we’re going back into this year’s budget when we have salary reserve to cover what’s going on this year, and whether you want to look at what we’re doing from November 30th on or if you want to really just do it as a clean state slate, saying here from January 1st moving on here’s how we’re going to make sure that this budget is awash.

Harry Helm:

Lee, Chris just sent us a chat message that we need 48 hours to put the meeting, so Thursday.

Lee Hartman:

We have another capital review all day on Thursday.

Dick Quintal:

Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

I’m just trying to think about the process of how we got here at this meeting trying to take like a significant amount that would be adjusted at this point and how it would affect the services and what we’ve already put out there. I’m wondering if the intent is to take the burden off of the taxpayer, could we instead of trying to reduce where we’re at with the budget, and what’s lined up which is to provide services and already the budget was set with a 1% reduction on the increase to keep level services.

32:00:08

Patrick Flaherty

There already was some consideration there on this go around. Maybe take it from free cash, or another place. I don’t even know. I haven’t even had time to really think about it, but I think trying to go back towards the budget itself at this point might be really tough in like a 48-hour notice where we know how much it took to get to the point of having the budget now.

Lee Hartman:

And Lynne, tell me if I’m right, we could just vote it tonight and then offer amendments too. So, we could go with it, look at this again and then suggest some amendments to the Finance Committee afterwards knowing that there’s a little bit of a risk with that because you voted the budget as it is now, and then you’re going to come back and tweak it. But again, that might be the best approach at this late hour.

Lynne Barrett:

You could definitely do that. You could make recommendations. We could make recommendations to Advisory and Finance Committee to reduce included in their budget or if they don’t agree, you could go to town meeting with two different budgets. I mean, we like to be all on the same page. One thing that just to bring to your attention as far as the funding sources, I believe I’d have to just go back and check the exact dollar amount, but I believe I am recommending that we use free cash for the part of the outgoing town managers contractual settlement of the severance part of it. Because basically, for a town meeting for the budget next year, they’ll only be paying for one town manager out of the tax rate so to speak. Whatever was going to the outgoing town manager, I was recommending to fund through free cash.

Harry Helm:

Well, then that sounds like you’re already doing what Patrick is suggesting, which would be is a perfectly suitable solution. The taxpayers have already funded free cash.

Lynne Barrett:

Right. Yeah. So, I believe I took her salary for the month of July and the severance and is recommending it to come from free cash already.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. The only additional would be, I don’t want to say only, but one of the additional would be the difference in Lee’s salary.

Lee Hartman:

But that will be done by July first, so that will have no impact at all.

Harry Helm:

All right. Well then.

Lee Hartman:

Not that I don’t love what I’m doing.

Harry Helm:

I know. Lynne, I’ll call you tomorrow, and just make sure that you’ve–it sounds to me like you’ve already done the accounting that needed to be done that I’m concerned with.

Betty Cavacco:

Lee, wasn’t the difference like $6,000? It was pretty low for your pay difference.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. It’s like a 1200 extra a week. So, depending on how long it goes.

Harry Helm:

Right.

Betty Cavacco:

And we’re hoping it’s not that long.

Harry Helm:

Lee, we’re trying.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah, I’m having fun though. So, I just don’t want to do three jobs. So, I’m ready to go back.

Dick Quintal:

All right. So–

Lee Hartman:

Am I taking myself a whole–

Harry Helm:

No.

Charlie Bletzer:

Good job.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. All right. Do we have a motion on the budget?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion to approve.

Dick Quintal:

Do we have a second?

Patrick Flaherty:

I’ll second that. Lynne, do you need a number on that dollar amount?

Lynne Barrett:

So, the dollar amount, it’s like a six-page document that I sent you guys. So, the total budget including that general fund and enterprise funds is $272,334,007.

Dick Quintal:

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

Lynne Barrett:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Have a good night.

Harry Helm:

Thanks, Lynne.

Lee Hartman:

Thank you, Lynne.

Lynne Barrett:

Thanks.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hartman, Cedarville – Traffic update.

2:09:59

Lee Hartman:

Sure. I’ll just go through because I’d put some notes together to give the board a little update of what has kind of gone on, and where we are. It’s kind of a mixed bag for good news and bad news, but let me just kind of read through my notes.

So, JB and the DPW have been awesome with this. So, for a number of years now, JB and myself through the planning department have worked trying to look at the issues in the Route 3A corridor. So, what we’re talking about when we say the 3A corridor, we’re looking at from Hedges Pond Road, which is where the Marylou’s is on State Road Route 3A, all the way down to Exit 3, formerly Exit 2 on Route 3 where the ramps are. So, one of the biggest challenges we’re dealing with is that these roads are all under the control of Mass DOT. So, anything we do has to meet their standards, has to comply with their requirements, it has to be done in a way that’s acceptable to them. The state delegation was awesome, but early on, we had the state delegation, myself, JB, we met with Mass. DOT, and we asked them to look at these intersections. Our focus more was on the Herring Pond Road intersection, where the traffic comes off of Exit 3 trying to get into Cedarville or the people trying to find a quicker way to the Cape are getting off that exit and trying to go down State Road to Sagamore.

So, we met with the delegation, and they indicated that they have all kinds of projects out there that rank far higher than this one, and there are so many other intersections out and that they have under their control but this one doesn’t rank in any of their top list of priorities to address. So, we really didn’t get far with them. We have a thing that’s done through the Old Colony Planning Council. It’s federal money that comes through the state that is then done through the Old Colony Planning Council, and it’s a thing people refer to as the TIP and that is Transportation Improvements Program. It’s a five-year program that looks for projects for improvements within the town that we can do. And a number of projects in Plymouth, the Obery street was on the TIP. I’m trying to think of some of the others. So, the sidewalks and work done on Taylor Ave was on the TIP. So, we’ve placed this on the TIP. The only thing about that is that they want 25% design plans to advance it, and even if we had those plans today, we’re talking about a five-year process for it to start to rank through that process. But again, at least it’s on that TIP and it’s something we’re looking at.

The other thing the state delegation has done before is put these improvements in what’s called transportation bond bills, and those bills and it sounds good and they’ve allocated money to do that work but unless the state floats those bonds, the money never gets allocated. So, we have not been lucky to have the state take the bond bills that we’ve been in and floated those for funds. So, at least those are avenues we’ve been looking at.

If you recall, we also had that land next to the old Cedarville landfill, the town meeting voted to sell. We’re currently working with our partners at the Economic Development Foundation on that sale, and part of the agreement we had is that we would work with the neighbors and work with Mass DOT to figure out if we could do some traffic mitigation in that area to improve the existing issues out there. And so, we’ve met with the residents down there, we met with Mass DOT. We actually have two conceptual plans that we designed for each intersection: that’s the Hedges Pond Road intersection, and that’s also the Herring Pond Road-State Road intersection. One option was a signal for both of those and one option was a roundabout for both of those intersections. Mass DOT over the full course of a couple different meetings, and again I thank JB for doing this work because he and his consultants were the ones who kind of really led that design effort, but Mass DOT made it clear that the roundabouts were the options that they would agree to, and that we’d have to look at those. We did those plans about two years ago, and the estimate we had for both those intersections whether they were roundabouts or signals was about $1.5 million to do each one, so 3 million total if we did them both. When we met with the neighbors and we talked about the issues down there and we indicated that these 60 acres of land that we were selling to the foundation, it wasn’t going to solve all the problems.

So, the focus everybody agreed to was the Herring Pond Road-State Road, and at least we could get those improvements going there, that would be a good step towards getting things accomplished. So, we are moving ahead with the Economic Development Foundation. We’ve got a PMS signed with them for the land. I can tell you that the kind of prices that they’ve been talking to people about for the sale of that land as well in excess of 1.5 million.

2:15:02

Lee Hartman:

So, I’m optimistic that we’ll have that money. The PMS requires that they will work with us, and require that they’ll do those improvements. It’s a little tricky because we have to throw Mass DOT into it too. But again, from what I’m seeing with that sale and the money there that’s going on, I think we’re in good shape to get that work done.

I want to caution people though that even if we’re ready to go tomorrow with that sale and the money’s in hand, we have a lot of design work to do, we have to go through Mass DOT’s process, we have to have them approve it. They typically want to come in at 25%, 50% ,75% design, have them approve it before we move forward. So, again, I’m very optimistic that we have a solution to do some improvements out there, but because of the number of people who have to put their thumb on this one, it will still take a little time.

Also, Mass DOT has been holding hearings on the Cape Cod bridges and JB again and myself have attended those meetings, and we’ve stressed the need for traffic improvements prior to the bridge work so that if they’re going to really talk about this major reconstruction, we need mitigation done and put in place before the bridge work is done to handle whatever kind of detours and impacts that’s going to have on the community. So, we’ve also on that front really tried to get the attention of the state to say when you’re looking at this project and again it’s years out, but it’s another avenue we’ve taken to say, “Please, look at this corridor and improvements here.”

A couple more points but kind of the main final point is we know that there’s a lot of federal funds coming down at Pike for infrastructure improvements. So, again, JB and I and the delegation are looking very closely at those funds. And if some of those funds that come out from the federal government for infrastructure improvements if we’re eligible, it’s something that I think we have a good chance of getting some of those funds earmarked towards these two intersections too. So, as I said before, I don’t want to sugarcoat this. It’s still probably a two-to-three-year process away to getting actual work done, but I think the good news is we’re working on a number of different avenues and especially the land sale I think has great promise to be able to start to deliver on some improvements out there.

Also, as soon as we have a design plan, and we know about when we want to do construction, there are other grants out there, Mass Works grants this would qualify for. I think it would be a great candidate because of the jobs it would create having those 60 acres developed. So, we would also be looking at those grant opportunities to also help fund. We really can’t do the grants now, because without a design and they like most of those grants want you to be shovel ready. So, there’s not a lot we can do immediately with it, but we do have that opportunity. And again, I think we would be a great candidate for some of those grants. DPW and JB has been very successful at securing those grants in the past for different projects. So, good progress. I’m encouraged by it, but again unfortunately, especially because of the Mass highway control, it is something that will probably take some time before we can actually implement. That’s what I have for you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Any comments from the board? Questions? Well, I also–go ahead, Harry. I’m sorry.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, I just want to thank Lee for prepping all that information in a fairly short period of time with all the other stuff that you’re doing. This is top of mind for a lot of the residents of Plymouth not just the people who live in Cedarville, but the people who have to go through there because it is kind of a loony bin down there. So, it’s nice to hear and certainly understood that there’s going to be time involved.

Lee Hartman:

And I agree completely. I spend a lot of time at that interchange, and during rush hour, it’s pretty horrific, the backup and delays that it takes. I should point out that at the meeting of Mass Highway, we did ask them to put in a turn lane. So, if you’re on Herring Pond Road going towards Cedarville and you want to head south towards White Cliffs, they did widen that and added a second dedicated lane so that some of that pass-through traffic was only going to take a right turn to go south on State Road. They did add that. So, at least we got some very I’d call it minor but at least something was done in the interim that helps moderately some of the situations there. But yes, it’s probably our worst intersection right now in the town.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

And a lot of accidents have been happening there.

Dick Quintal:

Right. I want to say thank you also, Lee. I reached out to Vinny deMacedo and Matt and just get some background on it, and I just don’t want to be left on the back burner and have an accident actually bring it up for conversation.

2:20:05

Dick Quintal:

So, we want to keep it in view of all the things the moving parts. So, I know you’ll do that and through the foundation also. So, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

Can we use ARPA funds for that?

Lee Hartman:

I don’t believe so. Again, a lot of those funds need to have shovel ready projects where we don’t even have the design done. We have a conceptual design. We don’t even have the 25 yet. And we talked about advancing the design now, but without knowing what the funds are, the design work will cost $250,000 to $300,000 just for the design. We don’t want to design that now and then not find out that we have funding for two years and find out we have to redesign it all over again. It took us two years. So, it’s a little bit of a moving target for that design work.

Dick quintal:

Okay. Anyone else? Okay, thank you. Town Manager’s report.

Lee Hartman:

Sure. I have a few things to bring up. Special town meeting open today, and the warrant I should say and it closes on February 4th. A big shout out to Karen Keane and her group again. It looks like we’ll be looking to get 7500 of the test kits, and we’re going to have a meeting I think tomorrow with ACRA funds to make sure that we can process that through the ACRA money and moving forward with that.

We got an email today from MIIA, who’s our insurance carrier that’s done through the Mass Municipal Association, and our Safety Compliance Officer, Michelle. She has received an award or will be receiving award from the state for her work. I’ll just read it:

Happy to announce that you’ve been chosen to receive the MIIA Risk Management Award this year. You have demonstrated your dedication to the safety and the well-being of the DPW employees by providing training inspection and guidance.

So, that’s pretty exciting to have one of our newer employees Michelle Newell, who’s doing our safety inspections to get that kind of recognition statewide. Also, let’s see, we received a $398,395.25 grant for complete streets, for sidewalk improvements, complete street work, and that’s going to be done sidewalk gap between Plymouth and Morton Park on Belington Sea. So, again, JB and his crew, a great grant that we have to help do some additional street improvements on Belington Street.

Tiffany Parks who do the MIIA Rewards Program, and she spends a lot of time harassing all of us to attend these events because they do save us money. Over the year, her hard work has resulted in a $66,234 savings in the insurance coverage we have for the various programs. She encourages or gets various town employees to attend to minimize issues like slip and falls, backhoe safety, things like that. So, again, that’s great that we received that kind of reduction.

We received a grant from Eversource through Patrick Farah, the Energy Officer. This money represents $303,000 or $310,000, and its energy lighting efficiency to reduce the lighting costs. This project is for the PCIS building. So, we’re going to be investing at no cost of the town $310,000 to retrofit the LED lighting out there, and do some fairly significant electric saving costs through that program. I think that’s what I have for tonight. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Lee. Any questions or comments to Lee?

Lee Hartman:

I would just say it’s pretty obvious. You have a great staff behind you. Some of those things are pretty remarkable. For somebody who’s new in this job, I’m constantly amazed at some of the things that your staff provides us in the savings to the residents of the town.

Dick Quintal:

Great to hear. And thank you to them. Moving on, there’s no licenses. Administrative notes, excuse me, there’s one. Oh, actually there is two.

Harry Helm:

Dickie, did you want to do public comment?

Charlie Bletzer:

Public comment.

Dick Quintal:

You know what, I’m sorry. Anyone wishing to speak on a public comment, Chris? Mr. Hammond?

2:24:59

John Hammond:

Thank you. Really had a couple of things I wanted to say. One is we are all in a critical situation with the pandemic, and all its ramifications. Sorry to hear that people are getting up in arms about wearing masks but then on top of that, we have our own little crisis I think around the departure of the town manager with these perplexing changes in the schedule and arrangements. So, I’m not surprised that there’s a lot of suspicion and defensiveness and upset involved. It seemed to be inevitable. I hope that as soon as your executive session notes can be revealed, that will help calm things down.

The other thing I wanted to say was I was distressed by your decision to revise the Zoom format to what you’re using tonight by not allowing other people to attend in general, because I think that’s an important function and right of citizens too. I mean, we all know that it’s influential when 30 or 40 citizens come in on one issue or another to one of the meetings, and we can’t do that with this arrangement except by asking to speak. This is one of the reasons I did it.

Last night, I watched for a while with the Charter Commission, and they’re using a panel format, which means that essentially you have a panel which would be you and any planned guest and you have essentially an audience and the audience is not on the screen ordinarily, but they can ask, they can buy a previous arrangement, ask to speak and then they can be brought in by the person managing the Zoom program. I think that would be a better one. They could also be sure that you knew that they were there. If people are watching on PACTV, you have no idea how many people or who is watching.

Dick Quintal:

I usually checked out with Chris.

John Hammond:

Okay. Well, I would–

Dick Quintal:

And I don’t believe we’ve had any issue with that to this point.

John Hammond:

Pardon me?

Dick Quintal:

I don’t believe we’ve had an issue with letting anyone speak to this point that I can recall.

John Hammond:

No, no. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m just saying–

Dick Quintal:

Okay. All right. I’m misunderstanding you. So, you can make it a little clearer for me, please.

John Hammond:

Well, yes, obviously, I’m here speaking now because I asked specifically to do that. All I’m saying is if you use that format, you can have an audience that wouldn’t all be on the screen all the time, and they could come in from that status and request to speak at the times when it’s appropriate. I think that would be a more participatory meeting for the citizens of the town, and that’s my main point there. So, thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Chairman?

John Hammond:

Thank you for letting me speak tonight.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Hammond, tonight the Chairman instructed Chris Badot when he found out that the people that were waiting that weren’t allowed out couldn’t hear the meeting. He told Chris to allow everybody to come in. So, tonight anybody that was in there was allowed to come into the meeting. He didn’t realize that they couldn’t hear. So, going forward, you’ll be able to get into the meeting.

John Hammond:

Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

That happened tonight. Nobody was turned back from getting onto the meeting tonight because the Chairman didn’t realize that you couldn’t hear when you’re in the waiting room, you couldn’t hear the meeting. So, tonight, everybody that wanted to come on was on.

Dick Quintal:

Just to give it a piece, I’ll call back and find out about it.

John Hammond:

Under the format that I’m talking about, they would be able to hear you and see you but they would only be brought in specifically.

Dick Quintal:

That might be easier. I’m going to check that out. It might be easier. Yes, absolutely.

John Hammond:

The Charter Commission I thought used it with great success, so I hope you can. Thank you.

2:30:01

Dick Quintal:

Well thank you. I’ll check it out, John.

Charlie Bletzer:

We love to have people watching us. We loved it.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hutchinson, you were next.

Joseph Hutchinson:

Thank you, Mr. Quintal. I’d like to agree with John and my friend Mr. Bletzer. I think that it ought to be open, and that we ought to be able to see everybody who wants to participate. The way to think of it might be as analogous to folks who want to go and be a part of your meeting in the great hall. So, I want to show up physically and know that I’m there. The confusion maybe John had this too, I don’t know, but I also listened to the Charter Commission at their meetings. And last night, they didn’t allow us to be seen unless we raised our hands. Now, I don’t know how that policy works but it feels like there’s maybe an opportunity for the Selectmen to write a policy about virtual attendance at town meetings just to clear it up. Just a thought. Thanks.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you very much. Mrs. Davis?

Ginny Davis:

Yes. I think what John has been saying is the format he’s talking about is used very often for webinars and for annual meetings. In other words, you people are the panelist and we’re just the audience. And it’s true you can’t see us, but you can always either raise your hand with using these different formats or you can go into the chat, so that the public can still–I mean a hundred people could be on there, but we don’t all have to be seen. I think it’s something you can probably talk about with Chris Badot. I’m sure he knows it and there may be other people even select people who have used that format. So, I don’t know. It’s worth just looking at and maybe even try and maybe we didn’t like it you know.

Dick Quintal:

I gave it a look. I can only tell you in this format that we use now to have 100 people it’s very difficult.

Ginny Davis:

Yes, it is.

Dick Quintal:

I’m having a conversation with you, and somebody else should come in or somebody leaves all of a sudden, you’re gone. Now, I got to try to find out where and it does make it a little more difficult but I’ll be more than happy to look at it like I said.

Ginny Davis:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

You’re welcome. Anyone else wishing to speak on the public comment? Mr. Tavares?

Matt Tavarez:

Yeah. I think that the only thing that I would add to that is that I know it’s unfortunate and it’s cumbersome, but unfortunately this is the way we have to go. I like the idea of the panel kind of like the Charter Commission does because then it’s out there but they’re not crowding your screen. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it’s about participatory government and having citizens participate, which is what I hear you all preach a lot. So, I think that looking into the panel form kind of like the Charter Commission does would make it less cumbersome for you to run the meeting, to chair the meeting. Sometimes my YouTube doesn’t work, and I can’t get on that, but I can get in to this to at least watch. It’s unfortunate because we can’t be in person but I don’t know, I would agree with Mrs. Davis, yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. I’ll check it out. Anyone else wishing to speak on the public comment? Okay. Moving on, there’s no licenses and there’s two administrative notes. Do you want to take them together or you want to take them single?

Betty Cavacco:

We can take them together.

Charlie Bletzer:

If we can, can you?

Harry Helm:

Well, do we want to?

Charlie Bletzer:

I guess, you could.

Dick Quintal:

I want to talk to the second one. That’s why I said that.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. Let’s do the first one.

Dick Quintal:

Let’s vote on the first one first. All right.

Charlie Bletzer:

Do we do it on separate or the whole committee?

Dick Quintal:

We do the whole committee. All the names are listed here.

Harry Helm:

Yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Do I have a second?

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion? All in favor? Unanimous.

2:35:03

Dick Quintal:

And then the second administrative note, the Board will vote to endorse the decision made by the Roads and Advisory Committee to deny the Plow Request for the Whispering Pines Drive and Monument Ponds Path. Bringing it out to the board for discussion or motion, and then we’ll have discussion over– I’m sorry, Harry?

Harry Helm:

Well, I guess I’ll move and then we can have discussion. I move that we endorse the decision made by the Roads and Advisory committee.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second that.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Well, I decided to do a little light research on that neighborhood using the addresses of the folks who signed the request. What I discovered was that basically 50% and it’s 11 of them, so it’s hard to say 50% but there’s one kind of outlier, 50% of them it was on the listing when they bought the house that there was an HOA. But 50% of them, it was not on the listing. So, I can’t say that there was definitely disclosure for that’s 50%. There was disclosure to the half of them. So, half of the people in that neighborhood were aware that there was supposed to be an HOA. So, I question all of them not knowing, which seems to be in their statement kind of what they’re telling us is that we had no idea. The Roads Advisory Committee is saying whether you knew it or not, you’re supposed to have one, and that HOA per what is on file at the Registry of Deeds and with the town is that the town is not responsible for snow plowing. After doing that research and reading the materials, unfortunately, they bought in an area that the town is not responsible for plowing the roads.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a couple of documents here in front of me. You all should have it in your package. Patrick, I believe you got it, didn’t you? You were looking for it last week. Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, it was the written portion from the Road Advisory Committee.

Charlie Bletzer:

And the criteria for the snow plowing.

Patrick Flaherty:

And the criteria recommendation and your documents too, I have that here too. Yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. Number 6 the existence of any homeowner’s association, and their responsibilities for roadway plowing and maintenance, any current maintenance agreements as well as a list of any construction waiver, variances granted by town boards, covenants, or individual homeowner’s easements shall be supplied to the committee with the snow plow fund. Number 6 is one of the criteria for not accepting snow plowing. In the comments, the DPW does not recommend because the homeowners are responsible for maintenance in Roads Advisory committee, which I’m a member of now. Same thing, it’s because of the planning board conditions on file at the Plymouth Registry of Deeds. So, to accept it would open up a can of worms and right now, they’ve recommended not accepting, and that’s why we should vote to approve what they’ve already said.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone up? Patrick?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, and I just appreciate getting the document to have the write-up on it because that was the piece that when we first got it, it was blank. And now, we have the part that is signed and has the explanation there, so that satisfied my–when they referenced that in the memo what I wanted to see. So, I understand their recommendation now and appreciate the extra week to get that in hand.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. So, that’s the reason, so anyway.

2:40:05

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak? All those in favor of the motion and the recommendation? Unanimous. Committee Liaison Updates? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I’m not exactly sure if this is where this would go, but what the heck. The Plymouth Outdoor Dining Task Force is now prepared to present what we have come up with. If I can say so, I think that it’s very impressive, and it’s something that the residents of Plymouth will be very proud of. I guess, Dick, I need to ask you so that I can get preparations ready and get the committee prepared with everything going on with budgets and all that stuff. Is there a particular Select Board meeting that we could schedule this for?

Dick Quintal:

I’ll go over it with Chris, but we could absolutely ready to do a presentation.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Well, give them a couple weeks. I want to make sure the architects and we have all the drawings ready that I put them up on the screen and we have the presenters ready.

Lee Hartman:

Chairman Quintal, if I could, so, Chris, did we have a date? We’ve been talking through the chair of the committee. So, Chris, what’s the date we have selected?

Chris Badot:

I’m just looking now.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, because he asked me tonight if we could set a date, so.

Chris Badot:

Yeah, I had it set for the 11th, but that’s next week, so you may need more time for that.

Harry Helm:

Can we set it for the 18th?

Betty Cavacco:

I think the 18th is going to be interviews.

Dick Quintal:

Well, let’s squeeze it in next week, Harry. How long do you think it’s going to take?

Harry Helm:

I would say it won’t take long and if we have to get away with an hour.

Dick Quintal:

If takes an hour, it takes an hour.

Harry Helm:

It won’t take an hour. I just want to make sure we’ll have everything ready. Let’s do it next week.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, let’s do it. We can always go back to it too.

Harry Helm:

Okay. All right, cool.

Chris Badot:

Okay, next week.

Dick Quintal:

Please.

Chris Badot:

All right, you’re on.

Harry Helm:

All right.

Lee Hartman:

The funding source for some of that work is going to be ARPA. So, the goal is to get you. We have two ARPA requests that you’ll have. One is for the outdoor dining, and then the other one will be for the test kits. So, hopefully that’ll all show up for you to approve for funding. So, that’s the funding source.

Charlie Bletzer:

Lee, who’s requesting the ARPA funds for the outdoor dining?

Lee Hartman:

Yeah, it would be the Outdoor Dining Committee and you’ll see the presentation, so they have a uniform decorative wood kind of railing system they want to put around each of the barriers instead of having the visibility of those plastic. The funding needed to construct those. DPW has agreed to install them.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, plus there’s consistent vegetation and consistent lighting throughout. In my mind, it’s pretty impressive.

Charlie Bletzer:

Harry, one question, I don’t want to get ahead because I know when you come before us, we can ask questions, but participation, do you think most of the businesses will participate?

Harry Helm:

Well, I think we’ve created a program which will be beneficial for them to participate, but whether they choose to or not is up to them. What we’ll find is we have created guidelines and a series of steps if you do not follow those guidelines. So, as you may have noticed this time around, we put up jersey barriers and they were never used, but anything like smoking lounges. The restaurants had them put up and never used them, that will not be happening this time. There was a lot of thought and a lot of effort put into creating a program that really kept the residents and the respect that we all have for Plymouth in mind. Also, this time ADA compliance throughout.

Charlie Bletzer:

Which is key. The businesses that are open three days a week and those spaces sit empty, to me that’s unacceptable. So, being a member of the PGDC, we were very concerned about those spaces going to waste.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, then there was a representative of PGDC on the committee.

2:45:03

Charlie Bletzer:

You guys have good committee. Great.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

You’re welcome.

Dick Quintal:

Any other updates? Old Business? Letters? New Business? Okay. I hate to be the spoiler, but I have some. As we wrap up this year, we all had goals last year. We were moving on them all and I would just like to ask the members to please rethink going into the new year being in January of what some of the goals are or some of the things you think need a little tuning up, so when the new Town Manager does hit the town, she or he can hit it with a force out of what we’re looking for and along with their thoughts also.

I’m just going to touch base with you some of the things that I wrote down today. I had a meeting with Patrick Farah. It proved to be very good, and I know Patrick will be very proud of me because I went through my whole packet on the cans and sustainable Plymouth and I watched the videos, I googled everything. So, I’m doing my homework and I think the town really needs to kick it up a few notches. I know that’s your thing, Patrick. So, I look forward and hope that you can guide it and even I like to sit with you and go over some of my questions. I mean, I’ve learned all about solar power, the batteries, how they’re put together, the different kinds. So, just for myself, but I think we need to really present this to the community at least the green part of it. We’re not bad, but we’re not very good either. We need to kick it up a notch to our committees, and I’m sure we get a new person on board and some of Patrick’s plan, but we need to get that front and forward going.

So, JB, I’ve asked for updates on water and sewer. As some of you may or may not know, we had some serious issues with some water in the past, and I want to make sure that the town lays out, if you will. I’m going to use the word master plan but has it on the screen or where the next wells might or could be and pass that along and share it with the Planning Board. So, as these projects come before them, I think we need to get it all on the same page. And forgive me, Lee, if we already are, but I don’t know that you know what I mean. I mean, I’m hearing that there’s a piece of Holtec that could be a well then somebody’s saying no and then somebody’s saying yes. So, I think we need to take a look at that, lay it out. We’re going to be getting a cemetery update, and the reason you haven’t got it yet is because we’ve been looking at parcels of land and they’re going to come in. Ken King is going to come in with our committee and make some recommendations, and the board can do it but it could be a serious problem if it’s not addressed. There’s not a whole lot of room left. Us as a town have to move forward and get that going.

While we’re at it, we don’t want to forget box and forestry or Holtec. We also got a placeholder on the town meeting for a pilot agreement. Now, there’s no one saying there’s going to be a pilot agreement, but we put it there just to have it. We’ll start on negotiations. I think Melissa set it up for this coming week, right Lee? I think it’s coming up this week, and I could be wrong. I got to look at it and see, but it’s on the front. We got to pick up the pace with that. I talked to Mr. O’Brien at the county yesterday. He has a check for the Town of Plymouth for us for $2,000,000. If they can’t get over there, I understand COVID, I’ll gladly swing by and pick it up because I know one slim barrier is that she’s going to tell me. So, if that’s the case, I’m going to swing by and we thank them for their good work and of course the money.

He also told me, Lee, I think he said Thursday they are purchasing 200,000 COVID test kits. So, I asked him, “How that would be distributed?” So, you might want to follow up with them and see how that’s going to all play out.

I just want to bring up to you, Lee that we passed a policy, and I don’t know the proper term right now at the moment on committee members behavior. I know I have some letters here in my makeshift office that other people have made complaints, and I want to have you start the process to look into it and guide us as to how we do that whether it’s a hearing or whatever, but I want to get that moving. It will no longer be tolerated.

2:50:18

Dick Quintal:

And the last thing, I’d like to say thank you to Mr. Frank Gomes who’s on the job very early in the morning. Saw him on at 2:30 in the morning, and making sure this community is up the path. He goes above and beyond. It’s amazing how many meetings I’ve been at and I hear, “Well, ask Frank Gomes, ask Frank Gomes.” So, I just want to say thank you to him. And a lot of the town employees do a good job, let’s face it.

I got a lot of feedback, and I don’t know if any other members did, when we were discussing the discipline or the policy for committee members. I mean, everybody thought we’re going to start firing people, which is not the case. We appreciate all the volunteers in the community, but we also want you to be respectful at your meetings and treat your other members that way. So, I don’t want anybody running off, “Oh, we’re going to work that conservation.” This is nothing to do with that. Okay? You will all see it’s pretty much related to what I have in front of me at the moment. So, I just want to make that clear. Wish the board a happy new year and everybody watching. And we’ll see you next week.

And Betty, if you could go over the updated goal list with Patrick to what’s so far so good, and then we’ll add anything that anybody brings to the table. Any members that want things scheduled just please ask because it’s all our agenda. Okay?

Betty Cavacco:

And actually, just so the people at home know that the majority of the goals that we set several months ago are completed, which is a good thing.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah. We got the grant writer town meeting was very good to us. So, motion to adjourn?

Betty Cavacco:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you for watching. Have a good week everybody.