Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 6-7-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board Minutes 6-7-22

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

Betty Cavacco:

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Plymouth Select Board Meeting, Tuesday, June 7th, 2022. Would you care to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

All:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Betty Cavacco:

I’d also like to take a moment for–a moment of silence for the folks in Uvalde, Texas of that horrific shooting that happened a couple weeks ago. So, if you join me in the moment of silence, please.

Okay. We have the first public hearing. Brewster Bar.

Dick Quintal:

In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Massachusetts General Laws as amended, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held remotely or in-person at Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts on Tuesday, June 7th, 2022 at 6:00 pm to consider the application for–excuse me, All Annual Restaurant License from Legacy Hospitality LLC d/b/a Brewster Bar, 46 Court Street, Michael York, manager. Description of premises will be as follows: 1800 sq. feet, entry opens to the seating area, followed by a bar, workspace and back bar, lounge area, 2 restrooms and kitchen. Basement will be used for storage. Anyone wishing to be heard in this matter should plan to attend this meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

I now declare the hearing open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this? Sure. Can you go to the podium and state your name?

Michael York:

So, yeah. I’m Michael York. I’m trying to open up a cocktail premium and cocktail bar called Brewster Bar. Long story short, my wife and I, we’ve immigrated from Australia and we’re setting up home in Plymouth here in the next few weeks hopefully. I’ve got a long history with dealing with spirits particularly rum. Mainly high-end spirits and things that people can sit and sip and enjoy like neat whiskey and that sort of stuff. And having spent a lot of time in Sydney with a very sophisticated kind of cocktail scene, I think I can kind of bring a little bit of that to here, to Plymouth and that’s kind of what I want to do, set up a bar, a place to try and target more adults mainly 25 to maybe 60-year-olds and have a nice selection of whiskey, rum, tequila, mezcal and gin. That’s what I like to do.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Anyone else? Any questions from the board?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a question. What kind of menu are you offering?

Michael York:

It’s a little bit of a work in progress. My background is mainly in spirits. I will be working with a chef, but conceptionally wise, I want to bring in like a raw bar. Some oysters and some shrimp and possibly lobster rolls and ceviche and that sort of stuff.

Charlie Bletzer:

Are you planning a 7-day operation?

Michael York:

No, I think–I’ve got a young family, so I think 7 days is not going to work. Probably between 5 and 6 days most likely. Mainly probably from–depending on trading hours and–

Charlie Bletzer:

The reason why I’m saying that is I think it’s important for the downtown that we have businesses open down there that is at least seasonal. It’s very important for our tourism so that’s why.

Michael York:

So, yeah, certainly 5 days to 6 days, definitely. Yeah. We might have a closing day on Tuesday or something like that, so.

Charlie Bletzer:

All right. Great. Thanks.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Chris, anyone at home? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

[0:05:01]

Betty Cavacco:

I declare the hearing closed and bring that back to the board.

Charlie Bletzer:

I make the motion to move it.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motioned by Mr. Bletzer, seconded by Mr. Mahoney. All those in favor? Unanimous.

Michael York:   

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. The next public hearing is for Water and Sewer Rates. Mr. Beder?

Jonathan Beder:

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board. Jonathan Beder, Director of Public Works. It’s a pleasure to be here. It’s been quite a while since I’ve been up at this podium so it’s pretty awesome. Really glad to be here. So, we’re here for the FY ’23 Water and Sewer Rates. With your pleasure, I’d like to jump in on the water side if that’s okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

Jonathan Beder:

Thank you. So, working with the Finance Director, every year, we kind of take some time and go over and kind of allocate and discuss capital, debt. We look at consumption and we look at everything wholistically across the board on the water side and we come up with a basis in terms of increases to cover the enterprise fund.

So, if this will work. Trouble. All right. Sorry about that, everybody. So, our recommendation for water is there’s no changes to the base rate but we are looking to increase the four block rates. The first block we’re looking to increase by one nickel 170 to 175, which is a 3% raise. Second block 8 cents, which is 3% from 2.66 to 2.74. The third block 11 cents, which is 2.69 to 2.80 and then the fourth block, we’re recommending a 4.5% increase, which is 16 cents of 3.50 to 3.66. So, those are our recommended increases for water and those will generate enough fund, the enterprise fund with a little bit of a surplus left over in FY ‘24. So, that’s our recommendation for the water rates at this time, and I’m happy to answer any questions.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Mr. Beder, could you please explain to us the reasons for the need for any increase in our water?

Jonathan Beder:

You betcha. So, every year, like I said, we look at that and we look at capital projects and a means to keep retained earnings healthy. Right now, we have a retained earnings balance from water of a little bit over $2 million, which is pretty typical for us. But mostly, it’s for capital projects and just for emergency purposes on the water side. We have significant work left to do. When you look at our water masterplan, Town Meeting just voted money for Main and Federal Furnace. We got a significant grant from EDA from Manomet Pipe Upgrades, but there’s still a lot more work to do in our water system. We have a very large and complex water system, multiple wells, multiple tanks and miles and miles of pipe that need attention all the time. So, that’s really why we raised those rates. But again, it’s just really to fund your operating budget, your salary budget and pay principal and debt. So, that’s why we’re making these recommendations, Harry.

Harry Helm:

Could you give us an idea of what the upcoming capital projects would be that this is going to help fund specifically?

Jonathan Beder:

So, for future years, we will be looking at a possible valve interconnect, which once the Manomet pipe upgrade project is complete and again, we’re upsizing a number of miles of road in Manomet. That project hopefully we’ll be able to bid in a couple of weeks. Once that project is done, we’ll understand better the hydraulics and the dynamic overall in the water system to see if we can move water into Plymouth Center in the Bradford Zone, which alleviate from capacity issues in West Plymouth. So, that’s kind of wait to be seen. We have a whole tank inspection plan for all your storage tanks. So, I don’t recall off the top of my head which one will be next but you’ll see another probably tank painting project in the spring and we’ll see several more water main upgrade projects in the coming years.

Harry Helm:

Explain how this could contribute to whatever well issues we may have coming up. I think the residents of Plymouth need to know about the well situation.

[0:10:07]

Jonathan Beder:      

Yeah, sure. Another project that most likely will be coming up in the not-too-distant future is another well. A couple years ago, we recently completed the Forges Field Well, which added a million gallons of capacity to the system and we have six pressure zones in town and we have a number of wells and each of those wells really feed those pressure zones. We’ve had substantial development in North Plymouth, West Plymouth and Manomet. And during peak demand in the summer months, August usually when we’re experiencing drought, we have an issue width from capacity. Width from capacity is when you take your largest well offline, your ability to fight fires and provide domestic water really diminishes. So, that’s something that the DEP wants us to see to do a better job on. So, with that, in addition to that, we have two permits with the state, two basins we’re in and we’re allowed to pull so much water on the ground. We’re permitted to provide so much drinking water and water across the board. We have a hard time pulling enough water out to meet that demand. We are definitely going to need another well. This town maybe need two more wells to satisfy demand looking into the next 20, 30 years down the road.

Town meeting provided funds a couple years ago to kind of start doing some water needs forecasting. We’ve been doing that, really kind of honing in on those well sites. So, part of this money that we’re going to raise by increasing the rates will cover the installation and cost of the well. We can use retained earnings for that. We can use retained earnings to buy capital equipment, a truck. So, you’ll want a system that’s continuing to grow as the town grows. So, we kind of really need to keep that harmony balanced, if you would, with the rates.

Betty Cavacco:

So, you say two wells and I have a couple of questions about that. Where would those wells be?

Jonathan Beder:

That’s the million-dollar question. So, we’re doing a site screening with our water consultant Horsley Witten. We met a couple of weeks ago. We probably have a list of half a dozen prime locations. And the way we do that is we’re looking for a Zone 2, which is clean, it’s not impacted in the Zone 2. It’s really the geologic area underground that feeds that potential water supply. So, we need to make sure we own the land. We have to make sure we have enough area around the land. We have to make sure there’s not a conservation restriction on it. So, we’re kind of going through these exercises now and it will be back to you as water commissioners to kind of make those recommendations.

Betty Cavacco:

So, one of the issues that I have and I’ve had it all along is that we continually allow all of this development. We develop, we develop, we develop. I don’t see any developers building wells or buying wells. But I do see all the people, the tax payers footing the bill for these wells. What are we going to do to change that and stop it?

Jonathan Beder:

That’s an ongoing discussion. There is one developer we’re going to try to work with in the coming months to make that happen. But again, that’s kind of in the works, if you would. But generally, when we use–when we detail this large scale, whether it’d be a 40B, a 55 and older, comprehensive permits in general, we work with the developers and their attorneys, the Zoning Board, the Planning Board to develop a mitigation list in terms of water, sewer, traffic, drainage. There’s a whole list of things that we generally sit down with and do. We have been unable to get any developer to provide that type of an investment in the town. We tried like hell, but it’s very difficult for us because there’s only so much of a dollar value. And generally, the 40Bs aren’t obligated to do that. So, that’s the problem we face, but we are aware of it. Now, that we have the master plan and we have these things on record, that’s usually the first thing we approach the Zoning Board and Planning Board with it and say, “Hey, these are our needs. We need help with them.”

Betty Cavacco:

I understand the 40B situation but Derek, if we could find out some other way to–I mean, we can’t just keep building and expect the tax payers of Plymouth to foot the bill or carry the water for these developers. I mean, these wells are coming in at $10 – $12 million, maybe even more. I think the last time we approved a well, that was $11 million and that’s not the developer paying it. They’re walking away with a bag of money, but it’s the residents paying it and it’s not fair.

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, what we have done too–and again, I don’t want to far off topic here is some of those projects that aren’t 40B. For example, Amazon, some of the more retail commercial type projects, when we look at water connections and we see their demand, we’ll work with them to say, “Okay. We can only provide you this much water in this pressure zone but we need help with these upgrades at a particular well site to offset that need.” And most of them have been pretty good. For example, we have to reach the well, we have to put a VFT and a station if we have to upgrades to electrical systems. Anything we can do to make sure we provide sustainable uninterrupted water supply for that entire pressure zone we try to do. But there’s a certain dollar value on those developers all the time, which makes it a little bit difficult for us.

[0:15:14]

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah. If we could figure something out, because it’s continuous and it’s ridiculous.

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. To the Chair, so, it’s an interesting point that you bring up. In the past, we have set up systems where developers would pay into an account for affordable housing. So, I think what you’re suggesting is should we look at setting up a similar system where developers would pay into an account for water and sewer relief at some point. So, it’s something we can look at. We can work with our Planning Director, with our Finance Director to see if we can establish those accounts.

Betty Cavacco:

I would appreciate that. I think we definitely need to do something. Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

JB, has the issue, I think it was South Elementary School, is that well back online working properly?

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, all of our wells are online.

Dick Quintal:

Was it South Elementary who has issue with well?

Jonathan Beder:

The storms we had a couple of months ago, we had some power interruptions but all wells at this time were up and running.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Any more questions? John, no? Okay. Do you want to take these separately? Shall we vote on these separately? So, unless someone want to make a motion.

Harry Helm:

I motion that we accept the proposed adjustment to the FY ’23 water rates.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second?

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Now, we move on to transfer station.

Jonathan Beder:

Sewer?

Betty Cavacco:

Sewer.

Jonathan Beder:

Either/or, yeah, up to you. I can jump around.

Betty Cavacco:

No. Sewer is fine.

Jonathan Beder:

Okay, sewer. If anybody in the audience or in TV has questions on the screen, I see it’s a little blurry. But sewer, again, I didn’t mention the water side. We have 14,856 customers. Sewer side is 3,697. So, both have grown tremendously since I’ve been here and that’s a real good thing. But hats off to the town since the force main break to really control the sewer rates. We’re looking in across the board rate increase of only 2%, which is phenomenal. So, on the sewer side, first block, we’re making a recommendation of 12 cents, which is 2%. Second block is 19 cents, which is 2%. Third block is 21 cents, which is 2%. And then 25 cents. So, those are the recommended increases on the sewer side in terms of adjustments. Five-year consumption overall has been a little bit flat with COVID. But sewer again, we have healthy retained earnings in sewer of almost $2.5 million. But these minimal adjustments will really sustain sewer enterprise in terms of operating and salaries. So, these are the recommendations we’re making forward at this time. Happy to answer any questions.

Betty Cavacco:

Does the Board have any questions? Harry?

Harry Helm:

I believe this question is actually going to be for Lynne. Thanks, Lynne. Can you explain where we are in the–I remember few years ago when you were projecting the cost of the borrowing for the repair to the sewer system. There was a period where the impact was going to begin transferring to all residents of Plymouth, not just the tax payers. Did that ever happen? Did we go a different route?

Lynne Barrett:

So, initially, because we were trying to work out a borrowing plan with Massachusetts Clean Water Trust, we weren’t sure when all of the debt was going to hit the sewer enterprise fund. We thought that it may have to hit sooner rather than later, but they worked with us over the years in bringing that on. So, we’ve borrowed long-term for the new force main and the redundant main, so that is incorporated in the sewer enterprise fund. It’s only being paid for by the sewer enterprise fund users. It’s never been carried across to other tax payers or anything like that. Well, actually, as part of the recommendation in the fall, we’re going to recommend to appropriate 300,000 of the retained earnings to help offset the increase in this rate. So, this 2% includes that.

[0:20:06]

Lynne Barrett:

And the reason for that is we have one year left Fiscal ’23 on the original waste water treatment plan force main. We have debt of probably about $479,000 that’s going to fall off out of the enterprise fund. So, I hope that answered your question.

Harry Helm:

That absolutely answers my question. Thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

John?

John Mahoney:

Lynne, the new long-term debt, was that also 20 years?

Lynne Barrett:

The new long-term debt was 30 years and we did it in two separate borrowings. Because what ended up happening was the settlement with Veolia ended up paying off about half of the cost of the whole project. So, we did two borrowings. Each of them was 30 years and they were probably about two to three years apart from each other when they started.

John Mahoney:

Okay, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else?

John Mahoney:

Betty, I have one more for JB.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. JB?

Jonathan Beder:

Yes?

John Mahoney:

JB, I know the first significant sewer expansion went out 44 a few years ago. How successful was that? I mean, I know it took 15 years to get that going. We passed a betterment and so, I think you said earlier, we’re up almost 3700 customers. But with respect to that extension, how did that work out?

Jonathan Beder:

It took a while. I think a majority of the properties in that section of Samoset Street by Walgreens for everybody, the pump station we put in as John mentioned, town meeting adopted a bylaw to touch on betterments. So, that piece is done. We do plan on coming back to the Board to revise a comprehensive waste water masterplan because a number of things have changed over the years. What that is really a document that the state requires a municipality to have to really prioritize a program where the town will focus on sewer extensions. So, back then, I think we were around 2013, 2014. We were looking at Samoset extension, it was a two-phase piece. We were looking at an extension to Plymouth South. We were looking at Warren Ave., we’re looking at Camelot Drive. So, a lot of things have changed over the years. We have Camelot Drive sewer design now. We plan on going back to the fall town meeting, we’ll see you all at the fall with some betterment language and percentage voted by this Board to get that installed. We have been in discussions about bringing back the next phase of Samoset Street. So, a lot of those things and some other areas of town, by the airport on South Meadow Road. So, there has been a lot of changes, and all of that aimed at increasing flow of the waste water treatment plan. We have a 3 million galloon a day facility. We’re utilizing about half of that. So, as we drive more flow to the plan, it makes it much more economical in terms of rate control and managing the rates. So, I think that’s what that discussion kind of focuses around.

John Mahoney:

One more on the redundant pipe. So, it’s approximately 5 or 6 years old now?

Jonathan Beder:

2018, yeah.

John Mahoney:

20?

Jonathan Beder:

2018. So, it broke in 2015. I think we finished everything by 2018.

John Mahoney:

So, that’s functioning perfectly.

Jonathan Beder:

It is. It doesn’t leak that much, John.

John Mahoney:

Buy you’re able–over the last few years, you’ve shut it down. You send the cameras through, there’s a robot or something like that, you were able to check everything?

Jonathan Beder:

We have been flushing those routinely to make sure they’re clean and checking in on those in camera and everything is operating perfectly.

John Mahoney:

Thank you.

Jonathan Beder:

You’re welcome.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Any more questions from the Board? I wait for the Board.

Harry Helm:

I move we accept the proposed sewer rate adjustments for FY 2023.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second that.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

So, now, next is the transfer station, correct?

Jonathan Beder:

Yes. So, the last rate adjustment part of the hearing this evening is on the Solid Waste Rates. This is for your transfer station operations. So, these are all the categories that we have across the board, the rate are the recommended adjustments. So, we’re looking to make adjustments to the 1 Year Transfer Station pass, which is currently at 180. We’re looking to make an increase of $10. So, the new rate would be a 190.

[0:25:02]

Jonathan Beder:

Four Months Seasonal pass, which is at 80. We’re making a recommendation to increase that by $5 to 85. And then Recycle Only sticker which is a $40. We’re making a recommendation to increase that by $10 to a total cost of 50. A little bit different than water and sewer. I think we have 31 in change users at the transfer station now, which is not bad considering it’s been kind of etching up every year, which is nice to see. But the recycling market changes. We have a contract with CMS that will expire in 2025, which we pay a tipping fee. DPW staff really operate that transfer station in terms of hauling the wastes and the recycle materials. So, the entire market in tandem with gas prices, cost of materials, everything is really kind of changing, always increasing. So, that’s why really, we’re here this evening to make these recommendations. We’ve seen over the years $10 increase for trash disposal at this facility is really good. So, with that, I’m happy to answer any question.

Betty Cavacco:

Any questions from the board? I have a question. I asked about it every year, and every year, it never changes. But I mean, can’t we do something, some kind of reduced rate for our seniors? I mean, this is like 5 years in a row now. And I understand that we have cost and everything but we have to give them some relief and I think the conversation that we had last year about these prices for our senior citizens, which is what created the Senior Task Force, the Senior Working Group Task Force to find relief for our senior citizens. So, is there anything–

Jonathan Beder:

I’ll give you the factual data and then that’s a decision that this Board needs to make. In 2011, we really started looking at trash in Plymouth. Everything was out of place, if you would, in terms of managing it so it runs smoothly and effectively. If you provide a senior discount, somebody has to cover those costs. So, if you provide a $5 or a $10 discount to a senior citizen, another individual has to make that up somewhere in the enterprise fund. All your enterprise funds, none of them are subsidized by the general fund. That wasn’t the case years ago, which is part of the whole reason why we don’t provide a discount. And the other biggest pieces, we don’t know how many seniors use the program. We can’t give you a good estimate to say out of the 3100 in change, 200 may qualify. We don’t know. So, that would really provide an increase, which would require an adjustment in fall town meeting, which could be substantial and so that maybe problematic. But that’s typically why we haven’t kind of gone back to the elderly discount or the senior citizen discount if you would on the transfer station side, Betty.

Betty Cavacco:

I understand what you’re saying. I just don’t like it. Anybody have any other comments?

Dick Quintal:

I just have a question. JB, why are we going up on the recycle rate? I mean, doesn’t the town receive revenue from that and we should be trying to promote that? I mean–

Jonathan Beder:

Yes. So, again, remember, we use the bags from our recycling. It’s interesting, our tipping, our overall tonnages have gone down over the years. We’re one of the worst towns in the state years ago. We’ve kind of surpassed many communities, which is fantastic. But the recycling market is still out of whack. After the whole China sewer thing a couple years ago, the waste ban, recyclables. Certain materials, we make money, on certain materials cost us money. So, majority of those materials that we’re getting rid of still costs us more. That’s why we need the increase to cover those costs. What changed is the value of cardboard has gone down, the value of paper has gone down, co-mingled costs us, glass costs us. Years ago, we got money for glass. The value of metal has gone down. So, all of those things bring up that $10 in the recycling increase, Dickie.

Dick Quintal:

Because when you think about it, we’re trying to get the community to recycle and the more it goes up, they’re probably going to have an adverse effect on–I mean, they’re going to say, “Why should I bother?” I mean, we know why they should bother but–

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, I just want to touch on that too that a lot of the private haulers and there’s over a dozen of them in Plymouth, they charge quarterly fee or an annual fee significantly more than that 190, but that’s because they have to pay for the disposal or the removal or the proper disposal for those recyclables.

[0:30:00]

Jonathan Beder:

Here, yeah, we only want to charge $50 to get rid of that recycling piece, they’re still saving money because they can tell their haul to just get rid of the trash. So, there’s options here, which is a benefit to the town.

Lynne Barrett:

I just want to comment that JB is right, our tonnages have gone down over the years because of the use of the bags. So, people are incentivized to not throw as much away in the trash bag and to recycle. All the revenue that we receive from the recycling goes into the solid waste enterprise fund and is used as a funding source to offset the increase in this rate. So, all those factors are taken into consideration. So, it’s really important to keep the bags, to encourage the recycling and these are the rates that will help to keep the solid waste enterprise fund afloat and not go into a deficit situation.

Jonathan Beder:

I got another good one too. As I take a step back, I remember these things. And we run the recycling program. We have two attendants, we operate the equipment, we drive the recycling places across a few that’s going up, that’s another reason why we need to increase. Our salaries go up, our operating expenses go up. So, all of these components really drive revenue back into that enterprise fund.

Dick Quintal:

But I still think–actually, I–if it were me, I would make it zero because that way you’d have everybody recycling more. And the more they recycle, it would down the tonnage even more but I could be wrong. I mean, I keep hearing in the midst of it all that part of the increase is to support the budget. I mean–

Jonathan Beder:

Because it costs us money to get rid of those materials. If you zeroed out that recycling only line for that portion of the program and let us say I signed up and I have a recycling sticker, I’m dropping off 20 pounds of recycling every week and it’s costing the town a couple hundred dollars to get rid of it, that’s a loser. That’s why we’re charging the $50 for those recycling stickers because it’s a cost to the town to get rid of the product.

Lynne Barrett:

If we reduce the recycle only to zero then we would have to increase the regular transfer station rate by $13, so.

Dick Quintal:

We need to say these rates for the transfer station. Are there any vehicles in this budget? Are there any pay loaders in this budget? Is there any truck that’s in this budget? I mean, we can–I see you’re shaking your head. So, I mean, over the years, I’ve seen there never used to be years ago and now every year, we got a truck that we’re putting in there or our payload, or whatever the equipment is and that’s really to me not recycling. I mean, it’s just how you move the blocks around, which is okay. I get it. You need it for that, but I guess what I’m trying to say is I rather not be charging people more money to recycle if in fact it’s not just for the total running of the transfer station. When I say running, I don’t know what employee wages are out of there or what’s the equipment out of that. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying that’s wrong. I’m just asking for my own–

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah, but just to get into that level of detail in the recycling side, everybody. We know how many customers we have on the recycling side. We know what it costs to get rid of all those products. So, that number is individualized really for that piece. Overall, it’s the solid waste enterprise. But when we look at that Recycling Only sticker, we know we have X amount of people typically that get into that piece of the program. We know we need to raise it by $10 because overall, our average recycling costs are X.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Anyone else? We’ll bring it back to the Board.

Charlie Bletzer:

I make a motion to move.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Bletzer, second by Mr. Mahoney. All those in favor? Opposed, none. It passes. Thank you.

Jonathan Beder:

Thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. I am going to put the wood lot and dog parks on every single agenda so we can have this many people here from here on out. How’s that? So, we’re going to go into this hearing with the public wood lot.

[0:35:04]

Betty Cavacco:

This is more of a re-affirmation of the letter that the Select Board sent to the Gaming Commission last week or the week before. So, we will take some public comment, but I think Mr. Brindisi–Mr. Brindisi and I met with a representative of Boston South and we did receive a letter this evening from Boston South. I don’t know if you want me to read that into the record or would anyone like to read it into the record?

Derek Brindisi:

Certainly, if you like to, I can certainly read it. I have it sitting in front of me if you like me to.

Betty Cavacco:

Or do you want–Harry said he’ll read it so go ahead.

Harry Helm:

I’ll read it into the record but Mr. Brindisi, could you do me a favor, can you call up the letter that we sent last week to the Gaming Commission and read it in case folks are not familiar with what we did. And this was immediately post the elections and the ballot question.

Derek Brindisi:

That’s correct. So, through the Chair, so, we issued a statement to a Ms. Lightbound [?]. She is one of the administrators at the State Gaming Commission. So, it says:

Good afternoon, Ms. Lightbound;

Please be advised that the Plymouth Select Board intends to ratify the vote of the non-binding referendum question from its annual town election held on May 21st, 2022 which asked Plymouth residents whether they support a thoroughbred horse racing facility in the Town of Plymouth. The result of such election determined that 88% of Plymouth voters are against such project. To that end, it’s important for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to know that it is the Plymouth Select Board’s intention to take a final position at its next meeting, June 7th by opposing a thoroughbred horse racing facility here in Plymouth. An official letter will be forwarded to your office on June 8th, 2022 confirming such action.

Harry Helm:  

And today, we received from Boston South and Loring Tripp, the Director of Planning and Community Development from Boston South.

Mr. Derek Brindisi, Town Manager;

In response to your request on May 28th, 2022 for an update on our intentions moving forward, I submit the following. Over the month of June, Boston South will be working with the county to finalize our agreement. And by June 23rd begin our site-specific due diligence process for 90 days thereafter. This will be followed by a one to three-year due diligence period in which we will explore our main concept under the proposal as well as many other options. We hope that during this time, the Select Board and community realize we are legally and morally bound to the commitment we have made to Plymouth County and each of its 27 communities. Exploring and considering all economic opportunities for this county asset which will create long-term revenue streams to benefit the county and its citizen remains our primary objective.

We greatly appreciate the Select Board’s letter of endorsement, April 5th, 2022 supporting this transparent and public process as confirmed by the March 29th, 2022, 3-2 vote in the affirmative on the matter. We at Boston South have voluntarily agreed to in advance of any action or mandate required by the town or state execute this process at our own expense and risks. We stand firm on our end of that commitment and hope the Select Board stands firm on theirs as well. We hope this provides clarity as to our intentions re-affirming our commitments and re-acknowledging our responsibilities. We look forward to working with your office, the Select Board and the Plymouth community once the process and initial due diligence has ended in late September of this year.

Betty Cavacco:

I have some comments. So, if anyone else has comments, they’re more than happy to go ahead. So, one of the things that many folks don’t realize and I would like to prepare, to have the town manager prepare another letter to the Gaming Commission, our state delegation and anyone else you can think of. Mr. Brindisi and I had a meeting with Boston South–

[0:40:02]

Derek Brindisi:

Two weeks ago.

Betty Cavacco:

Two weeks ago. At that meeting, we were told that Boston South was moving forward without a horse track. So, this letter that we received today is something different than what we were told. And you can confirm that. Derek, that is what we were told, correct?

Derek Brindisi:

That is correct, yes.

Betty Cavacco:

So, with that being said, not only would I like the letter that we initially sent to the Gaming Committee, I’d also like explicit recall of the conversation that we had with Boston South and their promise to remove horse track racing from their RFP or proposal or whatever it is. And also, there’s additional language that we would like to add. Mr. Bletzer, if you would, please.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes. First of all, we never endorsed a horse racing track. I don’t want to keep going over that because we’ve said it so many times. But I think we need to add to our letter, make it very clear to Boston South and to the state: Plymouth does not support gaming including but not limited to horse racing, sports wagering and casino gaming in our town under any circumstances. So, we should send that to the Mass Gaming Commission. It makes it very clear what we stand for. I think we can save a lot of time here tonight if we send this letter what we agreed to it because I think that’s what all you folks are interested in accomplishing, so.

Betty Cavacco:

And also–I’m sorry, Harry. And also, Derek, if you would put historical horse racing because that’s another little buzz word that we’re hearing. I don’t even know what it means but yeah, some type of gambling.

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. We can do that.

Charlie Bletzer:

Just for the record, I don’t regret letting them due diligence because it’s our job. It’s our duty to let them go forward without any expenses to Plymouth. We didn’t have to consult council. It’s not our job to do that, and let them come back and see what they can and can’t do in a couple of years. And we will only support a proposal that the residents support. And right now, gaming, casinos, racinos, horse tracks, that’s not going to happen. And they can’t do it without our support, without our approval and it’s not going to happen. But we still have to do our due diligence and see what they come back. If they come back with another proposal. First of all, I have to–Exit 5 is a nightmare and I wouldn’t let them put a church there until they get those roads fixed because it’s just too congested there. But if they came back with some kind of a proposal, a development that the folks, the head butters and the residents of Plymouth were in favor of, we’d have to think about it. But right now, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. But I don’t regret. I’m not going to say that I’m sorry that I let them do the due diligence because I think it’s their job. We need to look at ways of getting some kind of commercial economic development into this town to help stabilize our residential taxes. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Yeah. I just like to–Derek, I’d like to point out that I believe it’s required per Mr. Bletzer’s statement, we have to be specific about where for the purposes of the race track and the racino, if you will, or any ancillary gambling. We have to be clear that we are voting to tell the Gaming Commission that the Board of Selectmen in a hopefully unanimous vote rejects what Mr. Bletzer said on the county wood lot and the three parcels delineated: The Balboney, the Silva and the wood lot.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, certainly. Through the Chair, we certainly can identify the partial IDs that’s as specific as we can get.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. They will not accept the letter saying that the Board of Selectmen rejects the wording that Mr. Bletzer had throughout Plymouth. That’s not apropos to this subject.

Derek Brindisi:

Sure.

Harry Helm:    

Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. And I just wanted to just kind of clarify a couple things that came out in my mind when I read this letter earlier today.

[0:45:02]

Harry Helm:

They talked about the due diligence period and I just want all the residents to understand this is not over with. We will explore our main concept under the proposal. Okay? Under their response to the RFP, that is their proposal. We will explore our main concept under the proposal. Their main concept was a race track, period. Pretty clear. I also thought it was interesting that they said they are going to explore and consider all economic opportunities for this county asset, which will create long term revenue streams to benefit the county and its citizens. The county citizens not the citizens particularly of Plymouth who are going to have to deal with this for the rest of our lives if it comes through. I’m insulted by this statement. And I’m going to make it really, really clear for any of the members of Boston South who may be listening or watching this how insulted that I am that they’ve actually backtracked even further from their lack of commitment to the people of Plymouth. So, they’ve actually gone even further backwards.

And I like it that the “creating long-term revenue streams to the benefit of the country and its citizens remains their primary objective,” how noble of them that profit is not their primary objective. So, I find this whole section of the letter to be incredibly insulting to the board, to all residents of Plymouth. And I just needed to make that statement. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, one of the things that I want to be clear and precise is that this board is going to follow the vote, period. There’s nothing more. We’re going to follow the vote. 88% of the people said there’s no horse racing. There’s no horse racing. And I believe that this board will do everything in their power to fight that. So, after conversations, I spoke to our State Representative today and he said, it is nearly impossible if this Town of Plymouth has a vote that says no horse racing and the Selectmen come out and say, “There’s no horse racing.” There will not be any horse racing. He said it would be something that he has never experienced that the state would go against what this town says. So, I’m optimistic that we will prevail but it is extremely insulting and more insulting that the Town Manager and myself had a conversation and they told us point blank that they were removing the race track. So, at this point, whatever we need to do, we do. We send the letter. Once the letter is crafted, we’ll post it on our social media and hopefully, we can send that letter up there immediately by whenever it can get.

Derek Brindisi:

We can get it out tomorrow.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect. So, I don’t know if anybody has any comments that they need to make of information that we don’t know about or haven’t heard about in the past. Sir, you can come up and please state your name.

Mark Ochito:

Mark Ochito [?]. I had a little bit of knowledge on the gaming system in Massachusetts. Under the law, it’s for folks to understand, the county cannot be the host community. It has to actually be a town. Under that provision, the town must vote that also you have to agree to enter in the negotiations. I would suggest, I’m not saying for or against it, but I would say that you could say in the letter we have no intention nor will we ever have intentions of entering into negotiations on a host community agreement. If you do that, the Gaming Commission can say, “You can never get the license.” They won’t talk either. If you put that in this letter, I think you’d kill it. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, would you check with legal counsel to be sure that we can put that information, that statement in the letter, please?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I can do that.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mann and then Ms. Davis. And if you just state your name for the record.

[0:50:03]

Frank Mann:

Thank you, Madam chairman.

Betty Cavacco:

Can you hold on just a second, Frank? I’m sorry, the board–

Charlie Bletzer:

Mark, I just want to respond to that. Just so you know, the information I got, the wording I got was from a former Senate President Therese Murray. So, I think the wording we have is pretty good. I mean, I think we all trust her judgment, so.

Mark Ochito:

You have to agree to enter into negotiations or agreement. If you do not enter into those negotiations, there can be no agreement.

Betty Cavacco:

Just one more thing. Chris, would you do something about the AC in here. It’s like pretty hot. Thanks. Frank?

Frank Mann:

Thank you. I see an opportunity in this moment in the letter from Boston South and then the reliance on the county. I think from the beginning, the county’s actions have been scurrilous. When they talked about a service to the county and really are indifferent to the problems here in Plymouth or the concerns here or the rejection, the overall rejection in Plymouth.

One of the things that the county depends on is the support of the 27 communities that make up the county and there’s an advisory board, I don’t know who the representative here is that goes to those advisory board meetings but I believe that there’s probably very few of those communities, in those 27, that represent the county that would want the same thing in the midst of their community. And I would say let’s go to those communities and let’s get them to tell the county which supposedly represents those people that they are opposed to this as well and then they won’t have any grounds to stand on.

The thing I am most worried about from the beginning is not that this will eventually happen. I share your belief that once you have taken the actions you’ve taken and the letter, you’re going to write today that this will not happen, nevertheless, that means an extended period of pain for a lot of people not only for yourselves but for all the people in this community that are going to work very hard and have better things to do, more positive things to do to this community than fight something that should never have been considered in the first place. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

If I may comment, Frank. The process was considered, not a horse track. It was a process. The motion was clear. So, that is something that we do with everyone. We support a process. Could you state your name for the record, please?

Virginia Davis:

Well, this is Virginia Davis, Precinct 4 rep. It’s just a technical question. We know that Wareham was approached. They had a different name then. It wasn’t Boston South and the town, the Selectmen first voted for it and then the town had a town meeting and they voted against it and so it went away. And then Sturbridge, the same situation. What I wanted about Wareham and Sturbridge; we know we’re dealing with county land with them. Was it just some farmland they were going to take? So, is that a technical thing that adds another glitch to it versus private land county land? It’s just a technical thing that somebody can explore. Thanks!

Harry Helm:

Ginny, I would say an answer to that that the Plymouth County certainly thinks that it makes it very different for them. And the question whether it actually does or not is still up in the air but we’ve heard enough from the county that they believe that because it’s county land, it’s for lack of a better word, it’s not an intentional pun, it’s a horse of a different color.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead.

Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18 Town Meeting member. And I just have a question about whether or not should it also be stated that about 75% of this parcel is on residential. I don’t know if it makes the difference, but to the Gaming Commission, it might. And the Gaming Commission has all this extra money to spend and they’re promoting race tracks and we have gotten some information on that just recently. So, I just am concerned if they have this $20 million sitting around and supposedly Boston South have been in contact with–anyway, but I’m just asking about the residential piece because I think that to me is important in terms of that particular land, so. Thank you.

[0:55:09]

Betty Cavacco:

And that’s where our wonderful town meeting comes in.

Pat McCarthy:

Correct! But in terms of in stating our facts of why we as citizens who did choose to vote on an unfortunately is non-binding referendum but it was a referendum question. So, I think that was certainly something that was of concern to citizens who have voted no. So, in terms of the board going along with what the citizens and that vote and there were I think a larger percentage of people because I always say like the comment was at that public meeting they had, that hardly anybody votes anyway in town elections so they weren’t going to listen to the vote anyway. But we did have a higher percentage about 14.75% voters voted on that question from my not too good math calculation. But I just think that was an added factor. And I don’t know if that should be in the letter. I’m just asking it, suggesting maybe that was some of the rationale. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thanks. Derek, if you see the importance of that, would you please add that? And now, back to the Board unless there’s any more comment on the wood lot. Okay. Back to the Board. Obviously, Derek is crafting a letter. Do we have any questions, comments, concerns? Anything?

John Mahoney:

I didn’t hear a motion. So, what are we doing? We’re asking the town manager to incrementally build on the letter that was crafted one to two weeks ago?

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

John Mahoney:

You’re going to improve upon that?

Derek Brindisi:

Based upon the recommendations and advise this evening, yes, I will. That’s my intention.

Harry Helm:

I do believe that we do have to have a motion and a vote.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Derek Brindisi:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

So, would you like to make that or we’ll actually–

Dick Quintal:

I will support your motion but I just want to back up a little bit. I mean, the racetrack wasn’t mentioned in the original letter that we sent. It never was. Was it in the proposal? Yes, it was to the county. It’s a little confusing but I just want everyone to know I don’t support that. I do support looking at economic development on that lot. And I will continue to support that as long as it’s proven in its diligence and that’s what any developer does or anybody trying to bring a business to town. And I think it’s a very emotional thing, I get it. But I think it’s also, you know, we have to change our cover a little bit in this town. Are we going to be a community and if you’re all happy with that then that’s where we are headed. Nobody likes to see the 300 units behind the depot. I’m also told and you know, was it speck out? It wasn’t. That 100 acres would bring in $2 billion annually to the county if it was 40B. So, a lot of people have done their homework. I’m just touching things. So, I say the first thing I ever said to them was you need to address the traffic and they know that and that’s what this process is. I still want to keep my eye on the biotech. I want to keep my eye on a convention center, not a giant one naturally but something or a minor sports league. I don’t want to throw everything out the window because I think once–I mean, and the community will decide and the planning board and all the boards that it has to go through. But I mean, when somebody comes to town, you have to treat them with respect and you have to listen. I mean, that’s the way I operate. And while I’m talking a little about this, I’ll give you a couple examples. Economic development on Cherry Street next to Amazon, there’s a big parcel over there. Roundtree Corporation which one is a Hyundai and not Plymouth formerly SGARZI Pontiac has been trying to put up a $5 million dealership up off of Cherry Street. They were almost ready to walk three weeks ago. Oh, I can tell you exactly when it was, right before we reorganized.

[1:00:04]

Dick Quintal:

I got several phone calls that week from different developments all over Plymouth large and small, concerns about the hoops that they have to go through to build something in this community, or to put a $5 million investment. I know people laugh and they joke this all their corporations, but this is what the people are or a lot of the people in the community are upset about. Come back here when we set the tax rate, sit in the audience and listen to what the people say, and why our taxes are, there’s a great imbalance with that. I’m not saying develop the whole town here. I was born here. I love this Town just as much as everybody in this audience. And I try every day not to make a wrong decision, but I’m not perfect, but it’s my job speaking for myself not the Board, when somebody comes to me with something and has proposal for the town, this is where I bring it. I mean, I brought it to town meeting. If I was a sneaky guy, I wouldn’t have said a word but if you listen to what I said, I said there were possibilities and that’s just the way it still stands, I hope. And because the last thing I want to do is agitate developers so that they do something we really don’t want them to do, and you’re going to hear about that when we get to–are we going to be discussing the Chiltonville? You’re going to hear some more disturbing news tonight about that. So, I keep my eye on the ball.

Look at Water Street, one of the reasons I ran, they’re going to put the new marina and that guy’s got a right to do that, but do you want to lose the frontage, the façade of that building? I know there’s been talks, and I’m hearing there ain’t talks and I heard it got thrown out the window in my terms. I mean, I’m going to bring up on a new business tonight expand in the historical district. America’s Hometown and we’ve probably got the smallest historical district in the country, just saying. So, you always support what the people want, but I’m also cautiously about economic development and in the right place. I mean, in my eyes an industrial park, of sewer treatment plant that still has 1.5 million gallons flow a day, and I’m not saying develop the whole thing. I don’t know what they’re going to propose, but let’s be open-minded a little bit.

We know about the horse racing and we get it and I agree with you. But let’s not throw everything out the window and get something we really don’t want. And we know the traffic and the issues, but I mean the town has got a–in the Boards, I should say have got to work better with business. I mean, it shouldn’t be such it’s like it’s a fight and I don’t know why it has to be that way. And I see a newly elected Planning Board Official in my audience, and I’m hoping that he brings some light, and just be a voice also for business because that’s what it takes for a community. And we’re not going to get anything on the tax rate until we change our way. So, I mean, I gave you two examples, I can give you three more, which is another reason I decided–one of the reasons I decided not to be the chairman this year, because I couldn’t take any more phone calls that I know was just totally wrong, and so that’s why.

Betty Cavacco:

So, you gave them to me?

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, that’s all yours. So, I’m still here and I’ll still be a voice and I just want to be–I always want to be open and honest with the people. You don’t have to agree with me, but there’s the big picture we have to look at too.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

So that we are technically correct, I’d like to make a motion. I motion that a letter is constructed and sent to the State Gaming Commission expressing the Select Board’s total opposition to a thoroughbred race track located on the three lots known as: the County Woodlot, the Silva lot and the Balboney lot.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second?

John Mahoney:

Excuse me, I’ll second it for discussion.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion.

Dick Quintal:

That would be parcel 088-000-054-000, 63 Camelot Drive.

John Mahoney:

The only thing I would interject is this something that are we limiting ourselves to just the county woodlot and the subsequent parcels or do we want to do the–so something wrong with the whole community?

Harry Helm:

That would have to be under a totally different thing. The Gaming Commission is quite clear in the state statutes, we must be specific about the land that we are saying that it cannot be on. We must be specific. Now, if you would like to bring that up for a discussion at a next agenda.

[1:05:08]

John Mahoney:

Okay. I’ll get with the Chair on that.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, we had second. Any more discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. And we will post that letter as soon as we have it tomorrow on the Town Website and hopefully all of our little Facebook friends will grab it and share it. Right, Steve? Both Steve’s. So, now next is public comment. Sure, we can do both.

Cherry Duncan:

Hi, good afternoon! My name is Cherry Duncan, I live at 10 Sever Street, and I am in Precinct 3. I recently circulated a petition online and have received 189 signatures from people in Plymouth. There were also some people from–

Dick Quintal:

The green light on?

Cherry Duncan:

Yeah, the green light is on. Sorry, I guess, I have to–I’m too tall. There were 189 signatures from people in Plymouth, many of those signatures were from people abutting the park, people on Sever Street, people on Allerton Street, people on Clyfton Street, the petition that I circulated was strictly related to the fence around the park. I did not propose that we make this into a dog park in any way, shape or form, just that we had heard that the Parks Department was intending to take down the fence because of problems with dogs. And as the neighborhood, we do not want that fence removed. My petition did not suggest that we divide the park, although personally, I think that’s a good solution, but the idea of taking that fence down is really a bad idea for a number of reasons. So, that’s all I can represent on the petition. Myself personally, I would like to say that I don’t have any issues, and I’ve noticed many people in the neighborhood don’t have issues with the dogs at the park. There are others who do, and I do not find that to be unfair I think you know there are certainly reasons why it’s not the best location in Plymouth for a dog park and a previous Board has already gone through that and selected another location once. So, I hope that that can move forward, but I’d really like to see them just leave Allerton Street Park alone or divide it up, and protect the playground so that the dogs are not in the playground area.

We’d also like to ask that the DPW return the gates and the gate latches that they removed from the park over the last three months because they felt if they removed the gates and the latches that it would allow the dogs to run out into the street, and it would discourage people from using the park. So, we’d like those returned. If they could please. And we’d also just like to ask that they try to maintain it as regularly as possible. Every summer I’ve been there they have come and mowed that lawn once a month like clockwork, but it could use a little bit more than that. So, we see them five times a year then all the leaves get picked up right after Thanksgiving. If we could just have a little bit more maintenance of the park, I think that would be a great thing, and that’s it. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Anyone else for public comment?

Steve Lydon:

Steve Lydon, I live down in South Plymouth. And a number of years ago a development came in, was called Redbrook and A.D. Makepeace. They have done a hell of a job and they’ve committed to most everything that they said they would do except one intersection that’s been in the planning stages now for 5 years. It hasn’t been done. It’s a real dangerous intersection, traffic backs up in the morning especially when schools are in session. I have no idea why that intersection hasn’t been done. They’ve done all the other ones and installed all the lights and crosswalks they said they were going to do, but this is getting out of hand, and it’s real dangerous trying to come out of that intersection.

[1:10:08]

Steve Lydon:

So, I know that the Planning Board has to release lots before they can build on them so maybe if we didn’t release some of their lots until this intersection was done then maybe something like that could happen. But right now, it’s a tough intersection. You can look and when you’re taking the left, you look to the right, you look to the left, you look to the right, you don’t see anybody, and you start taking the left and next thing you know somebody comes flying around that corner on Long Pond Road. So, it’s very dangerous. So, if something could be done, it’d be great. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

What intersection is that, Steve?

Steve Lydon:

That’s Halfway Pond Road and Bourne Road. I’m sorry, Halfway Pond Road and Long Pond Road.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Town Manager will take a look at it. Yeah. Anyone else for public comment? Sure. Could you please state your name for the record?

Kate Sekerak:

My name is Kate Sekerak. I live at 26 Bradford Street. I’m a member of the Bradford Area Commission. We’ve been involved in the Safe Harbor Marina’s plans to demolish and rebuild a historic waterfront building since December of last year. I just would like it officially noted here that the neighborhood as well as Plymouth residents at large are not in support of Safe Harbor’s current plans to build an enormous national brand design warehouse within the waterfront village. Despite numerous attempts to negotiate a common ground proposal that included preservation and despite being instructed by several Town Boards to work with the community, Safe Harbor’s attorney has shut down all discussion and any efforts to preserve the historic site. We have been fully supportive of Safe Harbors business needs and right to make their purchase a success. However, we intend to continue to fight this building plan with every opportunity and all available means necessary. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

James Emmett:

I’m James Emmett from 22 Allerton Street. Before I go on, are we going to be addressing Allerton Street playground as an item on the agenda?

Betty Cavacco:

We are.

James Emmett:

All right. Shall I defer my comments until then?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, please.

James Emmett:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Any more public comment? Anyone online, Chris? Okay.

Kathie Khederian:

Hi, my name is Kathie Khederian. I live at 16 Allerton Street. I don’t have a plan statement. I’ve been in my home for coming up on 35 years, the park abuts me and in review, I researched, I think it’s Park #8 described as a children’s park. I’ve watched over the past number of years, the population of children diminished and a very large population of dogs. Dogs can be visiting 25 times a day at least, and that means dog waste. The park is not maintained, and it seems to be now almost by eminent domain become a dog park and that’s not the description. I would like to see the park maintained as a children’s park. There are a lot of kids in the park. 35 years, my kids grew up there. It was used as a soccer park. My kids attended Cold Spring School. We had every Tuesday games there. It’s not an appealing park for kids to go. I have a daughter, she’s 43, she will not bring her kids there. You can’t even mow it because there’s sand, grass, sand, grass. it’s not described as a dog park. It’s a children’s park and I would like to see it maintained as that. Thank you for listening to me.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

[1:15:08]

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Yes, there are. Let’s see, one, two, three more items down. Sure. Okay. Next is the 4th of July celebration update.

Matt Tavares:

Okay. Mrs. or Madame Chairman or Chairwoman, I’m sorry. Thanks for having us in tonight. We’ll do a little vibe change here I think a little bit. So, we just wanted to come in and just kind of give you an update a little bit as to where we are. We’re definitely on track for our goal again this year. We’re taking last year as an outlier where we’re on track about where we are usually with funding. I believe we’ll get there. We had a number of corporate sponsors come in recently. We have the Cordage Commerce Center, South Shore Race Management, Alden Park, Dunlap’s Oil and Gas. And as of this week, we received our largest sponsor sort of America’s Hometown sponsor is what we call that from Tech-Etch, and then we also had a liberty sponsor come in just a little while ago, while I was sitting here from Navitas System Integration. So, the businesses are starting to come in which is a huge help, but we have also received even today a number of individual donations, but we can always do more with more as we all know discussing taxes and our water rates. We can always do more with more. So, if anyone is out there listening and watching this evening, we do accept donations online at july4plymouth.com, and we also take it by check as well. So, you can send that to our PO box, which is PO box 1776 Plymouth, Massachusetts 02362.

I’m just going to run through kind of the quick events of the day, and I’ll let Anne Marie speak to the road race because I’m sure that there’ll be some concerns about that as far as road closures and what time. But obviously we have our annual road race which is hugely successful, gets larger and larger every year by hundreds of people maybe even by almost close to a thousand last year over. And then at 9 o’clock, we’ll have our parade which will be stepping off from Cordage Park this year which is a different location. It does make the parade route, I think I calculated about just under a half mile shorter, but we will be leaving from Cordage Park, going down Court Street, Main Street, Main Street Extension, turning Water Street and then heading back north up Water Street and ending at the Plymouth Rock. And then we’ll have food trucks in the Pilgrim Memorial Park throughout the day as typical. And then at about 9:00 p.m-ish, I say, because it just depends on how dark it is the fireworks display will kick off. Before that though, I did neglect to mention the Plymouth Philharmonic will also be performing their concert, which we did not have last year, so it’s nice to have them back. They do a wonderful job. I think that’s kind of it for me other than the fact that with the parade this year, we have noticed since COVID that a number of bands have either shrunk in size or disbanded. We have reached out to a number of places. We do have bands lined up, but we also want to say if you’re a local band, and you want to be in the parade, contact us. If you also are a civic organization within the community, please also contact us. This has always been a community driven parade. We have a wonderful group of people putting together floats this year, but we could always use more, and I think that’s the best part about this parade is that it’s community driven, and it’s a time for us to celebrate each other and that’s kind of our parade theme this year, where we’re celebrating Plymouth. We did kind of lose that with 2020 and COVID. So, I think that this is a good way for the community members and organizations within the community to showcase themselves and attend.

[1:20:03]

Matt Tavares:

So, please reach out to us if you’d like to get an entry and we make it very easy. With that, I think–I don’t know if Anne Marie, you want to talk about the road race real quick or? Well, I just want to explain where it’s headed down the streets.

Anne Marie Winchester:

Yes, absolutely! Thank you so much for giving us some time tonight to just give you a quick update on what we’ve got going on. So, last year, we made a minor change to the race, and we decided to start it at 7:30 instead of 8:15. We’re going to continue to do that this year as well. The police are on board with it. We’ve decided to do it that way because it allows people to get in and out of town if they’re not staying for the parade. It also allows us to keep the runners a little bit safer because there’s not as much traffic on the roads at that hour and there aren’t as many people trying to come in and get their prime spots on the parade route. So, that worked really well last year. It also, for some reason, increased our numbers, although I think it’s because we were the first post-COVID road race out the door in the area. So, we are looking at between 800 and 1000 runners. Again, the race does start and finish right in Stephens Field. We also changed the parking. We will not allow any parking in Stephens Field either because the cars moving with the runners walking around is not a safe condition. So, we’re going to ask everybody to park outside of Stephens Field. They will leave onto Sandwich Street, take a right, take Main Street Extension, Main Street Court right up to the–what I still call the Benny’s Plaza, take a right on Nelson, come down Water Street, left on Union and finish back right in Stephens Field. So, it’s just the regular downtown loop that we do for most of the road races when we do them down in the harbor. So, that’s all the road race information.

A couple of things on the waterfront we will have some food trucks that will be along the waterfront this year during the parade, the afternoon, as well as the evening. We have the Alden Park Food Truck that will be down there. We have the Mom’s On The Go Food Truck which is gourmet grilled cheese. They give us a menu of three or four different items that they’ll have right before the event, and then we also have our Novelty Vendor and Ryan’s Concessions will be there doing popcorn and cotton candy. So, those will all be out all throughout the day. Like Matt was saying we do have the Phil concert that night and that will kick off the fireworks which Jeff will go over. The website july4plymouth.com that has not only your donations, but it lists all of our sponsors, our individual donors. It gives the full schedule of events, it provides information on parking and road closures. So, all of the information is on the website that is also on our Facebook page. If you have not liked the Facebook page, there are all kinds of information being posted there every single day. All of the updates will be done in those locations, if anybody is looking for any information. And with that, I’m going to pass over to Jeff. I know you guys have a packed agenda tonight. So, if anybody has any questions, I guess we can do that afterwards.

Jeff Metcalfe:

Good evening. Thanks, Anne Marie. Good evening, everyone. We have a thumb drive, but we know things are queued up here, so I brought up a backup map of the parade lineup. As many of you know, for the last several years, we are in a parking lot at the northern end of the Town, but it’s now Moonrise Cinemas. So, it’s difficult to put two groups together in the same place. So, we went back. We’re going back to Cordage Park. We were there for several years until construction started on this upper part parking lot, but we wanted to let everybody know kind of the way to get around Cordage Park to do the lineup if you are participating in the parade. So, the idea is right off of Court Street, you come into the entrance, and then you go to your left around Mill Pond to come around the building and behind the brick building with the tower, it’s Mill # 10. And then if you’re coming around the building, and you’re just dropping off your kids or participants, what you can do is just turn around in the same parking lot and come back out, but if you’re participating in the parade, you’d be coming straight by 1620 Winery coming around the building and then the parking lot will be broken up into the three divisions: Division 1, Division 2 and Division 3. Division 1 being closer to the street because obviously that’s the first one to exit Cordage Park. So, you’ll be met by several people here at the corner, and then you’ll be directed which division that you’re in and there’ll be people in each of the divisions.

[1:25:09]

Jeff Metcalfe:

We’re lucky to have our Plymouth Rotary Club has agreed once again to help us with that as well. So, as you come around and as Matt mentioned, it’s going to start at 9:00 this year instead of 9:30. So, right around quarter after nine, we’ll start to the entrance of Cordage Park, and we’ll wait for the fire trucks who will be lined up at the old parking lot where we were becoming down the street. They’ll start everything off. I’m sure if you don’t see them, you’ll hear them and then the parade will follow just behind the fire trucks. And then it’s the same route as it always been through the center of town as Matt had mentioned.

We’re also excited to once again have a contract with Atlas Pyrotechnics. Last year was a little bit larger than what had been in the past. They normally just provide us with two barges, but they are doing three barges which make it a little bit fuller presentation. And as was mentioned, it starts just at dusk, but we’re excited because Atlas does a great job for us and puts on a great show. So, we’re getting excited about pulling people together and seeing everybody on the waterfront as we have the last several years. So, I hope you come down and enjoy it.

Matt Tavares:

So, that’s it. So, if you have any questions, we’re more than welcome to take them.

John Mahoney:

So, the expansion of fireworks last year that Jeff just referenced, is that going to continue?

Matt Tavares:

Yes. We’re going to have the three barges again this year.

John Mahoney:

Three barges again this year now.

Matt Tavares:

And again, it’s one of those things we can do more with more. So, do you want four barges next year? Okay, well.

John Mahoney:

So, when you expanded last year, was that because of the 400th anniversary? Is that why?

Matt Tavares:

I’m sorry?

John Mahoney:

Was it the 400th anniversary last year that triggered that larger firework?

Matt Tavares:

That was always the intent, but last year, as a number of members of this Board knows, we were originally under the impression that we weren’t allowed to have large gatherings again, then kind of closer, I mean, what do we have? A month, maybe two months, I’m a little fuzzy. I mean, all the years are blending together at this point, but we were really close to the 4th of July deadline, and it was decided by the Committee that we could do fireworks, and we were able to get that together. And we had a number of businesses step up last year and the community itself, we raised money in a record pace than I’ve ever seen. Everyone answered the call. We actually did so well that we were able to afford a third barge, which was great. We always try in money in is money out every year and it does take a big expense to put this on. So, we wanted to reward the Community with the third barge, but once you go big, it’s hard to go back. So, we’re going for three again this year, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

Any other questions? Great, thank you.

Matt Tavares:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Next is the funding mechanism for 46 Sandwich Road, Mr. Brindisi?

Derek Brindisi:

Great. So, just to provide the Board an update. When you had originally discussed the acquisition of 46 Sandwich Road, there was the thought that we could use CPC dollars to cover a substantial portion of this acquisition. As you know, the Community Preservation Committee is committed to supporting this but not at the appropriation that we were originally seeking. And so, they have stated that they would be willing to pay up to $600,000 to secure 10 acres of land. So, what’s before you this evening is a couple of things for consideration. If we were to use CPC dollars of $600,000, we would have to borrow an additional $800,000. In all these scenarios, just so I’m clear, under all these scenarios, the Finance Director is recommending that we use 2,271,409 as far as the number for free cash. So, again $2,271,409 coming from free cash.

[1:30:05]

Derek Brindisi:

So, as you know, when we have to borrow it requires a two-thirds vote. The second scenario, again, still a borrowing amount, but I would suggest you consider using, instead of using CPC dollars you could then borrow the entire 1.4 million dollars. By borrowing the $1.4 million dollars and not using CPC support, you have more flexibility with how you plan to use the 25 acres of land. As you know, as I just stated, that if you use CPC dollars, you’re going to have to identify 10 acres of land that would have to be a Conservation Restriction and that would be put towards open space in perpetuity. So, those are the two recommendations that are before you this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

I have a couple questions and maybe Lynne can answer them. So, one of the things I was wondering is, would we be able to use ARPA funds? I know we have about $5 million left in ARPA. What I guess I’m trying to get to is not have to borrow. And although, if we do get this land and we make movement of where we kind of want to be. And obviously Derek, you’ve gotten the direction from the Board to get a list of all of our properties and start putting things up for sale, which would actually also be getting a professional real estate company to assess and get the market value and actually sell those parcels. So, I don’t know if we could use ARPA funds and not have to borrow, just use free cash borrowing. The nuclear mitigation fund, I think John had suggested that we may be able to use that, but would still need that two-thirds vote. No, no, no. I’m sorry, George, but Mr. Mahoney, said that you would have to still get a two-thirds vote for that to use that money. So, I guess my question is, is there any monies anywhere that we would not have to borrow to purchase this piece of property?

Derek Brindisi:

I would say, in short, the only place that there’s money available that would prevent us having to borrow would be the use of ARPA funds. We have approximately $2.5 million in ARPA. We predict that there may be an additional 2.8 down the road that’s coming towards the town. As you know, we have tens of millions of dollars of needs for this community and so using ARPA dollars is under the authority of the Select Board. So, if that was your pleasure, it’s something I would suggest you should discuss, but just know that the risk that we would run is that we would limit our ability to do other projects here in the community. If we were to use $1.4 million of ARPA.

Betty Cavacco:

John?

John Mahoney:

Derek, just a quick overview of ARPA funds, where they come from and what a community can do with them.

Derek Brindisi:

Okay. So, I have Lynne’s sitting to my left, so she can fill in the blanks, but so folks that aren’t quite clear what ARPA is, it comes from the American Rescue Plan. The Federal Government appropriated billions and billions of dollars to help the nation recover from the pandemic. And so, Massachusetts received I don’t know how much, but probably over a couple billion dollars through ARPA. The Town’s allocation to ARPA has already been approximately $12 million, and like I mentioned this is up to an additional $5 million that still has not been appropriated. The allowable use of the funds were primarily driven around public safety and public health. There were three main infrastructure purposes of that money: it was water, sewer and broadband.

[1:35:04]

Derek Brindisi:

And then depending on the community and whether or not that community had a substantial loss of revenue, you could use this money to replace revenues that have been lost. And if you use it in that bucket of money, you wouldn’t have to have a specific purpose for that use like public safety, public health and infrastructure. So, that’s kind of the general overview of ARPA and where it came from, and its general purpose.

John Mahoney:

Okay. In your prior example, you would walk through CPC funds and then you just suggested that if we didn’t use CPC funds, the town would be better positioned to use potentially all of the 25 acres and somewhere in the future for whatever various needs they were. And you would come up with a figure of 1.4 million to potentially have to raise an appropriate. So, was the other half of that 2.35 in free cash?

Derek Brindisi:

So, the 2.2 that I referenced?

John Mahoney:

Okay. 2.2, so, what’s the other?

Derek Brindisi:

There’s $78,591 that would be the premium of the debt. So, if you force a premium, you’d have an additional 78,000 that would go towards the acquisition price. Is that fair to say, Lynne?

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. We have premium available from previous bond anticipation notes that are for capital. And under Massachusetts General Laws, you can only use it for future capital of similar projects. So, that is an available funding source for any type of capital and I recommended using it for this purchase.

John Mahoney:

So free cash of 2.2?

Lynne Barrett:

Yes.

John Mahoney:

And then I’m trying to get the 3.75, where’s the other 1.55 coming from? So, he said 1.4, at least 150,000 missing. I’m just trying to make sure I know it.

Lynne Barrett:

I don’t have it in front of me. I mean–

Derek Brindisi:

I have it right here. So, it’s 1.4 in borrowing, 78,591 in the premium and then 2, 271,409–

John Mahoney:

Okay. You said 2.2, but it’s almost 2.3.

Derek Brindisi:

My last thing was 2.2 just for the sake of conversation, but my original recommendation was the 2,271,409.

John Mahoney:

Okay, all right. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, I guess the question is how would the Board feel about using ARPA funds? I mean, is there anything that we have specifically slotted for projects that we’ve already dedicated to these or these undedicated funds?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. So, we have again, a balance of about $2.5 million. Again, expecting potentially another 2.8. That money has not been appropriated as of yet. Myself and the departments, we went through an exercise two weeks ago to identify a number of projects that at some point in the future we were going to bring to the Board for your authorization.

John Mahoney:

For the initial 2.5, Derek, not planning on the 2.8 coming because that hasn’t been authorized yet, correct?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right. That’s right.

John Mahoney:

So, you met with staff, you put together a plan for infrastructure investments with that 2.5 and in theory would be taken care of in the next year or two?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s correct.

John Mahoney:

Right. So, I guess my question would be is what are some of those potential projects and how important are they to the community?

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. I can talk about those. So, the Department of Environmental Management had recommended $500,000 for the Jenney Pond Dam Project. That $500,000 would be used as a 25% match for a two-million-dollar grant. We would seek for $2 million grant to complete that project.

The Veterans Park Renovation is projected to be approximately $1 million. This was a recommendation by the Public Works Director. This evening, we’re talking about Allerton Street Park. We predict that would cost approximately $300,000 to fully renovate in its entirety. As you know, there’s been conversations with the Sheriff’s Office and our Public Safety Departments to look at moving towards a regional dispatch center.

[1:40:09]

Derek Brindisi:

And so, we believe that it would cost approximately $2 million in communications upgrades for that dispatch center, $100,000 to create a data link here at Town Hall, that’s for public safety purposes and then again, we know that there are some issues that we want to address at Memorial Hall. So, we are recommending $300,000 to be put towards design work at Memorial Hall. So, those are just some items that we discussed and that is approximately $4.1 million worth of work.

One item I didn’t bring up was digitizing records. We have a presentation tomorrow by Laserfiche to talk about digitizing our Town Hall Records and I didn’t bring it up because we don’t have a total cost, but we’re predicting that could possibly about $1.5 million to do that work.

John Mahoney:

When would you potentially find out about the other 2.8 million?

Derek Brindisi:

Lynne, do you know when we would hear back on that additional 2.8?

Lynne Barrett:

So that’s dependent on the Plymouth County Commissioners releasing any more allotments on the ARPA funds.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, I personally, one of the things that I was going to bring up under new business is about the dispatchers. So, I would like to put that on hold and possibly set up a meeting. I know Selectman Bletzer and I were both contacted by Police, Fire and some dispatchers as to their concerns regarding that move. So, if that’s possible, if we could send something up. I’m sorry, Everett and then Mr. Serkey.

Everett Malaguti:

Everett Malaguti, Precinct 2. Two of the things I would like to bring up for discussion of funding is, I know you just brought up recently Selectman Cavacco for the nuclear mitigation fund. I know that requires roughly a two-thirds vote at Town Meeting but through the years since the fund was established and Lincoln, correct me if I’m wrong on this, that it was established for litigation as well as supporting any loss of revenue from the tax base due to the decommissioning. And also, it was floated about as use for strategically purchasing parts of the property as it became available to the town, if wanted. So, I think that would be one avenue to be looking at for the additional funding. If it’s not accepted for that, there is one other area, I think which the funds are still in play and that would be the excise and MOA’s from the Cannabis sales, which is roughly I think if I’m incorrect, Lynne, I think it’s roughly two point something that’s sitting or has been collected since the beginning because I know it hasn’t been–well, that was what as posted on the town website is roughly two point something that’s been collected since the initiation of the MOA’s and the 3% excise. So, I think those would be the two avenues to look at if we’re wary about using the ARPA funds at the moment. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Serkey?

Rich Serkey:

Rich Serkey, Precinct 2. This is the first time I’ve heard about the so-called ARPA funds, and I wasn’t familiar with it prior to tonight. I’d like someone to redefine what that money can be used for and how the potential acquisition of this land would fit within that framework.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I’m happy to just briefly touch upon what I just mentioned. So, the primary purpose of the use of ARPA dollars, and it came again through federal legislation was to support public safety. That was one purpose. The second purpose was to support public health. That means a lot of different things public health. It was also what I didn’t mention earlier was you could spend this money in neighborhoods where there are inequities or neighborhoods where it’s on a lower social economic scale, so that’s another purpose.

[1:45:09]

Derek Brindisi:

The last purpose is for infrastructure, but they only identify three infrastructure purposes: water, sewer and broadband. And then last because municipalities had substantial revenue loss during COVID, they allow cities and towns to replace loss of revenue with ARPA dollars. If you replace your loss of revenue, there is no specific purpose when you use that category.

Betty Cavacco:

And just to give you a little bit of information, Mr. Serkey, a year ago on the Board had voted that the ARPA funds would be under the control of the Select Board. It was initially through the Town Manager, and we passed a policy that said that all ARPA funds would not be spent without Board approval.

Lynne Barrett:

I just want to add too for the public, all the information regarding the ARPA funds and what it can be used for and the projects that the Selectmen have allocated the money to is on our website under the Finance Department. ARPA and CARES are both there.

Betty Cavacco:

So, Lynne, with what Everett had said about the nuclear mitigation fund, that would require a two-thirds vote.

Lynne Barrett:

That’s correct, because it’s a special purpose stabilization fund.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

Lynn, a question, what about Everett’s pointing out the money in from the marijuana taxes?

Lynn Barrett:

Cannabis and MOAs, that’s a general fund revenue so that goes in the general fund. It’s not earmarked for anything special. It cannot be. It’s in the general fund revenue. It’s not sitting in an account anyhere.

Harry Helm:

It’s not sitting in an account?

Lynne Barrett:

No.

Harry Helm:

So, it’s being spent.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah, it’s funding the general fund operating budget.

Harry Helm:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, I’ll just give my opinion. I think we should use the ARPA funds. That way, we don’t have to raise and appropriate any funding plus there are obviously the other funds but, in the meantime, when we are able to get our properties out there for sale, I think we could roll all that money into. It will go into our real estate account, and it would offset any of the price that we’ve had to pay unless honestly Derek, if you feel strongly that we shouldn’t use the ARPA funds, and we should go for borrowing just I’d like to hear your opinion.

Derek Brindisi:

Well, I mean, it’s a philosophical question I guess really. Again, I pointed out that the various projects that the departments think our priorities. Some of these projects I mentioned I think have often been overlooked and so ARPA presents an opportunity to be able to get these projects completed and underway in a quick fashion. So, the other side of that coin is going to Town Meeting, and if you were to borrow having to get a two-thirds vote, which that’s a heavy lift, giving the fact that A&F have voted against this acquisition. So, from a strategy standpoint, certainly only requiring a majority vote would make some sense, but again, there’s only so much money that we have, and we have to prioritize where we think we need to spend those dollars.

Harry Helm:

Derek, a question for you about using ARPA funds. You mentioned that they’re specifically designated for different uses, and one of them is public safety. Okay. Say something occurred, which nobody’s planning on but act of God type thing, and Fire Station One cannot be located there for some reason whatsoever. Okay. Are we messed up because we’ve designated the ARPA funds for public safety to purchase that? I mean, can we then you know–

[1:50:32]

Derek Brindisi:

Use it for a different purpose? No. So, the short answer to that is no, because I think what we would do is we would put it in the category of revenue replacement. In theory, we wouldn’t be saying that this is for public safety purposes. It’s more in the category of revenue replacement, which we can use it for really any general purpose.

Harry Helm:

Okay, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to let the town meeting members know that are watching, and I have permission to say this. So, I bumped into Mr. Balboni, who owns a 50-acre parcel next to these 26 acres. He told me, and he said to share it with the town, “If the town does not buy the 26 acres, his 50 acres will be going on the market right behind it.” So, now, you’re talking 76 acres. And I just wanted you to know, this isn’t me speaking. He was in the Memorial Day Parade. I went up to him and I asked him. He says, “You more than have a right to go and say that.” So, he’s owner of Pioppi’s Package Store. Anybody that doesn’t think my information is correct, there you go. So, not only it’s got the potential of a build out in Chiltonville of 26 acres. Now, you’re looking at 76 acres. Just so everybody’s on the right field here. Thank you.

Ashley Shaw:

Hi, thank you. Ashley Shaw, 38 Newfield Street, also first Vice Chair of the Advisory and Finance Committee speaking in my capacity as a citizen and not on behalf of the Board or the Committee. I would like to urge the Select Board not to use ARPA funds for this purchase. I think there are much more critical projects that we’re looking at coming down the pipeline that were mentioned by Mr. Brindisi and I would like to urge you respectfully not to appropriate ARPA funds for this purchase. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Did you want to speak Pat?

Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18, long-standing town meeting member. And I try to follow the issues pretty thoroughly going up to town meeting and having watched and reviewed a lot of the material in this article, I find this discussion tonight for me very confusing as to what plan you’re going to come up with. The motions meeting is tomorrow morning at eight o’clock, we’ve all gotten our books and have been reviewed the materials in the books and some of us had the opportunity to go on the tours. So, I think some of us have tried to prepare. I find it absolutely overwhelming and the FinCom had a very thorough discussion, and you can re-watch that meeting if you want, any of the people who haven’t seen it. I go back and re-watch their discussions, so I don’t miss anything. So, whatever plan you come up with, I hope that you’re going to be out there to all the caucus meetings this week and next week. Ours is tomorrow night to explain to the Town Meeting members. Now, you probably have about 40 new town meeting members, you still had eight vacancies the last updated list because there weren’t enough write-ins done. And some people because of the confusion, and it’s to nobody’s fault however some of the precincts don’t even know the process of getting in touch with the FinCom about having FinCom members come to their meetings. So, I think to make your proposal as simple and clear as possible and not mix it up with public safety ARPA funds, crisis funds, using up all of our surplus free cash or whatever comes at the end of the year, certified free cash to make it clear when you go on a town meeting.

[1:55:11]

Pat McCarthy:

And the other problem we have, we’re having another virtual town meeting. So, when is the presentation going to be posted for all the new town meeting members that don’t know how to use Zoom yet, so they can see your presentation of why this is a good article for the town? If that’s what you want, if you want a yes vote. So, I just find this overwhelmingly confusing, and I’m speaking on behalf of myself having tried to figure it all out all along for a long time now since it came up. So, that’s just whatever plan you’re coming up with, if you have five different sources of monies coming in, and you have new town meeting members that don’t understand the budgets to begin with, I mean, they’re learning, but they’re not going to understand what you’re talking about. So, that’s just my concern going forward no matter how we all decide to vote on it at town meeting. So, I don’t know who’s coming to our caucus meeting tomorrow night. It’s at 6:30 PCIS. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, one of the things that we have said all along, and correct me if I’m wrong Lynne, is that if we don’t use the free–the reason why we held the special town meeting was because of the use of free cash. So, we never deviated from that. The only thing that we’re saying is what is the best use of our moneys going forward. Now, I as a Selectman haven’t even seen the caucus schedule, so I don’t know where it is, who has it, who hasn’t sent it or anything like that because I think this Board is committed to attend all of the caucuses. We had two tours. We had one yesterday, we had another one today, and I’m just going to speak for myself. One of the things that we hear from our residents is that we are never proactive. Well, here is the perfect example to be proactive with a strategic solid plan moving forward. So, this is 25 acres of land that we will never have the ability to purchase in that area again. So, that’s just my comments and my thoughts. I understand FinCom, it was a 5 to 6 vote. I understand the issues that people believe that they have, but there has been some misinformation out there regarding the original purchase, regarding the proposals to the town. And I can tell you that myself and Mr. Quintal and our special counsel were in those negotiations and that property was never going to be free, and they offered that property to us for 7.5 million dollars, not 2.3, 7.5. But when you take all of the politics out of it because we had this conversation today at the site, the fact of the matter is that we have 25 acres in an area that the fire department approves as a good location for Station One, and it’s as simple as we either want it or we don’t. And like I said to have control of 25 acres in Chiltonville that has the proper response times and everything like that, this would be a really bad move if we didn’t move on it. My opinion is that this is a true proactive strategic plan for the future of Plymouth. So, go ahead, Steve.

Steve Serkey:

I don’t know where the funding is coming from. I know that we need a new fire station. I knew we needed a new police station. So, if we don’t get this property first 3.75 then we’re going to have to go up and buy more acreage someplace else, and it’s going to cost that. It’ll probably cost more because now you’re going to have two stations going up. So, to me this makes sense. Keeping CPC out of it to me is a great idea, because once you take–right now, the value is I think four point something a million dollars, that’s what the value is.

[2:00:17]

Steve Serkey:

You put the CPC and you take 10 acres out, you got 10 acres you can’t use, and the value of the property went down if you ever wanted to sell it. I mean, let’s be blunt, Station One is a piece of crap. Our people shouldn’t be working in there. You laugh, but you see how that place is? It’s a mess. It’s got asbestos, it’s got oil and chemicals coming up from the ground. It’s going to cost millions of dollars once we tear it down unless we cap it, if they’ll let us cap it. So, that’s what we’re dealing with this building. We need a replacement. And the Fire Station, I don’t believe that all the methane gas has stopped going in there. So, our police station is at risk also, and they’re expanding. That’s the same station we had back 10 years ago, and we’ve added 15-20 police officers. We need a training center in there that they can use. I mean, my taxes go up. Everyone’s taxes go up. I’m on a fixed income. I’m retired, I understand this. Okay? But we can’t put our heads in the sand like we’ve been doing all these years not fixing our buildings, not helping our employees. So, if you don’t want to do it, fine but just know pay now, pay later. If you pay later, you know what the prices are. They’re going up. So, that’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead, Ms. Davis.

Virginia Davis:

Ginny Davis, Precinct 4.  I have given so much thought to this 46 Sandwich Road, and how it affects the neighborhood. Personally, if I live there, I would prefer over 55 housing with the 10 acres in the back conservation where you could walk. The impact of a fire station and a police station which would acquire lighting. Also, even if the CPC, 10 acres is preserved the likelihood of walking on that if that’s a police station or a fire station is very limited. It does act as a nice buffer for the people that are there. This is a really, really big serious thing and even the way we’re financing it. So, I’m still thinking but still in great conflict. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m not sure if you’ve spoken to any of the residents from that precinct.

Virginia Davis:

Yes, I have, but I’ve asked them, “Do they know the impact of a fire station or police station next to them?” They really prefer that too. I don’t know.

Betty Cavacco:

That was a training center for Holtec and there was over 1100 people in and out of that building as a training facility every year or every year and a half. So, it certainly has the capacity. I don’t think there’s going to be 1100 people in and out of there frequently.

Virginia Davis:

No, but you have sirens and things.

Betty Cavacco:

They don’t do–I mean, you can talk to the fire chief and the police chief, they don’t blow their sirens as they’re coming out of the lot. They know they can control lights. They can do–

Jenny Davis:

They do on Sandwich Street because they have to, right?

Betty Cavacco:

But I like I said, I just–go ahead.

Virginia Davis:

Okay, thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Virginia, I just like to weigh in a little bit. I’ve got more calls on this property in my short time as a Selectman than any other issue and everybody I talk to, they don’t want any of the residential developments. My next question is would you be in favor of a public safety building on that property? And every one of them told me yes. And I talked to multiple, I mean at least 10 or 12 neighbors on that and I also met them at one of the meetings, and we talked outside and they’re all in favor of the public safety. And then another fact for you is I live 7 houses from the West Plymouth Fire Station, you do not hear sirens at night. They don’t use sirens. It’s not loud, and they’ll go by all the time, but with no sirens at night. So, they’re very cautious about that for the neighbors. So, it’s not loud, it’s not disruptive to the neighborhood. It’s actually, I feel really safe.

[2:05:01]

Virginia Davis:

Okay, thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

And the last thing, one last thing is I know of two examples that we could have bought land. And I think the town meeting missed the vote, and I’ll tell you two examples. One is the land and I talked about this today, where the all–what’s that? All town, we could have bought that at town meeting for a million dollars from the county and there were people that were against it. It was dirty. And I remember the Chairman at the time was Bill Halsey who knows something about real estate. He’s an expert, and he told me, “If we don’t buy that, it’s the worst thing we could do. We’re going to make it a huge mistake. If we need to use it to remediate the Police Station, we can use that land as a parking lot while they do that or if we don’t want it, we can just sell the property.” Well, two months later 1.3 million. Brad Cushing bought it two months later.

The other land that the CPC didn’t buy that was a huge mistake was the 1.9 acres at Nelson Park. We could have bought that 1.9 acres for I believe it was a million or a million two and had we done that, that could have been all the parking down there and the rest of it could have been recreation. So, what happened was once they did a beautiful job the DPW, they did a great job building that park with the water features, and it was a huge hit. Well, guess what? The 49 spaces that were there was inadequate.

Virginia Davis:

I don’t remember that, but I’ll try to find that, the Nelson Street Park.

Charlie Bletzer:

It was in the last 20 years or so, but the point I’m making is it was so inadequate the parking that the meter enforcers, I was on the PGDC at the time, we had to put rocks up because they were parking all over the grass it was dangerous, and we ended up leasing. And to this day, we still lease those hundred spaces: the parking lots, the dirt parking lots, we lease that from the property across the street. How long are we going to be able to lease that? PGDC to this date leases that in their free lots. And the reason for it was for the overflow in Nelson Park and to have some free lot free parking spaces available, but that could be gone next year. So, we could have bought that. That could have I think a million, a million two, we could have bought that for, and we blew it. We really did. So, I just think it’s so important. Everybody has to get over the fact that it was 2.3 million that they sold it to Rick Vayo, let’s get over that. It was appraised at 4.35, and it was one of the goals of the Board, and we all agreed everybody wanted to purchase that land. And if we had known that that was going to be the price right from the start, we would have bought it for that price. It’s worth it. This land is worth it to us. So, everybody just takes politics out of this and let’s do what’s best for the town whatever you think, and we’re going to have to live with whatever town meeting does.

Jenny Davis:

Thank you, Mr. Bletzer.

Charlie Bletzer:

No, thank you.

Kathy Dunn:

Good evening, Kathy Dunn, Precinct 4. I’m a brand-new Town Meeting member and I came here tonight to find out what the funding was going to be for 46 Sandwich Road, which I will have to vote on. And this kind of piggybacks on what Pat said, I’m going away from this completely confused. It would have been really helpful if there was a chart on the board there that we could see the three different plans. Now, I mean, you started with two plans. Now, we have a third plan. I’m completely confused. When will I be able to see in writing what the plan is of this Board that I’m going to have to be voting on in a very few days? Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I believe that we’ll have that information published by Monday.

Derek Brindisi:

Well, the motions meeting is tomorrow, so the motions will be set by tomorrow, and then I assume Jeanette sends to the Town Meeting members all the motions. So, I would imagine by the end of the week they would have the motions and, in that motion, it would be very clear what the funding sources are for this article.

John Mahoney:

All right, Derek, so you said free cash is 2.27 a little under 2.3, correct?

[2:10:00]

Derek Brindisi:

That’s correct.

John Mahoney:

All right. So, the Board went to town meeting, I don’t know 5 to 7 years ago on Hedge Road in North Plymouth and purchased the Sgarzi property for approximately 350,000. I know two and a half acres, and you christened a new fire station there a year or two ago. Now, granted it’s not station one, but you got it done on two to three acres because some of the back part of that property was wetlands. So, Station One today sits on has to be less than an acre or an acre and a half. So, I don’t know what Chief Foley needs in a perfect world for a Station One, but if we’re looking at public safety, I have to guess it’s less than 10 acres. So, my question would be, and I just got the packet here, and I briefly looked at the map so this 24.4 acres is basically a long, it’s a rectangle. There are two notches I think coming in off of Sandwich, there’s a notch on the front left and there’s a notch in the back right of this parcel. So, I would ask you, coming in off the street, does 10 acres get to the back of that existing structure? So, that would be one of my questions. I think the CPC did a great job here coming forward. I believe, and the Chair can correct me if I’m wrong that they gave us the autonomy at 60,000 an acre to use the Board’s discretion as to whether we wanted to go to 10 or 15 acres. So, I just can’t believe that we need more than 10 acres for a perfect world, a public safety building. So, I’m just looking at it this way. You’re at 375, if you subtract 600,000 for 10 acres from CPC, you’re down to 315, you take out the free cash, you’re down to 880. If you go 15 acres of open space, you’re down to 2.85 and minus the free cash you’re down to 580,000. So, if you want to be successful here, I think the seat–and I understand what you’re saying, Derek, with respect to have any autonomy long term to–if you want to get this through town meeting, I think that has to be one of your three variables: free cash, some level of CPC contribution, and you’re going to figure out the third piece.

Derek Brindisi:

If it helps folks, I mean it may be too much, but to bring up on the screen the proposed conceptual plan. We have a conceptual plan. This was presented to A&F two couple weeks ago. It was conducted by our Engineering Department. I mean, if folks would like to see what is being proposed at least as far as a conceptual idea if we were to construct a station one and a new police headquarters, I’m happy to do that. It’s going to take me a few minutes.

So, I’m not going to go through all the slides because I think–

Harry Helm:

Derek, let’s wait for Select John Mahoney to return.

Betty Cavacco:

How about if we take a five-minute break? So, everybody can–

[BREAK]

[2:24:20]

Derek Brindisi:

Just give me one second, I didn’t realize how bad my eyes are. I don’t have my glasses, so I’m going to have to look at my screen over here. Okay. So, I’m just going to go through this very quickly just because there’s been a couple comments made about not having information. This was the presentation that we presented to the Advisory and Finance Committee meeting a few weeks back. So, this just kind of summarizes the property details. Again, it’s a little over 24 acres. We do know that we have a 30,000 square foot building that has been historically used for training for the power plant. It’s debatable whether it’s in good condition. I use the term fair, I’m not an engineer, I’m not an architect and that was just my analysis but many of you have had the opportunity to walk through the building and I actually went through it again this past week and the building’s actually in solid structural condition, and it would need some upgrades as far as the HVAC system. It would require new flooring, new walls, probably new ceiling. And in the second floor, if you would be at the building, the second floor is this metal and case structure which is where they have the training room itself. So, again, if we were to use that second floor, we would have to do some type of substantial renovations to that as well, put windows in it for example. But again, fair to good, I think is probably a reasonable assumption of the building itself.

The assessed value right now according to our assessors’ records is a little more than $3.4 million. The appraised value we’ve had an appraisal already completed at $4.3 million. And as you all know, the purchase price is 3.75. This is the proposed development. Again, as I mentioned in the past, the developer has withdrawn this proposed development given the fact that we’re having a discussion about the town acquiring it. So, if the town doesn’t acquire it, this could be the resubmittal or the developer could potentially come back with a different type of development. I believe by right because it’s a residential zoning, I believe by right the developer could build approximately 23 single-family residential units by right.

Betty Cavacco:

That’s what he said today, that if this didn’t pass Town Meeting, he would not go with that. He would go with the 23 single-family four-bedroom homes and fully develop the entire property.

Derek Brindisi:

Right. And I think part of the reason why this development proposal, this one keep 10 acres of open space and by doing this kind of this cluster housing project. So, to Selectman Mahoney’s comments about preserving land and upwards of 15 acres. So, this is the footprint. We asked the engineering department just to take a look at this footprint and just give us some conceptual ideas of what this public safety complex could look like. Again, trying to maintain 10 acres of open space. And so, you can see in the lower left-hand hand corner of this image, that’s the proposed Station One Fire Station.

And then the other structure, they’re about where the existing structure is right now, the training facility and this is a proposed 50,000 square foot police headquarters. I guess, I would say this, while folks were talking, I looked at the population growth over the last 10 years going back to 2012, and what I found was that the population has grown approximately 15% in 10 years. And so, the police headquarters I think is 30 years old. It was built in the 90s. So, a 30-year-old building and 10 years from now that’s I think where Chief Flynn starts to think about the population growth, the fact that when we have population growth we have to hire more police officers. I think we have a current manpower about 120 full-time police officers and another 9 dispatchers that are housed in that building. So, that’s where he starts to get concerned that he thinks that it’s certainly going to outgrow the existing structure that they’re in which is why he’s suggesting a 50,000 square foot structure to be able to handle population growth in new offices.

And so, again, given that building is already 30,000 square feet, we have two numbers in there. If this was new construction at today’s cost, it could be a $35 million construction, but if we were able to renovate the existing structure, we could potentially possibly cut that in half to $17 million. We just put this information out there because in my opinion, the first question Town Meeting is going to ask is, why do you want to acquire this land? What’s the purpose?

[2:30:07]

Derek Brindisi:

And then you answer that question, “Well, we want it for public safety fire and police.” And the next question is, “Well, what’s that going to cost?” And so, these are just numbers in today’s figures, but you all know that eventually if we were to acquire the property, we’d have to go back to Town Meeting for funding. If we were to build a new fire headquarters, we’d have to come up with real designs, real drawings and real costs. And so, these are just conceptual thoughts just so folks have an idea of what the long-term strategy as Selectmen Cavacco had pointed out. This is a long-term investment into the town’s future.

And so, again, we don’t think that we could preserve more than 10 acres of land based upon this conceptual drawing. And so, again, someone in the audience had mentioned that there was no information, and I was basically just verbalizing what we had suggested to A&F a couple of weeks back. And so, this is the breakdown that we have recommended with CPC support and without CPC support. At the time, ARPA was not in the conversation so that’s why you don’t see this. But again, the Board had mentioned that there are a lot of potential offsets. The assistant town manager is actually working with various departments to identify land that’s owned by the town so that the town can go ahead and consider putting those processed land out to bid as potential revenue sources to help offset this acquisition and potential construction down the road. But again, the site at the police headquarters, that’s consistent with the all-town property which sold five years ago at $1.3 million. So, what’s that site worth in five years, ten years from now? It could be upwards of $5 million plus if we were to sell that property. The potential sale of the Fire Station property and the sale of the Water Bond, all prime locations for developers or others to use. And so, we believe that this substantial revenue possibilities in just those three processes of land alone. So, that’s in essence the presentation, but I figured given the conversation that maybe this would give some folks some background and some context.

Betty Cavacco:

So, I know we have a lot of business on our plate tonight. So, I’m not sure, I know Vice Chairman Quintal had said something about maybe putting a couple options forward. I will tell you that I personally feel that we should use ARPA funds and not CPC. So, I don’t know what the rest of the Board members feel.

Dick Quintal:

I would say I would like to see it done without any CPC funds, only for the reason that just is an example I sit on the Cemetery Committee and Everett’s shaking his head, and he sits on it also. Every parcel of land that the town owns has a restriction on it. So, my point is nothing against CPC, but I think for the little amount of money that they’re going to actually thinking about contributing, the Town should just take it, and who knows what the future brings? I mean, we know we’re expanding. We know we’re not all built out and that’s what this is about. And in a perfect world as John says all the time, right? We would have had a little time, and we would have probably done this a little different, but time is of the essence. We have a date and that’s why we call the special town meeting and everybody that’s out there for Town Meeting always says, “We can always call a town meeting,” and we have and so far Town Meeting will make the decision, but I will tell you I think by not purchasing this and whatever option it might be, I think it’s going to be a big mistake. Just for the 50 reasons I can give you, that lot that’s going to go next to it now. That’s going to happen. And not only that, we need a fire station, we need a police station.

[2:35:00]

Dick Quintal:

So, I guess the question is for 1.8 million, can you go out and buy land in the future to put one of those structures on? And the answer is going to be no. We’ve checked, and we’ve studied what parcels of land is just for a cemetery, and it’s big, big money. And it’s coming because we don’t have any room. We’re going to make do with what we have right now, and we’re getting there. We’re going to do a few things to get us another year or two, but this Town’s got to lay out a blueprint for what we’re going to do. This is why I support this. It just makes total sense to me. I mean, this community spent $4.5 million, I think on the Simes’ House. Okay? This is much more important in my belief, public safety and the safety of our citizens, and that’s really put it to Town Meeting and let them decide.

Charlie Bletzer:

I agree with what Dick just said, and it’s the future of Plymouth that we have to worry about, and we need to purchase this land and control a 100% of this land. And so, I think we should do it without CPC money because it’s so important. It’s for the future of Plymouth and that’s what everybody has to think. Put the politics aside, put everything aside, and we have to do it. It’s in the best interests of Plymouth. So, I agree with you on that, Dick.

Dick Quintal:

Just so you know that I heard somebody talk about the all-town fresh property, they’re currently paying their landlord $30,000 a month for that property to lease it.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney, you’re looking a little perplexed over there, you must have something to say.

John Mahoney:

Has there been a motion?

Dick Quintal:

No motion.

John Mahoney:

All right. You want me to say something?

Dick Quintal:

Sure.

John Mahoney:

Just a couple of comments and if you look at Mr. Brindisi had the map up there prior. So, initially, I was looking at this from the point of view of Chief Foley in a perfect world of Station One, and I know he’s had some communications with people telling them that three and a half to four acres can get it done comfortably. But if you look at that, there’s also a police station up there. So, a modern police station and a modern Station One Fire Station sharing the front 13 and a half acres, if you will. So, in that proposal, there are 10 acres of open space so that’s why I wouldn’t necessarily leave out the CPC because of $600,000 and that gets you to your end game a little quicker. And then the other thing was a huge proponent of this and we’ve talked about this over the years, I know it’s nice to go and sell property and put money into our real estate account, but certainly I would never support Station One is going to move from where it is. I want the current land mitigated and incorporated into Stephens Field. I would never support that being sold to the private.

Betty Cavacco:

That was what the plan was all along. But again, like Mr. Quintal said, our hands are tied with so many pieces of our property. I mean, if the CPC came and said, “We’ll give you 1.5 million,” that’s a whole different ball game for me, but $600,000 and with a restriction on that 10 acres who knows? Maybe we could put a dog park there or another playground or something like that. So, I don’t think we should have that type of restriction. I’m not saying that it’s going to be a dog park so just calm down, but having the option to purpose property under our jurisdiction I think is important because I know that talking to the Chairman because of the Cemetery Committee and everything, everything’s taken. Everything has a restriction on it, and it’s a little hard for us to grow the way we want to grow smartly with all these restrictions. So, it’s just impossible. So, I don’t know if anybody else wants to make a motion but if they don’t, I am ready to make a motion. Go ahead.

Harry Helm:

I’m not going to make a motion. I just want to make a comment. I was going to do some calculations because something you said just dawned on me. The CPC would be contributing $600,000 and would then have control of well over one-third of the property for well less than one-third of the money.

[2:40:17]

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

And that’s all I would like to point out at this point.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Well, I’d like to make a motion to use ARPA funds and free cash and the–oh, my god now I can’t remember what you guys called it. The PR fund, is that what it’s called? Premium. To use those three funds to purchase 46 Sandwich Road. Premium Debt Fund so ARPA funds.

Derek Brindisi:

So, if I could just interject. So, basically, what you’re recommending or motioning is that you would go to the bottom table, and you would replace the borrowings 1.4 with ARPA? That’s what I’m hearing.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct. Is there a second?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second that motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor?

John Mahoney:

I’m sorry, Ms. Cavacco. I don’t think it’s necessarily a negative to leave out the CPC contribution here. I understand what Mr. Helm is saying, but I think it’s a positive in this equation as you move forward to the special.

Betty Cavacco:

You mean? I don’t–

John Mahoney:

No. It was just my opinion that I don’t think it’s necessarily a negative to have left out the CPC. It’s just a comment, an editorial.

Betty Cavacco:

Got you. I’m used to baseball stats, sorry. All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Okay. Now, I don’t know if the Board would like to agree, we have these nice people that have been waiting in the audience, and I’m wondering if we could push the Committee and Board designees until the next meeting, so. You’re welcome.

Okay. We changed up the agenda a little and the dog park is next. No, you know what, the dog park is up right now. How’s that? So, I know that we’ve had quite a few emails. Mr. Helm has decided to be the liaison to the dog park.

Harry Helm:

Well, what we’re doing is we are in the process of paneling the Board designated a committee to explore overall the concept of a dog park or dog parks in the Town of Plymouth. This is a recognition that there will be recognition that the previous attempt failed in West Plymouth. If in case anybody’s wondering whatever happened to that. It just didn’t happen. And we are in paneling a group to explore the concept of a dog park. Anybody interested in being on that Committee needs to contact Mr. Badot and give him your contact information. And it doesn’t have to be long, an explanation of why you would like to be and why you feel you would be a good contributor to this committee. Keep in mind, this committee is not going to snap its finger or wave a magic wand, rub a genie bottle and come up with something in a month. This will be a commitment for possibly several years. A dog park is a very complicated thing and the goal of this Board is to always do or whatever we determined to do it right, so that we become the model that other towns look at as opposed to us looking at other towns as the model.

[2:45:10]

Harry Helm:

I’m not saying it’s going to take that long. I just want everybody to know it’s a commitment, and there are a lot of moving parts in a dog park. It’s not a simple thing as I believe if you talk to the people from the Friends of Plymouth Dog Park, the former organization, they would tell you that. So, I just wanted to preface the discussion that’s the dog park part of this discussion after the slash. So, we sort of started with that, and take it away.

Betty Cavacco:

One of the things that I know some of the information that we received there’s dogs, there’s kids, there’s talk of fences being taken down. Now, I had a discussion with the Town Manager and correct me if I’m wrong, Derek, nobody’s taking down any fences right now, correct?

Derek Brindisi:

No, there’s no plan to do anything immediately.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, you can go up to the podium. You have to go up to the podium because nobody can hear you if you don’t.

Ed Smith:

So, my name is Ed Smith. I just wanted to ask a clarifying question because I’m not looking at the agenda for tonight. So, you referred to the dog park as a question and then Selectman Helm, mentioned that there’s going to be a dog park group.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, Allerton Street place.

Ed Smith:

I want to make that distinction because I don’t want to merge the idea of Allerton Park’s issues having anything to do with a dog park. I’m interested in a dog park conversation and possibly even being on the Board, but I don’t think we should conflate the two because this isn’t a question about whether the Allerton Street Park issues have anything to do with it being a dog park. And as you’ll see with our presentation tonight, I know there have been dog issues, but I don’t want to merge those two ideas that some people want Allerton’s Street Park to be a dog park. It’s a park that is having conflict with people using the park. I just want to make that distinction before we have people share our comment. Does that make sense?

Betty Cavacco:

So, the agenda has Allerton Street playground/dog park discussion.

Ed Smith

Sure. And I want to make a distinction that the conversation that we’re here to talk about tonight is the events that are happening at the Allerton Street Park that involve dogs. That is a separate conversation from whether or not there would be a dog park anywhere in town.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Ed Smith

Can you follow me? Does that make sense? I want to clarify that because I think it’s dangerous to merge those two. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Go ahead, John.

John Mahoney:

Thank you, Betty. So, Derek, Mr. Helm just mentioned the Friends of Plymouth Dog Parks. So, I think when you had your first employment time with the Town of Plymouth, there was a significant amount of investment from economic development moneys, manpower had to be hundreds of hours from volunteers with respect to vetting West Recreation Area for a potential dog park. I know I was there for a lot of those meetings, talking about coming into west rec, is it going to go to the left? Is it going to go to the right? The various challenges for each side of the entry road there. I think it was Mr. Bobbins accessing water. There was fundraising, there were grants, and I was kind of surprised when this issue came up. And obviously, this children’s park on Allerton Street at that time 5 to 7 years ago was always referenced as a de facto dog park.

A matter of fact, one of my former colleagues it’s his front yard. So, I need to be brought up to speed with what happened out in West Plymouth? Why was that dropped and nothing happened out there? And that was going to be potentially the first dog park, and we all acknowledged that in a community of this size that once that one was done, they were going to start working on a location for a second one. So, I was kind of surprised when I found out. I don’t know if it was a pandemic or what happened there but that kind of fell by the wayside. And here we are, back in square one. So, I don’t know if you’re up to speed on that, Derek, but that’s something I was curious asking myself what happened.

[2:50:06]

Derek Brindisi:

No, you’re right. So, during my first tour of duty from back in 17, developing a dog park was a conversation we were having on a regular basis. And at the time, Jessica Casey was the Director of Economic Development, and she had become the lead person on working with the Board and working with I would say interested residents who wanted to build a non-profit that was going to manage this park. From what I know, they went as far as they developed conceptual plans to your point. I mean, we have drawings of West Plymouth Dog Park. From what I understand what ended up happening is the dog park was developed. There was a company by the name of Fairbanks Design, they developed the conceptual renditions, and then they went ahead, and they applied to the Stanton Foundation. So, the Stanton Foundation was this national foundation that had basically committed to the town that once this non-profit was organized, and you had plans that they would fund the construction of this dog park. Did you want to–

Harry Helm:

Just a note, they required and I can’t remember the amount of community donations before they would give any grant.

Betty Cavacco:

$25,000.

Harry Helm:

Was it $25,000? Just FYI.

Derek Brindisi:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

It wasn’t just off the top. There was a threshold. There was a community reach.

Derek Brindisi:

It was a match.

Harry Helm:

Well, it was more than a match, but the community needed to provide a threshold amount.

Derek Brindisi:

So, from what I know, the town then submitted their application to the Stanton Foundation and unfortunately, Stanton Foundation had rejected the application because of the designer this company called Fairbanks landscape. And so, from what my research shows is that once they were rejected, the Director of Economic Development she had left. Teddy Bobbins, you referenced Teddy Bobbins, he was our pocket supervisor at the time he had retired and then from what I know, there wasn’t any catalyst to keep this ball moving down field. And so, the project just kind of just died without anybody wanting to reconsider it. So, that was five years ago now and so here we are, and I came back for my second tour, and we’re still talking dog parks.

Betty Cavacco:

One of the things that I believe happened was that there was a grant that they applied for, and they did not receive that grant, and I think it was like a million dollars.

Derek Brindisi:

That was through the Stanton Foundation, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

So, here we are, no dog park 5 years later, and we have a playground or child’s park that has dog issues.

John Mahoney:

And one more question, Derek. So, your discussion with department heads and you just rattled off that wish list of what to do with the ARPA money. You had 300,000 perfect worlds set aside now is to completely revamp this as a children’s park I’m assuming, re-seeding, re-landscaping and new–what do they call it?  Playground equipment, what are they?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right, yeah, all of that. Everything you just described.

John Mahoney:

Just completely soup to nuts, get that back to where it was.

Derek Brindisi:

Right, that’s right. So, I had the opportunity to go up to the park, with our new Park Commissioner Nick Faiella. I had asked him, because you know it’s been the park has worn. Let’s be honest with myself. It definitely needs resources, and I asked what it would cost to bring this park back to what it should be for its purpose. And he said for $300,000 and that’s based upon other parks that they’ve upgraded in the recent years. So, there’s been no design, but this was again based upon looking at playground equipment today and making it fully accessible. So, a lot of the new parks that the town has funded are fully accessible for all users.

[2:55:02]

Derek Brindisi:

And so, they took that into consideration. As Selectman Mahoney pointed out, there’s a bowl of sand in there. So, to clean all that up, to reseed it and then clean up a lot of the landscaping around the park. We didn’t really have a conversation about the fence itself. I will be honest with you though when I was there, there were a number of dogs probably at the time at one point half a dozen dogs running around that area unleashed. And so, I had asked a question. So, how do we allow our children to use this in a safe manner? That’s when the idea came up. “Well, if we remove this portion of the fencing and then just fence in the playground area, we’ll have one side will be an open park and the other side will be a fenced and safe secure area for a playground.” But again, we haven’t gone to the Board to seek funding yet. These were just thoughts that we had to try to mitigate some of the growing concern in the neighborhood.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, Derek, why can’t we use CPC money for the park? That’s what it’s for, open space recreation.

Derek Brindisi:

I think we could. Yeah, I don’t see why we wouldn’t be able to use CPC.

Charlie Bletzer:

Instead of using ARPA money, we could use–

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, the only difference is we’d go to a meeting, and we would seek an appropriation through CPC.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, because I think that would be a good use of it.

Betty Cavacco:

You have to come up here.

Karen Falcone:

Hi, I’m Karen Falcone. I live in Sever Street right across here, and I called Nick Faiella in the grounds after talking to many of my neighbors after that first beautiful Saturday. My neighbors have dogs, some don’t, some have kids, some don’t. What we are all concerned about is the removal of a fence and the two gate latches. It was a beautiful Saturday, I came around the corner and there was a gaggle of 13-year-old boys riding their bikes, playing baseball and running around with squirt guns. Who allowed the gates and the fence to be removed? And when I called–thank you. And when I called the town to complain, they said, “It is the parents’ responsibility to watch the kids.” And I said, “These are not three-year-old kids. These are 12 and 13 and 14-year-old boys who have been isolated. And now, that they are out playing, they’re not sitting at home in front of their computers, and they are chasing balls. Who allowed the removal of a fence and two gates? As a neighbor and as someone who lives on Sever Street, we are petrified to drive by there. I don’t know what you’re going to do with the park, I don’t care. I think that could be two or three or five years. We need to rectify this right now to keep our kids and dogs safe. I don’t care if dogs run around in a fenced park. I do care if I hit a dog. That’s my issue. I, as a driver on Sever Street, as a resident speaking for a lot of my neighbors. We need that repaired immediately. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t think we took down the fence.

Derek Brindisi:

Well, this predates me, but the gate was removed. If I could ask a question, you referenced 12 and 13-year-old boys with squirt guns in the park? So, is that problematic that they’re playing?

Karen Falcone:

No. What is problematic is they were running out and then right on the street and they’re on the streets.

Betty Cavacco:

We have to be respectful. If you’d like to speak, you have to come up to the microphone because the people at home can’t hear you and you can’t be shouting out from the audience because the people at home can’t hear you either.

Karen Falcone:

This to me is not a matter of dogs or kids or whatever. To me, it was actually really uplifting. They were playing, and they play a lot at dusk in the summer. They have their bikes there and it’s so great. It’s like old-fashioned park, and they were running, and they’re running out the gates, and they’re running after each other, and they’re 13 years old boys, and they’re stupid. Every 13-year-old boy is stupid. Right? I mean, come on. I have a 25-year-old boy who’s stupid, but they’re running after each other, and they’re chasing, and I’m just like, I just thought to myself, “Good God, when is this one of these kids going to run and not realize that someone else is driving?” And as a mother, and it doesn’t matter about dogs or kids or the condition of the park or the equipment, I don’t care about any of that. What I just care about is like the safety of the neighborhood kids that just want to play in a park in a nice summer day. That’s all.

[3:00:37]

Charlie Bletzer:

I got a question for you. What’s going to stop them from opening the gate and running out the gates?

Karen Falcone:

There’s no latches.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay.

Karen Falcone:

And there’s a part of the fence that–

Charlie Bletzer:

We don’t live there, so we don’t see this.

Karen Falcone:

There’s like a two-foot section of the fence that all sudden I called Nick like I just was walking one day, and I’m like what happened? Why did that fence get taken down? And I don’t know who took it down. I don’t know anything about it.

Derek Brindisi:

I’d like to answer that because I have an answer for you. So, I asked the same question and let me take a step back. Let’s be honest with ourselves because I’ve been to that park. I’ve talked to the Animal Control Officer, I’ve talked to the Animal Control Office’s Director, and it’s the times that I’ve been there and the times they’ve been there, dogs are running unleashed in that park. And that’s a fact. Animal control officers have confronted dog owners. It’s been confrontational at times. They’ve issued verbal warnings. And I think in one case they had an issue of citation. One person wouldn’t give their name in order to issue a citation. So, in order to try to mitigate dogs running around the park violating the town’s bylaw, the Parks Department took the gate down so that dog owners wouldn’t bring their dogs there to let them run around loosely. So, it was more in a response to irresponsible dog owners and what they’re doing in their park versus what you are suggesting.

Karen Falcone:

Why didn’t Nick tell me that that they took it down? He didn’t respond that way to me.

Derek Brindisi:

I don’t know that conversation, but I’m just sharing the conversation that I had.

Karen Falcone:

Yeah, and I agree with you. Don’t know if that’s the right solution.

Lindsay Bass:

All of what you’re speaking to I have written down in here, so I’m just going to read it if that’s all right. Okay. Can everybody hear me? Okay. My name is Lindsay Bass [?]. I live on Miller Drive. I’m a resident of Plymouth, a mother of two young children and a realtor. I am also part of a small group of neighbors who have been meeting up at the Allerton Street Park, from 8 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. each morning for the past two and a half years to enjoy coffee and conversation and let their dog socialize with one another. As the Board is surely aware complaints about this informal neighborhood meetup and the presence of dogs in the park has led to numerous interactions between ACO Anzalone and park visitors. These interactions have become increasingly personal in nature increasingly tense and increasingly unprofessional including statements by the ACO that she hopes one of the dogs gets hit by a car. In short, things have gotten completely out of control for no reason. I appreciate the Board adding this topic to the public comments section. I hope that as a result of these discussions, we may arrive at a place where all neighbors can enjoy fair and equitable access and enjoyment of the neighborhood park.

I’ve been asked by other members of this informal meetup group, most of whom are here tonight and if they just want to stand up, so we can see how many that are in support to be the speaker on the group’s behalf. Well, I know each of them feels as passionately about this topic as I do, and what each certainly have a lot to say if they spoke individually. We have elected instead to present a brief collective statement out of respect for the Board’s time for the sake of clarity and pursuit of a resolution to the matter. As those who have been up close and personal with the events they have developed, we feel it’s important to tell our side of the story to correct some gross mischaracterizations in the record and to provide additional background that may be helpful in allowing the Board to get to the bottom of this matter. The board should have already received a letter describing how this warm and welcoming group of neighbors came together through during COVID and how it has come to mean so much to those who are part of it. While I was not an original member of the group, I was immediately welcomed with open arms and quickly came to know and form a deep bond of friendship with each member. I can honestly say that the eight to ten people who gather at the park each morning with their dogs are the friendliest kindest group of people I’ve come across.

[3:05:09]

Lindsay Bass:

At a time when our society is so divided and disconnected from one another along so many lines, the way that this group of strangers have come together as a community of support and friendship has truly restored my faith in the power of human connection. And as a realtor, the first thing I would tell prospective buyers is that the sense of community at this little park would be the single biggest selling feature of the neighborhood.

The presence of so many others here tonight and their passion about this issue is a testament to the fact that they feel the same way. The board has also received the document containing ACO Anzalone’s reports related to the park, arranged in chronological order. Reading through this document, the Board should be able to get a clear sense of how it started, of what started as a response to persistent complaints from an unhappy about the presence of a group of people and their dogs in the park, which was during permissible hours led to a series of interactions between the ACO and group that became increasingly personal and confrontational over time. Initial interventions from the ACO in response to persistent complaint calls were uneventful. The ACO reports either no one was at the park or no leash violations were observed. It was around this time that the morning group began to notice a neighbor across the street standing on his front porch daily just staring at the group.

The complaints about the group presumably from the same neighbor became more frequent and contained new false claims of bad behavior among the group including having recklessly barking dogs, being in the park before 8:00 a.m., not picking up waste, sitting down and ignoring their dogs and the claim that the park was now undesirable for children. The record shows that ACO became invested in the issue and assured the complaint that she would increase patrols looking for violations. Early reports from these patrols showed no violations from the morning group at the park, but did document descriptions of dogs that happened to be simply walking in the neighborhood with their owners.

The first significant interaction between the ACO and the morning group was on August 4th, 2021. This is where the tensions increased. ACO reports that she arrived at the park and approached several members of the group who were polite and willing to be compliant with leash laws. It is more accurate to say that she arrived on the scene and immediately began demanding names and license plate numbers of park visitors most of whom had walked to the park from their nearby homes. She notes that one member whose dog was leashed and remained leashed became belligerent in response to her demands for identification. While this member of the group acknowledges that she was less than polite in her interactions with the ACO, it was because she felt that the ACO’s confrontational attitude and forceful statements about leash laws weren’t relevant to her since her dog was leashed. She also felt that between the glaring stares of the neighbor, their constantly exaggerated and untrue complaints and increasingly frequent patrols from animal control that the morning meetup group was being unfairly and unnecessarily targeted.

The next report from the ACO from August 12, 2021 shows that after her unpleasant interaction with this one member of the group, ACO Anzalone launched a personal campaign to put an end to the never-ending situation of a group of neighbors gathering at the park with their dogs for an hour. She proactively reached out to other town agencies including the Park Department, town manager and Select Board to see if she could have the fence taken down around the park and was successful in her efforts to have the trash barrels removed. All of this despite having issued no citations for leash violations, finding no evidence of dog waste in the park and finding no violations of quiet hour barking. Following the ACO’s expressed desire to see the fence removed, the group began to notice overnight vandalism to the gates, where someone would hammer the hinges so the gates could not be closed properly. The morning group would repair the gates each time. Soon thereafter, the Park Department came and removed the gate entirely. It was around this time we noticed the grass was not being cut at the park.

[3:10:02]

Lindsay Bass:

A member of the group called to the Park Department to inquire about the lack of care to the town park. She was told that the crews were no longer cutting the grass because the park was covered in dog feces and crews were having to go home to change their clothes because they were getting covered from head to toe in dog masks. The group member told the Park Department staff that she found this claim to be ridiculous since the morning group is vigilant about picking up not only their own dog’s waste but also that of other park users along with any trash, beer cans, etc. left behind from other people. When invited to come inspect the cleanliness of the park and the lack of dog waste to be found, the Park Department staff declined. That weekend, the group voluntarily mowed and trimmed the park themselves and found no dog waste as expected. One particularly disturbing interaction with ACO Anzalone occurred on September 21st, 2021 when ACO arrived intent on catching leash violations and issuing citations. During this visit, she again engaged with the same group member who she had previous altercations was saying that she wishes she didn’t have to come and babysit the people at this park and that soon the group member said she would not be intimidated out of a public park and will continue to bring her dog on a leash to the park every morning to which the ACO replied, “I can’t wait to get this fence taken down, and I hope your dog gets hit by a car.”

This outrageous and heartless statement was heard by several witnesses, and it caused a great deal of agitation. The group member called the police who arrived and advised the ACO to leave the scene. The group member later called David Gould, the Director of Fish and Wildlife to inform him of his employee’s egregious behavior. The Director apologized and thanked the group member for deciding not to file a formal complaint. Most recently, a very telling police report on May 30th, 2022 at 8:33 a.m. shows that the ACO Anzalone called for the police to accompany her to help remove people with dogs from the park. We find it very telling that ACO Anzalone made this call for police backup indicating her desire to remove the people from the park prior to her arrival at the park and with no indication, any leash laws were being violated. The police report also shows that the ACO had prepared police for what to expect by telling dispatch that this group had become aggressive and belligerent in the past, presumably referring to her previous interactions with one of the group members upon whose dog that the ACO wished harm upon.

Police and ACO found no leash violations and issued no violations or citations. Members of the group stated to the police that the false nature of the relentless complaints against this group of friends using the park, the unkept dog waste, early morning reckless barking and scared children coupled with the ACO expressly personal vendetta to put an end to the situation. Her proactive collaboration with other agencies to drastically alter a neighborhood park with zero input from the neighbors. 200 of whom have signed an online petition in opposition to the plan. All in an effort to make the space unusable and unsafe has now crossed the line into harassment, and we do believe that this is the case.

Despite being painted by the ACO as belligerent, aggressive adversaries, the truth is the group that the group that I am speaking for this evening is just an open small gathering of Plymouth neighbors, who have become close friends as a result of simply getting together with one another and their dogs for one hour in the morning. We enjoy talking about our kids and our jobs, telling stories and jokes and just enjoying one another’s company. Despite the fact that one or a small handful of abutters would apparently rather not have people or dogs in the park across the street from their house, there is nothing threatening about this gathering. In fact, it is exactly the type of things that public parks are intended to encourage. It also happens to be a wonderful way to start the day. As neighbors looking to peaceably enjoy the park, we would like to see this contentious matter resolved to the satisfaction of everybody involved.

[3:15:00]

Lindsay Bass:

Given that the group meets during permissible hours, town bylaws allow dogs to be present, and the morning group has a proven track record of cleaning up and caring for the park. The only remaining issue of concern appears to be the matter of the leash law enforcement. By the ACO’s own admission, members of the group have shown their willingness to comply with the leash bylaws as currently written. They also have shown their intention to continue to meet together with their dogs 100% on the leash. That being said, everyone knows that dogs would much prefer to be able to run and play with their dog friends rather than stand beside their owners on a leash, something that actually encourages barking. With this in mind, we propose an amendment to the bylaws to allow dogs off leash at this park between the hours of 8 and 10 each day. This cooperative solution seems the least drastic and least disruptive approach. It would not involve the labor and expense of removing a fence against the will of the neighbors, it would preserve the beauty and utility of the green space while protecting the safety of the people using the park. It would allow all residents, those with and without dogs, to have fair and equitable access to the enjoyment of this public asset throughout the day, and it would free up the ACO Anzalone and the Plymouth PD to tend to more pressing matters. We thank you for your time and attention to the matter and the opportunity to contribute to its successful resolution. Thank you.

Ashley Shaw:

Hi, Ashley Shaw, 38 Newfield Street, Precinct 3. I live in the same neighborhood and area, and I did want to make a couple comments. I am involved now on the Board of the CPAC in Plymouth and I wanted to present a perspective that maybe not everyone has considered. So, Plymouth while we have made strides in inclusive parks and making our parks inclusive to all people. We have left out one group of people which is people of children that elope. So, many of our parks in Plymouth are not fenced. We have maybe one other than the Allerton Street Park that are fenced, and the presence of dogs unleashed does create an atmosphere where you would not bring a child to play among unleashed dogs. I do think that having hours to restrict that is a great compromise. I am not against dogs in any way, I have two dogs. I love my dogs. I think a dog park is a great idea. I just want to say that we have very few opportunities for parents in this town of children that are an elopement risk, which is essentially a flight risk child that run and will not stop where we can enjoy our parks. I did meet with Nick Faiella on this matter. He did graciously take my input and is working to get Stephens Field fully fenced in which I think is amazing. But Allerton Street is one of the very few parks that was fully fenced, and we can’t use it because of the current situation. So, I do think that there needs to be some immediate action taken to this park, while we figure out the dog park situation whether that’s going forward and renovating this park and separating it so that the place structure and the field are two separate areas, that would be great. I know that Mr. Faiella said that that was a very costly endeavor that he had explored before, but the fact of the matter is you can’t have packs of dogs and children playing in the same place. You just can’t. It’s not safe. It’s a liability. So, there needs to be some way to move this forward where people with children feel comfortable using the park and people are abiding by the bylaws. And I think that there needs to be an immediate resolution and not like, we’re going to make a dog park committee for a few years which is great, and I would love to be a part of that. I think dog parks are awesome, but I just think that there does need to be some attention to this matter because we do have a severe lack of inclusion environments in our Town and this was one that we could have used, and we can’t anymore. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Heather Finlay:

Hi, my name is Heather Finlay, I live at 41 Samoset Street in Plymouth. Thank you for your comments prior. I just wanted to rebut on a few things that were said. I’ve lived there since 2001 and have brought my older children who are now 27 and 17, and I actually have two grandchildren that I bring there frequently, who are 7 and 5.

[3:20:00]

Heather Finlay:

And I do understand the concern about maybe dogs and children together, some people are fearful of dogs and if there ever was a child there at 8 a.m., we would happily leave the park, but the time that we happen to be there I’m not sure of other times during the day it’s a very unused and very quiet area. Like I said it’s a neighborhood park that I’ve used every day of my life. This is my third dog that I brought up there playing fetch with. So, I know this park very well and this neighborhood. And the times that we are there, there are no children there. They’re in school. It’s not used for children, so maybe it might be late afternoon that you might be speaking of that but no one. Okay. I’m not–well, I don’t know anyone that’s ever come there at 8 a.m. I’m sorry if you have tried to come there, but we would happily have left if you ever came in the park and asked us to. And anyway, like I said, it’s a very unused park. It’s a very quiet area, and I think the initial reaction, I think this has all gotten way out of hand if the neighbor that had a problem instead of calling the police initially on us, it just created such hostility. The initial reaction instead of just coming across the street like “Hey, maybe I want to sleep in, your dogs are driving me nuts, or you’re being too noisy at 8 a.m.” Our first us knowing anything was even wrong was the police showing up saying, “We’re here for a noise complaint,” and he walked right over to this gentleman’s house to say, “We’ve addressed your noise complaint.” And I go, “Why would someone calls the cops on us? I don’t understand. I’ve been coming to this park since 2001.” It was just an odd and hostile reaction that made us defensive and hostile in our reactions to that, if that makes any sense. And I understand there has to be a resolution but we’re very respectful of the park. We clean up all the time. I’m always doing a sweep. We can’t account for everyone that goes there 24 hours/7 days a week, but like I said, we’re trying to be respectful and like a resolution, and we have people that bring their own children there. Lindsay has two children. I bring my grandchildren. Our friend Katie brings her three-year-old daughter and her little baby. We have kids, and it seems every park, there’s Nook Road, Liberty Street, Cold Spring, Hedge School, West Rec, they all have like all dogs seem to coexist with kids and people cohesively except for this little place that’s like I don’t get it. There’s just only a problem with this park. You go to all these other parks: Nelson Street has a group that meets up, and they have a training group. West Rec has a little play group, Cold Spring has a little play group, Nook Road every afternoon has a little play group of three dogs that meet right around 2:30. There are groups of people and dogs and adults and children all using parks, and it all seems to work except at Allerton Street. So, I don’t know how we can resolve it, but it seems a little bit bizarre to me and that’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Jim Emmett:

Thank you again. Jim Emmett from Allerton Street. I had a long letter that I sent to you recently, and I’m not going to read the whole thing, so I will stop at that. The group here tonight certainly are a group that are there in the morning, but we’re not here to pick on anyone. This park is overused improperly. There is a leash law in place. It seems to me that everyone here agrees that dogs are off leash frequently. If not, most of the time. The last week or so, we’ve seen a certain decrease in the off-leash activity, but the park is overrun. If any of you stop by there, you can see that the grass has been mostly destroyed. And again, I’m not blaming any one person. It’s just overused of the park by unleashed animals. That’s all there is to it. The Animal Control people have come by a number of times, yes, I am someone who’s complained, barking dogs at 8:00 in the morning every single day that becomes a problem. We can say that they don’t bark, but dogs bark. That’s how it works.

The park has always been designated as a recreational play area for children. It was stated that in 1969 and 1972. It’s been reiterated over the years. The complaints have gone on 4 years. All you need to do is go to social media if you want to see people complaining one way or the other. It’s gone on for years. Our neighbors across the street complained for a number of years, and they gave up. They didn’t allow their children to go to that park anymore because their children have been jumped on, not to mention the amount of urine, feces and whatnot that is just on the ground. You can pick it up, but it don’t go away, I can assure you.

[3:25:03]

Jim Emmett:

I was talking to another neighbor today, she said the same thing, their children stopped going to the park years ago because it became untenable. And I talked to other neighbors that said they wish they’d had their kids be able to go to that park over the years, but if you see an animal urinating on playground equipment in the morning or in the afternoon or anytime, you tend not to send your child there. There’s a leash law in town. It should be enforced. People that want to bring their dogs there, to walk their dogs around the perimeter of the area or have lunch or do whatever they want, that’s fine, but you cannot have constant use all day long by unleashed animals in violation of the leash law despite the best efforts of the Animal Control Officers and the Police.

As far as confrontations between Animal Control and visitors to the playground, they’ve happened. I’ve witnessed them. I’ve heard people called terrible names by some of the people at the park including the animal control officers, including some other people sitting here today, and it just cannot go on. Why it’s not a problem in other parks or playgrounds? I don’t know, but it’s just a bit much here today. As far as removing the fence, it’s a totally different issue. I support the removal of that gate in the back. Clearly, it affects dog use off leash because some folks here today have made a concerted effort to put up temporary fencing each day they come to the park. You wouldn’t be doing that if the dogs are under control, and they shouldn’t be off the leash, and we all acknowledge that. It’s clearly posted on two signs at the park. So, there are no surprises here. I’m not looking to persecute any dogs or any people. Some of my best friends have been dogs. We have a dog live with us now, but it can’t go on this way. The Board is fully aware of what’s been going on the last several years now. The liability of the town increases daily, and I just ask you to support the Animal Control Officer, support the leash law and let’s just bring this park back to what it should be, which is by defined by the town, a playground for young children. I don’t see children running out through gates at other parks. If you read my letter that I sent to you the other day, I had photos of several parks where there’s no fence, children not dying in the streets, whether or not dogs are running loose, I don’t know. I’m not there, but don’t worry about the fence for the time being. Let’s just enforce the leash law, and we’ll talk about a dog park when the time comes. That’s a completely different item. I appreciate your time.

Jenn Wilsons:

Hi, I’m Jenn Wilsons [?], I live at 37 Court Street. I just want to make the point that dogs have been allowed at the park leashed for this entire time. The off-leash issue didn’t appear until the Dog Officers showed up because of other complaints, which are noise complaints. There’s no noise ordinance after 7 a.m. so that’s a non-issue. The feces are being picked up, but none of that matters because the dogs are allowed there. They’re allowed there on leash. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, let’s bring this back to the Board or, actually–oh, sure.

John Finlay:

How you guys doing? John Finlay, 41 Somerset Street. I like to think of things as common sense. Common sense says you take children in a park, you take down elders other parks in town that are away from the street, you can go on and on. I’ve been here 50 years. This street is dangerous. What you did or whoever did it by taking that gate down to allow. Okay. I know he said earlier something about 12, 13-year-old playing. We’re talking 5, 6-year-old kids wandering off that street is dangerous. I lived here when the police station was here, and they would come up that road at 80 miles an hour. So, I’m not going to try to get too emotional, but I’ve seen quite a few accidents. All I know is if one of those little kids runs out into that street without that fence there, you are going to say goodbye to your ARPA fund because somebody is going to get some serious suit if they don’t put those gates back up. Thank you.

[3:30:10]

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, I guess back to the Board or Derek, if you have any suggestions? I mean, I know that one of the residents in the audience Ashley, her and I discussed playgrounds and fencing and everything like that. As a parent, even though my kids are older now, you certainly want your children in a secure area. I don’t know what the answer is: Do we put up another fence for an area with dogs? Do we have a secure area fenced in for children? So, I guess, I’m kind of looking to you, Mr. Town Manager and the Board to see how we can go about this, because one of the things that I always say never invite government into your life, because we have to follow the rules. And if the rules are that there’s a leash law, we can’t turn a blind eye to it. So, that’s a problem and that’s why I say, “Never invite the government into your life if you don’t have to.” So, I understand it’s very emotional. It’s always emotional when it comes to your little furry friends, but it’s just as emotional for people that have children as well. So, I would have no issues saying put the fence, the gates back. I haven’t been to the area, so I don’t have a visual. I’ve been there before, but I can’t like remember what it looked like because my kids are now 16 and 18, and they don’t go to parks anymore or at least they better not. So, I don’t know if you have any suggestions. I know Mr. Helm has thoughts. Yes, you have thoughts. I don’t think it’s very difficult to rectify it, but I want to do it. I don’t want to see people fighting with each other. I mean, we’re all neighbors. I get it. I mean, I was a shift worker and I used to have a dog barking at 6:00 a.m. every morning and I couldn’t sleep. And so, I understand the noise portion of all that. But I mean, there’s got to be something that we can work out and compromise together so everybody’s happy.

Derek Brindisi:

Would you like me to respond?

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead.

Derek Brindisi:

Well, I would say first and foremost that, and I’ve said this because I’ve met with some residents on this very issue, and you’re exactly right, Madam Chair, the fact of the matter is we enforce laws. And we’ve gone up there on multiple occasions although it has been better. The ACO did report today that in the past week, it’s gotten better with dogs being on a leash, but that hasn’t been the case and someone just spent going back in history the past year and a half of confrontations with the Animal Control Officer. Quite frankly, Animal Control Officer wouldn’t be there if folks were abiding by the law. It’s no different from folks parking illegally at White Horse Beach, we enforce the law. So, in that respect, we’re going to continue to enforce the law, and if residents continue to violate the law, we’ll have to issue citations. The issue around the gate although I understand why it was done, it was a hopeful mitigation strategy so that we don’t have to have these types of conversations in the public, so I can understand why that was done. At the same time, if you know how the park situates, that gate is on the far end of the park. That’s away from the playground area. So, it’s not directly on the street, the gate, the one that I remembered had been taken down. So, as far as young children, they would have to travel a long distance. And off top of my head probably about 50 yards they’d have to travel in order to get through this opening with this no longer a gate. Certainly, we would be happy to put the gate back as long as the residents abide by the leash law.

Harry Helm:

I would suggest that all of us personally in business, in government, we make decisions that turn out to be incorrect. And I think the mark of responsiveness is to correct the mistakes that we’ve made. And I do think that clearly maybe not this group, but other groups don’t like the gates removed, and they are mitigating that in their own methods.

[3:35:17]

Harry Helm:

I’m sensitive to Ms. Shaw’s statement about children who run and the convenience of having a fenced in park. I do know historically that the removal of gates from a park that had been turned into a dog park and was on basically become unusable by parents and their children was to remove the gates, and it did from what I understand work, which is why that was probably decided to be the course of action. But clearly from what we’re hearing from the residents that that is not an effective strategy. So, I would be in favor of putting the gates back on.

Now, that said, Miss Bass made it very clear that the dogs will be leashed, that they are leashed now and that they will continue to be leashed. And as a number of people have said, we have leash laws. If you want to change the bylaw to exempt a certain group of people during a certain time in a certain park, have at it. There are citizen petitions. There’s a proper procedure for that, and you can do that. I will be taking that thought forward into the Dog Park Committee as a concept for parks, because it’s an interesting concept. I can’t say that it will go forward, but it will be brought up and explored, but I would suggest that we put the gate back on and that we take Ms. Bass, the spokesman of the morning group at their word that they’re going to keep their dogs leased, and then we’ll have to as Ronald Reagan said trust but verify, because we do have a leash law. And because we are aware that dogs are off leash, the town is liable for any personal injuries that they do to residents, children, strangers, whoever. We are the taxpayers of Plymouth not just the people who use that dog park will be responsible for paying any lawsuits. So, that’s why we have to enforce the leash law but, in the meantime, I will agree with Chair Cavacco that we put the gates back on, because I think it was not an effective strategy for mitigation.

Derek Brindisi:

Through the Chair, if I just could again provide some more context to this conversation. It’s been reported and it’s been verified by park staff that when the gate was taken down, dog owners they believe “dog owners” brought their own fencing in order to again keep the dogs unleashed. So, it probably wasn’t an effective strategy when they bring their own fencing in order to keep the dogs contained. So, we’re happy to do what the Board’s pleasure is, but I just wanted to let folks realize all the other instances that have happened since they took the gate down.

Karen Reed:

Hi, Karen Reed, 9 Allerton Street. I’d just like to comment when you said that the kids would have to run really far to get out of the gate. The gate that actually goes into the playground somebody bashed off the latch. So, that gate swings back and forth and that is a danger to the kids. So, I just wanted to add that.

Betty Cavacco:

Can we get that repaired too, Derek?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, absolutely. We can repair that. That’s news to me. And if the Parks Department knew that that was broken, I’m sure they would repair that. But again, that’s that wasn’t the gain question.

Karen Reed:

Yeah, but it was bashed off.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, no and we can get that repaired. Absolutely.

Karen Reed:

Okay. I just wanted to bring it up. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I think that there is some sort of resolution. I mean, you have to lease your dogs.

[3:40:02]

Betty Cavacco:

We can’t turn a blind eye to laws that we have. As a parent, I would hate for any of our residents to not want to go to a park that’s got a playground because they’re afraid of dogs that’s running around. So, I mean, pinky swear, promise, please leash your dogs. We’ll get the fence back up. Stop being mean to each other. Don’t yell at each other and let’s see if we can work this out. Go ahead. This is the last comment. We still have a full agenda ahead of us. I don’t want to be here till 11 o’clock.

Harry Helm:

It’s a quarter of 10.

Male:
All right. Thank you again. I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Helm. Taking down that gate was a mitigating factor clearly otherwise efforts wouldn’t be made to try to circumvent it. As far as where the gate is, Mr. Brindisi states and its accurate that that gate is on the Sever Street Extension, I guess you’d call it, which is a dead-end street. There are I think two houses beyond it. There’s no traffic zipping down the street. The gate that’s closest to Allerton Street, by all means, make it so that a child can’t run out of there. If the gate needs a repair, repair it. But putting back what was a one mitigating factor seems going in the wrong direction. And if in fact dogs aren’t leashed, then what are we worried about having a gate open on a dead-end street that has two houses at the end of it?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I mean, I’m cautious–go ahead.

Harry Helm:

May I address that? This group has committed to leashing their dogs. We have to take them at their word. They have committed to leashing their dogs. I can see that you don’t believe that they will.

Stranger:
I’m not addressing the folks here tonight necessarily. This is a park that’s used from 8:00 a.m. till 8:00 p.m. give or take, there are other animals that come through, other people with their dogs. Are we going to call everyone up and ask for a promise, or are we going to enforce and do the best to mitigate the problem?

Harry Helm:

We will be enforcing the leash laws 24/7. The leash laws don’t exist just in the mornings.

Stranger:
I apologize. I’m not arguing for a specific time. I’m just saying, in general, I think that removing the gate was a good effort. Clearly, it was something that some folks decided was inappropriate, so they’re going to try to go backwards on it. And now, we’re saying, “Well, let’s put it back up and solve a problem for someone else when we actually got rid of a problem to a degree,” and that’s all I can say and you’ll make your vote as you care. Thank you.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, when it comes to safety of children, a gate is the most minimal thing that we could do. So, I stand by my recommendation that we put the gates up. You guys have to know, they’re paying attention and we don’t want our ACO, as much as you believe that you’ve had issues with the ACO, we know you’ve had issues with the ACO too. So, it’s a two-way street and somewhere in the middle there are two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. And I’m not saying that you’re not telling the truth or they’re not telling the truth, but there’s always different versions. So, hopefully, this can work itself out. If you can keep the dogs quiet in the morning, so people aren’t complaining about the noise, that would be great.

Harry Helm:

Let’s keep it a little bit civil here. We’re trying to get to a resolution. I understand the tensions around this issue are pretty tough, but we’re trying to get your resolution here. Go to the speaker. Go to the identify yourself.

[3:44:57]

Mr. Mendes:

Mr. Mendes. Who calls the police four or five times when we’re in a public place with friends for one hour? Not only the police, the dog officer and then the Gaming Commission, armed. Who does that? I’m sure there are better resources that can be spent. And I’m the gentleman that didn’t give my name. And if you read the police report, it said, “When they arrived with the dog officers, every dog was on the leash.” So, why should I give my name to get a citation for something I didn’t do wrong? I have a right to be there. I have a right to be there. It is a public place. I have a right to bring my dog on a leash. And when you’re talking about the laws, you went to that park, so I’m sure you’ve seen every single car there parked illegally even though there’s a sign that his son parks there illegally. So, if you want to confront the laws, work on that too. Don’t just target us, because every car there is parked illegally. No, because that’s all I heard: the laws, the laws. Confront that issue too because you walk to that park. Your town officers are telling us they cannot clean the park because they’re covered in feces, yet please stand up. Those two ladies can mow that lawn. They can do it. We clean that park.

And when you talk about kids, unless they’re drinking Bud Light and Newport’s that we pick up every night when we go there, we pick up the trash. We do your job. So, don’t tell me about what’s going on. We are being targeted. Yes, we are being targeted because they come. They don’t just wander there. They’re there at eight o’clock every day, and the first thing they want to do is come and talk about and bring the police not to see what’s going on. They’re bringing the police to kick us out. It’s not an issue about dogs on leash or not, believe me. It’s an issue about the dogs barking, they will bark whether they’re on a leash or not. That is his problem.

Harry Helm:

Then regardless of what his problem is, I have been there not recently and the dog–it’s not, dogs have been off the leash. It is against the laws of Plymouth to have unleashed dogs. That’s what we are addressing. That is what we are asking you to address, and that’s what we will be asking every resident who later in the day outside of your group comes and has their dogs off leash, because I’ve been there throughout the day, and it’s an issue that goes on throughout the day. So, we’re attempting to come to a resolution on this that will set the stage for a more calm time period while the Dog Park Committee does its deliberations and creates a place, creates the bylaws that allow it, and we move forward as a community with solutions that will work for the citizens.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, Derek, you have–yeah, John?

John Mahoney:

So, I support putting the gates back. I think I’m getting a cold, I apologize. So, I certainly have support putting the gates back. We enforce the leash laws, but I’m hoping maybe in your town manager’s report Derek, in the next meeting can you get us some context as to what exactly happened because we also have to play the long game. I agree with Mr. Helm on the Board, we’ve got to reconstitute the Dog Park Committee, 100 square miles. We’ve got to find at least one maybe two perfect locations for a dog park, but can you get some of the backstory as to what occurred in West Plymouth? Is that completely dead on arrival? What occurred there? I mean, can that be resuscitated? I just need more information as to why that went south. Okay? Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, on to the next agenda item is Beach and Summer Parking discussion. So, thank you.

[3:50:08]

Betty Cavacco:

In our packet, we have a proposal from the Pilgrim Security and Consulting LLC, and what this proposal is, is to help our police officers maintain order on some of our ponds and beaches. One of the reasons why we have moved forward with this and just to give people a bit of history is that we asked for this a couple of years ago or a year and a half ago. And for some reason, it was not put in our budget.

One of the things that is problematic and that many people don’t know is that our police force is down 24 officers right now. We’ve had people that just don’t want to police anymore or that have retired now. Although we’re in the process, some of the issues that I know that everyone has heard about is White Horse Beach and some of our ponds are really problematic with enforcement, and that is parking enforcement, which is why we are implementing our first sticker program down at the White Horse Beach area.

So, Mr. Norris is here. He did put a proposal together for us. And after discussion, I certainly would like to move to put this in place so that he can help our officers out and start doing all the ticketing to some of our beaches and ponds. Hold on. So, Mr. Norris, why don’t you come up and like to explain a little bit?

Tim Norris:

My name is Tim Norris, the owner of Pilgrim Security and Consulting currently upon being asked submitted a proposal to assist the town with some ticketing of illegal cars parked on Whitehorse Beach and some of those local ponds. Currently, we help the town out with crossing guards here in town as well as some of the schools. So, I was happy to provide that proposal to you.

Betty Cavacco:

Can you turn your mic on?

Tim Norris:

It’s on.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. You got to talk a little bit closer.

Tim Norris:

So, I did submit the proposal to you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, as the Board can see, the proposal estimate for the summer is $31,932 and that would relieve our police officers from ticketing our ponds and beaches. Now, and if anybody has any questions.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Norris, why don’t you give us your background in law enforcement? I know you’ve done a lot of work for the Town in other beaches but just let the folks know what your background is.

Tim Norris:

Sure. I’ve been doing security work for the last 30 years. Prior to that, I was also a probation officer and was the acting chief here in Plymouth for four years upon retirement. These last four years or so, I’ve done work for the Town of Plymouth crossing guards as well as helping out with the COVID ambassadors last winter. So, when asked to submit this proposal, I have the staff that has a history of working with the town that would be an asset to the Police Department to help with their shortage in employees.

Betty Cavacco:

Does anyone have any questions?

John Mahoney:

Maybe to the Town Manager on this. Do we have to put this out to bid? We can’t just unilaterally award this contract, can we? Are there any parameters there? And what about collective bargaining? And I know the Chair mentioned how we’re down 23 to 25 officers and I know there’s definitely a need, but I just want to make sure we follow the proper protocol.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, through the Chair, those are two great questions. So, to answer the first one, this is a $32,000 proposal, anything less than 50,000 requires the municipality to seek three quotes.

[3:55:09]

Derek Brindisi:

So, in this case, we would definitely have to reach out to see if there are any other vendors out there that do a similar type of service in order to reach the necessary three quotes. So, that’s the first thing we would take a look at. And then the second question relates to the patrolmen’s union. Given the fact that the chief has reported that they are down 23 police officers, we certainly would engage with the president in the Union membership around our need to hire an outside firm. Given what’s going on in the climate with the lack of manpower, I can’t imagine that this would be a problem but something we certainly would have to at least have a conversation about.

Betty Cavacco:

I’ve already spoken to them, John and they don’t have a problem with it, but we can do it. Yeah, actually they did. They asked for the help last year.

John Mahoney:

And specifically, what are the areas outside of Whitehorse Beach? What are the ponds you’re referring?

Betty Cavacco:

You got Fresh Pond, Morton. We’re working on White Pond. White Horse Beach is a standalone, but we created a Beach and Pond Committee that Mr. Bletzer and I chair together. So, they are neighborhoods that are getting together, and they’re coming forward. The good thing is that we have that footprint of White Horse Beach and how that went, and it’s been pretty successful.

John Mahoney:

So, Tim, nobody’s armed?

Tim Norris:

Yes.

John Mahoney

Strictly just enforcing parking?

Tim Norris:

Really, I’d follow the Board’s policies and procedures and how they’d want it to go forward. That’s why I submitted the proposal upon request.

John Mahoney

Okay, thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

John, I think he’s going to replace similar to what Park Plymouth does. Park Plymouth doesn’t want to get out of the White House Beach, so because it’s not in their jurisdiction. So, his people would be doing the same thing that Park Plymouth would do.

Derek Brindisi:

The other item that we certainly have to look into is funding. So, we don’t have an appropriation right now in the operating budget. And I think Jim McLaughlin [?], you had mentioned potentially going to seek a reserve fund transfer through the A&F. From what I know right now, their next scheduled meeting is July 13th. So, I know that that is ways away. Could we ask them to meet earlier potentially? Because I know we’d like to have this in place prior to the 4th.

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Female:
Our next meeting is June 15th.

Derek Brindisi:

Okay.

Female:
We’re meeting one more time before the special.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect.

Derek Brindisi:

That makes it easier. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Get us on the agenda.

Harry Helm:

Are we able to solicit two other bids by June 15? Would that be requisite?

Derek Brindisi:

Well, yeah. So, it’s not a formal bid process. So, we would just have to have a scope of work drawn up, and then identify two other firms that do this type of work, and we could give them a deadline of when to respond by. It’s not a formal 30-day bid process like an RFP or an IFB.

Betty Cavacco:

So, I’d like to make a motion to make it happen like Mr. Helm just said. No, but I’d like to make the motion to direct the Town Manager to move forward with the process.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second that motion.

Dick Quintal:

Discussion.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion?

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Norris, if I may, I’m curious, in the ticketing, would those be processed by Park Plymouth? Would it be the same system that we use there?

Tim Norris:

I would defer to the council on that. We would write any ticket that either the police department gave us or Park Plymouth.

Dick Quintal:

Well, Park Plymouth processes all the tickets for the community whether it’s police or anybody. And the reason I’m asking is because the tickets actually written by the police department go actually to the police department after they back out the fees, and compromised. Those tickets go right to the Disabilities Commission. So, that’s why we want to get those answers too. Well, I’d like to get those answers. So, you’re basically saying you’d write them and Park Plymouth would process them just like they were with everybody else?

Tim Norris:

Yeah, just like whatever the policy and procedures that you guys put in place we would enforce.

[4:00:04]

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, we could check on that.

Charlie Bletzer:

They’d be handled similar to the place, and I can tell you that the tickets will probably pay for themselves.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, I know, but that wasn’t my question. I know how you pay your ticket.

Charlie Bletzer:

No, I’m just saying it to you, Dick.

Dick Quintal:

I just want to know who is processing them and what the fee would be. That’s all.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Any other board questions before we get the vote? All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. Town Manager’s report.

Derek Brindisi:

So, I know it’s late, so I’ll make this quick. So, again, I meet every Tuesday morning with staff just to try to get some updates to see what’s going on week in/week out. And so, when I met with the planning director this morning, he brought to my attention this new way finding initiative. And so, you can see on the screen here these are some old way finding signage that’s been in place for many, many years, and over the next week or so we’re thinking, we’re moving to something that looks like this. So, we’re going to change out those old worn signs that had been beaten up by the sun and replace them with this new signage. They’re going to be mounted, you can see here, they’re mounted to these granite slabs throughout the community. And then with this slide here, this is just an example of what one of the maps would look like in this way finding. So, it identifies the various locations in this district and some of the amenities and historic sites that we would suggest folks go and visit. So, again, you’ll see this. You’ll see these being changed over the next week or so.

I wanted to bring to the Board’s attention that tomorrow morning at 8:45 a.m. at the Plymouth Public Library at the South Shore Community Partners and Prevention, they will be recognizing the Board of Health as a whole, and they will be recognizing our Health Director Karen Keane for their strong work, long hours over the past two years around keeping our community safe from COVID. So, in the letter you would read that they recognize that they had to make a lot of difficult decisions oftentimes with a lot of political pressure or public pressure to do things differently. And so they’re being recognized tomorrow for everything they’ve done for us over the past two years.

I also want to bring to your attention over at the Center for Active Living, the new CAL Express, there’s going to be a ribbon cutting ceremony this coming Friday at 10:30 over at the Senior Center. Just a little bit of background on this CAL Express, the Senior Center received a $5,000 grant award from a private donor. In addition to that, that was matched through a grant effort that they had submitted. So, what this does working with GATRA, any one of our seniors can call this number, and they can reserve a ride to the Senior Center free of charge. And so, again, you’re thinking about COVID, a lot of our seniors were really home bound and they were like isolated socially. So, this is an effort to try to get them back out, try to get them to the senior center at no charge, anywhere in the community they can call this new CAL Express and take advantage of going to the Senior Center and participating in all the different activities.

So, on June 22nd, there’ll be another press conference. In this case, the Plymouth County, they will be awarding the town $2,250,00 to upgrade the airport wastewater treatment facility. So, this was in large part because of the application that was submitted by our Finance Director Lynne Barrett and our DPW Director Jonathan Beder. So, a lot of credit goes to them for finding value in this work and in submitting this grant application. So, there’ll be a press conference on the 22nd at 2:00 p.m. All are invited. We expect folks from our federal delegation to be there and our state delegation as well.

[4:05:00]

Derek Brindisi:

So, last week, I know you’re aware of this, but I want to talk about this publicly. There was another press event for the FORWARD Act. So, this is a State Legislation. It’s approximately $3.7 billion that’s going to help the state recover from the effects of COVID. The lieutenant governor was here last week, and she talked a lot about this FORWARD Act and the fact that it’s going to touch all 351 municipalities. You can see from the slide here how the town is getting approximately $4.3 million, $3.3 million is going directly to improvements to the parking lot and storm water system at the Plymouth Harbor, and another $600,000 is going towards acquisition of land over at Myles Standish. $249,000 is going towards the Jenney Grist Mill Fish Way project for the design and permitting of that project, and then $150,000 going towards affordable housing. So, again, another $4.3 million coming back to the town through the state and through this act.

So, just some quick operational updates speaking of enforcing law, although we are on demand over at White Horse Beach, there’s been 110 parking citations issued and only one arrest, which is a good thing. So, the Chief had stated that things are going well down there and with this new program and potentially an outside vendor, things can only get better.

I’ve talked a lot about graffiti over the past few weeks, the Police Department have informed me that they were able to identify a juvenile who was arrested and who was admitted to tagging a number of public spaces. So, the parking garage, 8 Town Square and the mural at Brewster Gardens all were tagged by this one individual. So, unfortunately, there’s been new graffiti identified over the last couple of days. So, this is a growing problem. So, again, we’re going to continue to do the work that we do to try to identify who’s doing the tagging and think of different bylaws that we can implement to prevent those in the future.

Moving on, we have 10 art wrap utility boxes that are going to take place. So, you’ve seen these in the past. We’ve had a lot of our utility boxes wrapped with art and so there’s going to be 10 more locations in the town identified over the next month or so.

As far as Procurement and Finance, you can see here a lot going on in procurement. We have a bunch of open bids water, street, sewer, interceptor, water main replacements on two different bridges, and then we’re in the process of putting Spooner Street back out to bid. The airport now that we have the money putting out to bid the airport wastewater treatment plant and a number of other items. So, just to bring this to your attention.

And then last, I just wanted to mention that I’ve been doing this weekly show called “This Week in Plymouth” over at PACTV. Yesterday, Chairman Cavacco joined me. We had a lively discussion of all the things that are happening in town. So, I would just put that out there if any other board members want to join me. There’s always things to talk about, and I’d love to have you on. So, that’s going to be a weekly rollout. And then once we get our communications person on board, we’ll be doing a lot more with engaging the community and giving good information back to the public.

So, last, I’ll just end with that in the next couple meetings, the DPW Director will come in to talk about Brook Road and that bridge. And then I’ve asked the Director of Inspectional Services to give the Board an update around online permitting program. So, we’re nearing the finish line on that. Well, hopefully, we can launch that in the next I would say four to eight weeks. So, you’ll see those departments come forward to give you a briefing on those two different projects. And then these are the things I talked about earlier, so I had this information prepared, but these were the various projects that our Department Heads had identified for the use of ARPA. Pending any questions, that’s all I have for this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Does the board have any questions?

Dick Quintal:

None for me.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, the next is Select Board Open Discussion – New Business/Letters/Old Business. We’re changing the agenda a little bit and I might as well just jump right into the way we are going to go about it. So, when we have an agenda and I know I post it on social media so people can see it. All you can see is actual agenda items. What will happen moving forward, and I’ve been working with Derek for each agenda item, there’s going to be a hyperlink, and under that hyperlink is going to have all the information of that particular agenda item.

[4:10:06]

Betty Cavacco:

And I think this shows as much transparency as we can get out there. And I think people will kind of know what it is. They wouldn’t have to wait for a meeting, not that I mind having you guys, but they wouldn’t have to wait for a meeting to ask any questions. We did do the 7 days in advance kind of like FinCom does to have articles to us for the agenda item. So, it’s going to be I think much more user-friendly for someone who wants to read the agenda. Of course, all of our executive session topics will not have hyperlinks to it but everything else will and I think it will be easier. Mr. Helm will be manning a computer, so we can see who’s on our webinar and who’s waiting because I just got a message that someone waited for four hours. And of course, Mr. Vice-Chairman is going to try to keep me in line and help me along as I take on this new role. So, that’s what I have for new business. And I believe that hyperlink agenda we should have it by our next meeting.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. So, the next meeting, that might be tough.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m a little demanding. Am I?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. So, you’re right. The goal with the agenda moving forward is to not create these PDF packets and so, if there’s a way that we can create an agenda with hyperlinks behind it when the Board receives their packet on Fridays, and it’s posted to the website, everyone in the community will see all the backup material which I think is kind of the struggle right now. Folks are actually attending the meeting because they’re not really sure what these agenda items are and what the discussion is going to be. So, there’s actually some really nice software. I think the School Department actually uses it right now that our Assistant Town Manager has been researching and pursuing. That one is going to take a little bit more time to implement, but there’s a there’s a more simplified version and that’s just creating a Word document and then knowing how to create hyperlinks. So, that’s going to take more just training than anything else. So, we’re tracking. It’s just going to take us a little a bit of time.

Betty Cavacco:

So that’s a no?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s a problem though for the next meeting. It could be more of a probability for a July meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else have any new business, old business, letters? John?

John Mahoney:

Just a couple of quick things. A couple of years ago, the Board had in the 1820 with a young woman in who was going to Bridgewater State, and she was a Plymouth South graduate. Betty you’re probably there and she won a national championship division three over Bridgewater State for track. And it’s amazing that a week or so ago, she finally wrapped up her track career over at Bridgewater State. And if you were to believe what you read on Twitter, she’s the most decorated athlete in the history of Bridgewater State. So, she ended up winning another national championship, and then I think she was all American six times. Her name is I think it’s Jayci Andrews and a South Graduate from 4 to 6 years ago, but I just wanted to give her a shout-out. Obviously, a textbook example of what a student athlete is.

And then the second thing I just had was, and this is directed at the Town Manager, so there’s a special town meeting in 14 days, and apparently, it’s going to be entirely remote. I just got off of boston.com because I wanted to see the daily COVID numbers. So, the state has been hovering in the hospitalizations for the last week in the 6-to-700-person range. If those numbers don’t go up and they stay down to a manageable number, is it optimistic of us to be back to a brick and mortar setting in October?

Derek Brindisi:

I would say outside of any pending legislation, yes. Again, to your point, if this COVID numbers don’t rise, there’d be no legislation at least to the Governor’s order. So, the governor’s order expires July 15th, I believe. I haven’t heard that that’s going to be extended. So, if that does die then there’d be no ability to even have a virtual Town Meeting. However, Article 2 for our special town meeting is a home rule petition so that the town has the flexibility to have a virtual town meeting, a hybrid town meeting or an in-person time meeting. And so, as you know, that special legislation could take upwards of six to twelve months to pass. So, right now, I think we’re trending towards an in-person town meeting for October.

[4:15:18]

John Mahoney:

Thank you.

Harry Helm:

In regards to that, I seemed to recall our Town Moderator making it abundantly clear on at least 20 different occasions that he has the say in that. Is that incorrect or is that just under the current COVID statutes that are expiring in July 16th?

Derek Brindisi:

So, there’s two things. So, that’s 2-part response. So, under the statute pre-COVID, the Town Moderator has the ability to delay Town Meeting under an emergency. So, if we had town meeting and there was going to be a hurricane, he could delay it. He has that power. It has to be under emergency powers, and they used that statute because COVID was considered a public health emergency. And so, that’s where he derives his authority to do that.

The second piece of that is in the home rule petition, the power the way it was written rests within the purview of the Town Moderator. So, if that were to pass, it’s going to be the decision of the Town Moderator as to whether or not we do anything other than a brick and mortar in-person town meeting. So, the moderator would have to come to the board and recommend virtual or hybrid under that home rule position.

Betty Cavacco:

There’s just one more thing, and especially the folks at home that have followed along with some of the legislation that we filed through town meeting regarding Holtec. And it was actually heard in the house today, and I’ve been talking with Matt Muratore on and off all day trying to get an update. So, I’m just going to read to you what he wrote to me which is actually really good news. So, he said:

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that the Revenue Committee is pulling out the home rule favorably. H4768, an act providing certain payment in lieu of tax agreement with the owners of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in the Town of Plymouth, poll closes tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. If it comes out favorably tomorrow, then it moves on to the House in Ways and Means Committee.

So, that’s really great news, and it’s moved quite quickly. So, when I talked to Matt today, he said that he was very optimistic that it would go our way. So, that’s going to be great because I can’t wait to tax them. So, anything else? Yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Few things, I believe the woman’s here from Bradford Street and I didn’t remember the name of the group, but I’m very interested in contacting you and getting all the info because I’ve been hearing about it like I brought it up earlier, but I haven’t actually met anyone from there or know what the concerns are, but I’m very interested to see how that unfolded. And if I can help and if I can, I can, but I’d like to at least see what was done and what the problems are. If you don’t have an issue with that, I’d be very happy to sit down with you sometime or come to your meeting or whatever you all do. And that brings me into reaching out to the Chair of the Planning Board Birgitta, and capping condos on Water Street and expanding the historic district in this community, because until we address those two things, it’s going to keep happening piece by piece by piece. It’s time. With what you see, with what’s going on right there at Brewers. You know what’s going on down the road 10 years from now or 20 years from now, right? The same you’re going to see at every other marina. I mean, I share a lot of the interests with you on that, and I would like to start with her and I don’t know if that’s going to be the final conclusion, but I’ll report back to the Board. And if we need to make a subcommittee for that and start looking at some of the bylaws, it’s time, it’s past time. Parking is never addressed with these projects.

[4:20:02]

Dick Quintal:

I’ve sat on the PGDC with Charlie, and they put these developments out there and there’s no parking. They all ought to have parking and that should be mandatory. Never mind the grandfather, I had one once too, and I loved them, but I’m sick of the word grandfather. So, we need to see what we can do, at least look into it and try and change some things. And the last thing, I see Ms. Nelson here, and I think she needs to be given a little docket time at a future meeting. Did you come in and talk about the rideshare?

Ms. Nelson: [Inaudible due to person is talking away from the microphone]

 

Dick Quintal:

Not tonight. I said future. I wouldn’t spring it on you like that, but I think it’s such an important, and I’m so amazed by it. I actually ran into her in the Memorial Day parade. And I think the children and the citizens of Plymouth need to know about that, so they’ll use it. Yeah. So, maybe at a future meeting, okay? Sorry, they mean to scare you wake up like that. That’s it for me. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Can we put that historical area on the next agenda, please? Anyone else? Anything else? We have another public comment. Is there anyone? Please. Oh, there we go.

Stephen Bullock:

Hi, Stephen Bullock, 51 Graffam Road. I was informed tonight that I’ll be getting some answers back on the questions that came in three weeks ago for, which is great to hear. The other thing was the last time I was in we talked about dock engine. I went down to the harbor, I talked to them. The Charter Boat Row is not for 15-minute tie up. All we have for 15-minute tie up is where the launch runs out of, which is inadequate. We have how many boats in the harbor? We have maybe 30 feet of dock for tie up. We actually lost dockage to the Harbor Masters for their personal boats. They didn’t have the funding to do what they want to do, they take docks from us. Unacceptable, unacceptable.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m sorry, Steve. Have you brought this to the Harbor Committee?

Stephen Bullock:

Well, the Harbor Committee doesn’t meet until after the 4th of July, isn’t that interesting? They met last week.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah. We met last week. That’s right. Can you–

Stephen Bullock:

It doesn’t matter if you bring it to the Harbor Committee meeting, it has to happen here. You guys have to tell them what to do because they do whatever they want. Why do we still not have dockage?

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, can we have that conversation? And I will bring it up to the Harbor Committee.

Stephen Bullock:

Yeah, but it’s going to be after the 4th of July.

Betty Cavacco:

I know, I understand that.

Stephen Bullock:

All these people that come to our harbor, and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars have this town lost over the years?

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a place that you suggest a tie-up?

Stephen Bullock:

I don’t understand why they don’t put the t-float back in where the launch runs out of.

Betty Cavacco:

I agree.

Stephen Bullock:

Why did we lose that? Now, we just have a finger pier that the launch ties up on. Who is making these decisions? We have a Harbor Committee, and I guarantee, and I know a bunch of the guys that are on the Board, that was not a decision that was made by them.

Betty Cavacco:

No, it was not.

Stephen Bullock:

So, why is it that we have a subcommittee that has no power? Nothing gets done what they ask, or I mean it’s a short season. Why are we here in June talking about something that should have been done in December? A plan should have been made, and it should have been executed before June 1st. And as far as I can see it has not.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, we certainly need more dark space, I understand that, but we–

Stephen Bullock:

But how did we lose dock space to the Harbor Masters for something that they did not get funding for when they built their building? Answer me that. They did not go through the whole project.

[4:25:08]

Stephen Bullock:

It’s like you build a fire station, you’re going to need fire trucks for it. You’re going to get funding all at once, or you’re going to come back after the fact and say, “We have two extra spots. We need these fire stations.” No, you do it all at once.

Betty Cavacco:

If we could find out from Chad why, and I could talk to you more about it tomorrow and tell you because there was a certain configuration where the launches it used to go out straight, and it was a T. And on that T, although it was a private dock there was an area that you could tie up to there and then after that like a little away from it, there was another dock that people would tie up to.

Stephen Bullock:

And another thing is with the dock engine and the Harbor Masters and the docks. If it was me, I wouldn’t be bringing people down to the Harbor Masters boats for dinghy dockage on the back side of it. I mean, you don’t need people wandering around the town’s boats. I mean, if that’s the Harbor Master Dock then that’s what it is.

Betty Cavacco:

Nope. Yeah, so we can get more involved in tomorrow.

Stephen Bullock:

I mean, we’re in the season and I mean, you can drive down to the harbor, and you can see where the launch is and on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, where storm comes in, where are people going to drop people off?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah, I agree. I thought it was more tie-up space than what I’m hearing.

Stephen Bullock:

No.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, we can certainly look into that. I know that last time, there was a conversation about just the layout of the harbor. The Harbor Master had said that the layout was approved by the Harbor Committee years ago, and maybe it was three to five years ago. So, I would like to believe that the Harbor Committee had input on the layout and the dockage and so maybe you’re just not privy to that, but we can follow up, and I know you have the assistant time and just contact, so we have your contact information, so we’ll follow up.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Stephen Bullock:

I mean, all the people that are on the Harbor Committee are in their boats every weekend nights for their input to not be taken is pretty bad. I mean, once again the harbor pays for Harbor Master and all their salaries and all of us spend money in the town when we’re down there whether it’s fuel, going out to eat and then not to be heard, I mean it’s pretty bad. So, you guys have a wonderful evening. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Okay. Moving on. So, unless people have, the Board has any questions, I want to move as a group license and administrative notes. So, the licenses and the administrative notes, I know that Leah said that she had a question, we are going to remove #9 under the Administrative Note has been removed for this week. So, we’re going to remove that. But did you want to talk about something?

Leah:

Number 3 under Administrative is why we’re here. It’s actually between the Town of Plymouth and then we followed that on the emails and we’re just here to answer questions if they have any. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, if anybody has any questions, I’d look for a motion to move licenses as a group and then administrative notes as a second motion.

Harry Helm:

Motion to move licenses as a group.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Unanimous. Now, Administrative Notes.

Harry Helm:

Motion to move Administrative Notes as a group.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor?

John Mahoney:

I abstain number one.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Abstention from number one. Okay. So, now Committee Liaison/Designee Update? None. Motion to adjourn?

Harry Helm:

Motion or second, whatever.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you everyone.