Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 8-2-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board Minutes 8-2-22

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

Betty Cavacco:

Welcome to Tuesday, August 2nd, Select Board meeting. If you’d please rise and 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:

Call the meeting to order. The first will be a public hearing for Lucioso’s Pub, an extension of hours to 1:00 a.m., Early Sunday sales (10:00 a.m.), Comprehensive Entertainment (Group 1, 2 and 3- Radio, TV, Live, Dance) and a Common Victualler license. We now open this public hearing. Is there anyone who’d like to speak on behalf of Lucioso’s?

Martin Geilis:

My name is Martin Geilis [?]. We are taking over the Liquor license. We plan on keeping it pretty much the exact same business that’s been running now. There’s no changes. We still have our GM in place, other two managers. We plan on keeping it exactly the same as it’s been running for the last 10 years.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor? Anyone online, Anthony? Anyone in opposition? I bring it back to the Board.

Charlie Bletzer:

I make a motion to approve the transfer.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion?

John Mahoney:

I’m sorry, Charlie. When the prior individuals in-charge have come before the Board years ago, I just wanted, you’re below and adjacent to a densely populated residential neighborhood and I know this is transitioning to a new entity but I just wanted to share the prior Board’s concerns with respect to the Comprehensive Entertainment License. We just want to make sure that obviously nothing is out of control down there, were considered by our neighbors especially with respect to the level of noise’s volume. Okay?

Martin Geilis:

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Nothing is going to change in that respect. I mean, there’s not even room to do outside entertainment. So, everything that’s been done has been inside and we keep the noise levels at a relatively low level. It’s always either an acoustic duo or a single. There’s never any really live bands or percussions.

John Mahoney:

There’s no like live bands, percussion with open windows blaring out to the neighborhood?

Martin Geilis:

Yeah, none of that.

John Mahoney:

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Martin Geilis:

No problem.

Betty Cavacco:

We have a motion. Discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Congratulations.

Martin Geilis:

Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon.

Betty Cavacco:

The second public hearing is for Bark BBQ. In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Mass General Laws as amended, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held at the Town of Plymouth, 26 Court Street on August 2nd at 6:05 p.m. to consider the application for a new Annual Wine and Malt Restaurant License from Bark BBQ Inc. d/b/a Bark BBQ, 367 Court Street, #3, Janice Steinberg – manager. Description of premises is as follows: single-story open floor plan with private back of the house area for kitchen prep, storage and cleaning, three entrances, three exits. Is there anyone that would like to speak on behalf of Bark BBQ?

Janice Steinberg:

Hi! I’m Janice Steinberg, the owner and manager. We’re just trying to increase some of the business and had a lot of requests to have a nice cold beer with BBQ so that’s why I’m here.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Any questions?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, Janice, I have a question. How many seats do you have there?

Janice Steinberg:

Charlie Bletzer:          

Okay. Any outdoor or?

Janice Steinberg:

No.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ve heard great things in your area, so you’re doing a great job.

Janice Steinberg:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else who would like to speak in favor of Bark BBQ? Anyone online? Anyone in opposition? We’ll bring it back to the Board for a motion.

[0:05:09]

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make the motion.

Harry Helm:

I second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Congratulations!

Janice Steinberg:

Thank you so much.

Betty Cavacco:

The next public hearing is for Aquaculture License Request from Kyle Marble and William Doyle. Go ahead, our Harbormaster, Chad Hunter.

Chad Hunter:

Good evening. Thank you. So, you have two upweller license request before you tonight. We signed an MOA with Marine Fisheries to allow upwellers within prohibited waters. The DMF put some requirements on the upwellers and one of those requirements is to have the upwellers license very similar to the grow out sites that they have. So, this is the process. There’ll be more to follow and we’ll probably look at the regulations. The Aquaculture regulations that we currently have were designed to handle the license request but not necessarily for upweller. So, we’ll take a look at those and make sure it kind of streamlines the process for the upwellers versus a license site. So, we’ll be working with Harbor Committee on that.

But tonight, Megan and Kyle Marble are here and also Connor Doyle right behind me here. If you have any questions about the individual operations.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I know that this is something that the Harbor Committee unanimously supported and I have no questions. I’m liaison for the Harbor Committee, great group of people, doing wonderful things with our harbor along with our Harbormaster and Department of Marine and Environmental. So, is there anyone that wants to speak in favor?

Connor Doyle:

One question. Connor Doyle, Bill’s son. He asked if the upweller license could run concurrently with his Aquaculture license so that his current term is November 1st, 2019 to October 31st, 2029. He was just wondering if the dates could run concurrently so the renewal process would be streamlined for everybody involved? It’s just a question that he has.

Chad Hunter:

So, that actually brings up a great question and I think we have to have some discussion on. So, in most cases, these upwellers are supporting by Mooring Permits, which are annual permit. So, ideally, we were going to licensees annually. When I mentioned streamlining the process, I think we don’t want to require the same amount of scrutiny as a 10-year license site for the upwellers because they are a very short-term. So, I think I’m not sure what they are looking for in the license plate but we ideally would have this annually. But again, that’s a discussion that we have to have moving forward.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, we can approve his upweller license and then maybe bring it back to the Harbor Committee because I know we have a meeting tomorrow.

Chad Hunter:

Sure. Yup. This could be a discussion that we can have. In some cases, upwellers are in marinas as well and that’s going to be more of an annual agreement where somebody would essentially buy a slip for the year. So, we obviously don’t want to scare off the marinas by saying, “Oh, actually, they’re going to have a 10-year license in your marina.” So, I think we have some things to kind of work out on the length of a license.

Betty Cavacco:

Except if you have an upweller, you should have an oyster farm to go along with it.

Chad Hunter:

Correct, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t think the Board would have a problem approving the upweller and then have you come back to the Board maybe the 16th, August 16th. Is that the next meeting?

Derek Brindisi:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

And hopefully have everything put together by then if you think that’s enough time.

Chad Hunter:

I’m not sure if I made it to the Harbor Committee’s agenda. We can obviously get the discussion started. It might take another meeting, maybe September to come up with something to bring back to the Board, I would say.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, we can give them their year now and bring it back to the Board. Does the Board have any issue with that?

[0:10:07]

Harry Helm:

No.

Betty Cavacco:

No. Okay. Nobody is speaking for or against? Okay. So, bring it back to the Board. Motion?

Harry Helm:

I motion for the granting of these Aquaculture License to Kyle Marble and William Doyle.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? And it gives them the upweller for a year and then you guys come back to us and we’ll figure out the rest of the details. Is that okay, Connor?

Connor Doyle:

Yes, ma’am.

Betty Cavacco:

And you guys do great. Thank you. Okay. We’re going to vote now. All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Congratulations. The next Aquaculture license transfer for John Reynolds.

Chad Hunter:

So, this transfer is part of the previous owner of this site had quite an extensive storm damage and kind of a change in career paths. So, this transfer to Mr. Reynolds, I’ve been in discussion with both John and son for months about this transfer. And essentially, it’s taking a site that’s not being used and turning it over to somebody that will proceed. So, I would recommend this transfer.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Quick question, Chad from Mr. Mahoney.

John Mahoney:

Chad, is there a formal process with respect to the transfer? You get to pick, you get to negotiate? If you currently have it, you get to go out and if you can set up that arrangement and choose who or is there a formal process where the next person on the list waiting for one of this licenses goes? How does that work? I can’t recall. I know years ago we had this discussion.

Chad Hunter:

That’s a great question and it’s come up during some of the initial transfer request that we had. The question is to how the list and the fact that these are Commonwealth tied lands and somebody has a license to them, how that works? In this case, the regulations are quite clear on the list. It’s either new sites, sites that are revoked by the town and brought back and then turned back to somebody on the list but under state law and under our Aquaculture regulations, the licensee has the ability to request the transfer. So, whether they’re on the list or not, they’re able to negotiate if they have seed on the site. Sometimes it’s branding. The brand name is worth some money. Also, boats and equipment that they may be purchasing as well. So, they’re able to work out a deal with somebody to essentially buy that and they would come back to the Board to request that transfer.

John Mahoney:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, we bring it back to the Board. Is there a motion?

John Mahoney:

So moved.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Congratulations.

Chad Hunter:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Next is our Badge Pinning Ceremony from the Plymouth Fire Department, and I have to say that this is my very first Badge Pinning not only as chairman but as a selectman and we have so much respect for what you guys do and are just so proud to be part of this. So, very excited to be part of it and I appreciate all the hard work that you guys do. Mr. Foley–Chief Foley, I’m sorry.

Chief Neil Foley:

That’s all right, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you for having this here tonight as we recognize these individuals for their achievement. We have three members of our department that are getting promoted. Two firefighters promoted to lieutenant, one lieutenant to the rank of fire captain.

Fire Department promotion is certainly a time to celebrate. It took a lot of hard work and dedication to get to this point in their careers and this is certainly a moment that should be remembered and honored in front of all of you. I think a lot of people understand that this is no easy task. It isn’t easy to go through the countless books, the seemingly endless hours of studying and the dedication to their craft and learning and understanding and learning from their senior fire officers, the senior members of the department and understanding the standard operating procedures that we have in place so that we can provide the best service we can to the Town of Plymouth.

[0:15:12]

Chief Neil Foley:

All of you have shown your willingness to put in that hard work needing to prepare yourself for the next levels of your career. But let’s be honest, they can’t do that alone. They need the support of their families who are with them tonight to participate in this Badge Pinning Ceremony and I just want to give them a round of applause.

Especially now with the everchanging roles of today’s fire service, our fire officers are challenged with so many different responsibilities. I hope that you all continue your education and training with the same dedication that got you to this moment today and I’d like to have you come up and be recognized.

If they could be joined with their, I believe it’s only their wives that are going to be pinning them tonight. And our town clerk. I’m going to read each individual’s bio while their wife is pinning them and then our town clerk is going to swear them in one-by-one.

Lieutenant Phair, he got promoted from fire fighter to Lieutenant, is a graduate of Brockton High School. He served in the United States Marine Corps Reserves and then as a Combat Medic and with the United States Army National Guard. He went to work in the construction trade and in the Sheriff’s Department prior to being appointed to the Plymouth Fire Department in November 12, 2013. He has been assigned as a Fire Alarm Operator and served in that role from 2017 to 2019. Lieutenant Phair has earned his Firefighter I/II Hazardous Material First Responder and Operational Level Certifications. Lieutenant Phair is assigned to Group 3 and Station 1 headquarters.

His achievement today has been made possible with the support of his wife Jennifer, his sons Liam and Kevin.

Kelly McElreath:

Repeat after me: I, Jason Phair, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Lieutenant for the Fire Department for the Town of Plymouth according to the rules and regulations and the constitution of the United States and the laws of the Commonwealth. So, help me God. I promise to impart to my profession’s standards of quality and integrity so that the conduct of the affairs of the department shall be above reproach and merit public confidence in the Department. So, help you God. Congratulations.

Chief Neil Foley:

Congratulations, Lieutenant. Moving on down the line is Lieutenant Santino. A graduate of Plymouth South High School, served in the United States Army 82nd Airborne Division and then completed nursing school, working in the medical field before being appointed to the Plymouth Fire Department November 16th, 2015.

Lieutenant Santino has earned his Firefighter I/II Hazardous Material First Responder Operational Level certifications. Lieutenant Santino is assigned to Group 2 Station 1 Headquarters. His achievement has been made possible with the support of his wife Kim and children, Katelin, Kamryn and Kyla.

Kelly McElreath:

So, I’ve had practice. Now, it’s your turn. Raise your right hand, repeat after me.

[0:20:00]

Kelly McElreath:

I, Carl Santino, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Lieutenant of the Fire Department for the Town of Plymouth according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, so help me God. I promise to impart to my professional standards of quality and integrity so that the conduct of the affairs of the Department shall be above reproach and merit public confidence in the Department. Congratulations.

Chief Neil Foley:

Congratulations, Lieutenant.

Capt. Soell is a graduate of Plymouth South High School and worked as an EMT prior to being appointed to the Plymouth Fire Department December 27, 2010. He was assigned as a Fire Alarm Operator from 2016 to 2018 and was promoted to Lieutenant in 2020. Captain Soell has earned the Firefighter I/II Hazardous Materials First Responder Operational Level and is a founding member and director of the Plymouth Fire Department Relief Association and the co-chair of Local 1768 Health and Welfare Committee. Capt. Soell is assigned to Group 1 at Station 1 headquarters.

His achievement has been made possible by the support of his wife Michaela, his son JJ and his daughter Rilynn.

Kelly McElreath:

Raise your right hand, repeat after me.

I, Joshua Soell, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Captain of the Fire Department for the Town of Plymouth according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, so help me God. I promise to impart to my professional standards of quality and integrity so that the conduct of the affairs of the Department shall be above reproach and merit public confidence in the Department. Congratulations.

Chief Neil Foley:

I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight and to recognize these fine individuals on their achievement. I look forward to seeing what they do in the next step in their careers. I have full confidence that they will be able to perform at the level that is required of them for the Plymouth Fire Department. If you don’t mind, if we can just have a quick moment so they can take some pictures with their families?

Betty Cavacco:

Absolutely.

Chief Neil Foley:

I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[BREAK]

[0:26:50]

Betty Cavacco:

Welcome back, everyone. We just had a little brief recess so, our newly appointment lieutenants and captains could take a few photo ops with their families. So, now, let’s get back to our regular business. The next item in the agenda is the Green Communities Designation. Do we have someone?

Anthony Senesi:

Madam Chair, we are adding them to become panelist so they are able to speak.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay, great. Thank you. And we have Mr. Patrick Farah and I can’t see another name. But then again, I can’t see much.

Patrick Farah:

I think everyone can hear me, right?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Patrick Farah:

Excellent. So, for the record, my name is Patrick Farah. I’m one of the many staff as well the Energy Officer for the Town of Plymouth. I must say that this is quite a milestone coming before you tonight speaking with years to get to this point. I am going to review to our town’s energy committee chairman, Hollyce States to go ahead and conduct a brief presentation of where Plymouth is currently within the Green Communities Designation process. So, without further ado, Hollyce please.

Hollyce States:

Good evening, everyone. I just want to extend my congratulations to the firefighters that were on there tonight. You are a tough act to follow but we will do our best. Anthony, would you allow me to share my screen?

Anthony Senesi:

You should be able to.

Hollyce States:

So, as Patrick said this has been a year’s long process for the Energy Committee and the Town of Plymouth and we really appreciate the opportunity to present to you tonight. This is the last step in our quest to become a green community.

I want to start just by briefly talking about the Green Communities Designation and Grant program. It was launched in 2010, and it provides assistance to cities and towns to reduce their energy use and to help meet the state’s climate goals. It is not funded through taxes. That’s a question that we received before. It’s funded through something called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is a collaboration among 11 northeast states to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.

Since its launched 286 Massachusetts cities and towns have become green communities. This represents 81% of all cities and towns in the state. In July of this year, there were six more designees. In fact, all of them are in the Southeast part of the state. And since its inception, the program has awarded more than $152 million in grants. And Plymouth has been missing out on this opportunity.

[0:30:28]

Hollyce States:

These are some of the grant funds that our neighbors have received. Of note is Kingston, which joined the designation in 2010 and has received over $1.1 million in grant fund.

Why become a green community? Well, first of all, we all get a designation grant of $267,000 approximately just by becoming designated and then once designated, the town will become eligible to apply for competitive grant annually up to $200,000 per applicant. So, there are a lot of financial reasons to become a green community. But in addition to those, becoming a green community will help support Plymouth carbon and energy reduction efforts.

This Board has already taken a leadership role in adjusting climate change notably by declaring a climate emergency forming the Climate Action Net Zero Committee and hiring a sustainability planner. Becoming a green community is one more step in this effort. It will also, as noted, which was the purpose of the program support the Massachusetts carbon and reduction goals and as a town in the state, it’s incumbent upon Plymouth to help the state achieve these goals. Finally, and I’ll talk about this more in a minute, it will enable the town to do real life monitoring and tracking of municipal and school energy use.

Just as a reminder, there are five qualification criteria for becoming a green community. Plymouth has already achieved four of them. The last is to adopt this energy reduction plan. The purpose of the plan is to calculate energy and energy use baseline and then to provide realistic pathways to reduce energy use by 20% over 5 years. The plan development involves several steps. First was an energy audit by Horizon Solutions and then there was data gathering by Old Colony Planning Council and town and school staff and I want to say that town and school staff were very, very helpful in this process and it was a bit complicated.

Old Colony Planning Council has already drafted the plan and it has done this work for us under technical assistance grant which the town applied for a couple of years ago. The next step was to review the plan and our Energy Officer and the Energy Commit

tee did this and did request a few changes and now we’re at the final step, which is adoption of the plan by the Select Board and the school superintendent.

The baseline calculation included of all maintenance including school building. So, this is 43 buildings in total. Municipal and school vehicles, which is 255 vehicles. Street and traffic lights, 21 water and waste water facilities and 10 open space sites. So, it was a big project and it was complex. The finding is shown in this graph here and I realized as I was preparing for tonight that I didn’t actually put the total of our energy. So, it’s 50,577,074 kWh, and the plan is measured in MBTU but the conversion which Patrick did is in kilowatt hours.

As you can see from this chart, 69% of our energy is buildings, which was not surprising and the next biggest user is vehicles at 18% and water and sewer was 10% of our use. Now, if you look at this plan, you can see that it recommends several different strategies and I’m not going to go over this list now but I just want you to know that there are lots of different strategies and projects that the town and pursue in trying to achieve this goal. One thing I did want to mention too in the process for becoming a green community and gathering that data, Plymouth will be able to monitor energies in real time by using the state’s mass energy insight. It’s an online tool, it’s free.

[0:35:00]

Hollyce States:

Old Colony Planning Council all of our data, which we found in doing this process is dispersed among several different departments. So, now, we have an online tool that we can use to monitor energy use to track and to spot anomalies and try to address them.

The DOER has stressed to us and we want to stress to you as well that the energy reduction plan is just that, it’s a plan. It’s not a directive. It provides the community with a realistic pathway to achieving quantifiable energy reductions to concrete project suggestion. But even though it recommends a sequence and a priority for projects, Plymouth can choose different projects or a different sequence of project to achieve these reductions. As long as the facilities are involved or part of the energy audit and part of the 2020 energy baseline, they can be eligible for grant funding. Those identified in the plan and prioritized have the largest energy reduction impact but the school not have to stick with those. More importantly, the DOER has stressed that there is no penalty for not pursuing the project suggested or the in the order suggested or for not achieving the 20% reduction target in 5 years.

The Green Communities Program is not a punitive program. It is meant to provide incentives and guidance. If a town does not achieve the goal, the DOER will work with us to advise us on additional steps to take. Again, I want to stress, there are no penalty, no fees and no forfeiture or repayment of grant funds for not achieving the goal within 5 years.

Finally, we just want to thank you for the opportunity to present tonight and for your already demonstrated climate leadership. We hope that you will vote to adopt this plan and to ensure that Plymouth can actually achieve the goal of becoming a green community, and we’re happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Any questions from the Board? And is it that you folks want a recommendation or was just basically a little bit of information for everyone?

Hollyce States:

I’m sorry I didn’t clarify that. What we seek is a vote to adopt the plan and there is a letter that Anthony has and on letterhead that needs to be signed by the Chair of Select Board. So, what we need is a vote for adoption and also the letter to confirm the adoption.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Do I have a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

Sure. I’ll make the motion. I think it’s a good plan.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second?

John Mahoney:

Yes, second.

Betty Cavacco:

And discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. And I’ll sign that letter tonight.

Hollyce States:

Great. Thank you so much.

Betty Cavacco:

You’re very welcome.

Patrick Farah:

Thank you very much. Good night.

Betty Cavacco:

Good night. Now, next, we have our Plymouth 400 Legacy Postal Project and I’m assuming that this gentleman dressed as a turkey might have something to do with it. Good evening.

George McKay:

My name is George McKay and I spent 10 years as a board member planning the events, we were supposed to have in 2020, which was the 400th Anniversary of the landing of the Mayflower. A lot of that went up in smoke, as you know, unfortunately but we did accomplish a few things and we’re still in the process of doing three legacy projects. The first legacy project that I started working on shortly after 2020 was the remailing legacy project. Let me see if I can go back here.

Anyway, the first slide was just an introductory slide talking about the background.

[0:40:02]

George McKay:

We started a program in 2021 called the Remailing Project and I gave a presentation about a year ago to the Board. A remailing project for those that are not familiar with it is very simple. You write a letter or write out a card related to one of the holidays like Christmas or New Year’s or Valentines Day or something like that, but instead of sticking it in the local mailbox, you send it to a place whose name is affiliated with that holiday. For example: Santa Claus, Indiana has the largest re-mailing program in the United States and they ask people to send their Christmas cards to Santa Claus, Indiana in bulk. Santa Claus, Indiana takes the Christmas cards out of the package and they put a special postmark on it saying that this Christmas card is from Santa Claus, Indiana.

The second largest re-mailing program is done by a town called Loveland, Colorado. What Loveland, Colorado does is they solicit people’s Valentine’s Day cards and they package them up, they send them to Loveland, Colorado. Loveland, Colorado opens the package and they take every single one of your greeting cards and put a special cancellation on it and says, “This Valentine’s Day card is from Loveland, Colorado.” So, over a year ago, I was here in front of the Board introducing a Thanksgiving re-mailing program from Plymouth, Massachusetts, the site of the first Thanksgiving. Our objective was to have a program similar to what Santa Claus, Indiana has and Loveland, Colorado has based on people mailing Thanksgiving cards to their friends, neighbors and relatives. So, we started this program. It was brand-new. To give you some idea of what other people are doing, Santa Claus, Indiana re-mails about 200,000 cards a year. Loveland, Colorado mails about 160,000 cards a year and we started from scratch in hopes that we could start a progression of that kind of thing for Plymouth, Massachusetts – the site of the first Thanksgiving.

One of the slides I wanted to show you tonight but I can talk about it, people say, “Well, I don’t mail greeting cards anymore,” but statistically, the number of greeting cards that are sold every year 1.7 billion greeting cards. That’s the slide I wanted to show. Of those 1.7 billion greeting cards, 1.3 billion are Christmas cards and of those almost a billion are mailed and of those 200,000 go through Santa Claus, Indiana to get a special post mark on them. Second in amount process is Valentine’s Day cards and people only mail 145 million of those of which they 145 million, 109 million mail but third on the list is Thanksgiving cards. There are 17 million Thanksgiving cards sold every year and of those, 17 million, almost 13 million are dropped in the postal service.

So, when we started this program, we said, “Well, let’s try and get some portion of those 13 million cards to come to Plymouth to get a special cancellation so that the people getting those Thanksgiving greeting cards not only get a greeting card with whatever you put inside that’s special to the person that you’re mailing it to but it comes from Plymouth, Massachusetts, the site of the first Thanksgiving. So, we started this program last year. We had high hopes and it turns out we did better than expected. We re-mailed almost 21,000 Thanksgiving cards from Plymouth, Massachusetts. We had targeted hopefully at least 10,000 and we did much better than that by getting 21,000. So, here we are again. Can we show another slide up there? Do I have the authority here? You have the button. All right.

Show one with one of the postmarks from Santa Claus. There’s the postmark from Santa Claus, Indiana. And they involved the school kids in creating the postmarks and other people in town and they produce so many that they need volunteers to put postmarks on the cards, and that’s another view of one of their cancellations. The previous one was of Loveland, Colorado.

[0:45:18]

George McKay:

Anyway, getting to us. Last year, we did 21,000 and what we hope to do this year is continue and do at least twice as many. So, we’re looking at a program this year if things go well of about 50,000 cards to be sent to Plymouth to get a special postmark to be re-mailed. So, that’s the goal and I appreciate you letting me talk here. We have sponsors of the program and the sponsors of the program are donating free Thanksgiving cards. And what I did last year as Tom Turkey and what I’ll do again this year as Tom Turkey is talk to people visiting the town, talk to town residents and we’re giving away to them five free Thanksgiving cards. If they want additional Thanksgiving cards, 25 cents a piece but they have to sign a piece of paper that says not only will they write the cards out to whoever they want to mail them to and stick them in the mail, they have to mail them back to us to put them into the system. And last year, we gave away approximately 8,000 of these cards, 5 cards at a time, we got about 4500 back and the balance of the 20,000 came from business and towns like Plymouth. Plymouth contributed to this. And shown on the slide now is the two postmarks we created last year. One shows the Plymouth 400 logo and the other shows a logo that says, “Give Thanks,” and in addition to that has the postal postmark from Plymouth, Massachusetts the first Thanksgiving. So, the postmarks this year will be exactly the same except the date will change. So, we want to thank you for listening to me. It’s an exciting program that generates a lot of activity for the town both nationally and internationally. We stand out at Plimoth Patuxet Museum. We talked to thousands of people. Last year, we had almost 5,000 people and other entities and businesses participate in the program. So, we’re looking to be very, very close to third in re-mailing nationally. If we get to 50,000, that will put us on the map for re-mailing. So, that’s the goal. And anything you can do here to help this move along, it generates no particular profit for anybody but it does generate a lot of interest in the Town of Plymouth and the site of the first Thanksgiving. So, if anybody has any questions, we’d like to hear them.

Betty Cavacco:

No, but thank you very much. Questions?

John Mahoney:

George, I think I’m present for 90% of your presentations over the last decade and I certainly admire your passion with respect to this issue. The Board came in to January of ’20 and we went into our first executive session and Ms. Cavacco looked at the individuals in the room and said, “Well, we’ve made it to our Superbowl.” Unfortunately, and it’s sad, but COVID had different plans and the Superbowl was canceled and that was devastating.

George McKay:

I only spent 10 years of my retirement planning–

John Mahoney:

I know, George and the passion and the dedication and the expertise that you bring certainly with respect to stamps and what you try to do on coins and stamps and all, I can’t thank you enough. And to keep doing that and going to the next level here, I admire you.

George McKay:

This is one of three legacy programs. This one I’m putting a lot of time and effort into but we also have a legacy program with the Plymouth License plate, the PL license plate. That is still available. If you want a PL license plate, you walk into the registry and you say, “I want a PL license plate instead of this one I have.” Part of that revenue comes back to Plymouth. There’s a surcharge when you renew your license plate. It’s $40, I think every 2 years. That comes back to Plymouth. The Cayman Islands has the most successful license plate program in the state and they literally generate millions of dollars through that program.

[0:50:10]

John Mahoney:

I think I remember the plate when they initiated that program. Was that if you sign up for the plate, I think the initial cost is $43, 28 of which came back to the community and then every two years after that, if you renewed your plate, I think a 100% of the renewal would come.

George McKay:

Well, that’s the surcharge but it comes back to Plymouth. And that leads to the third legacy program we have. When we started the Plymouth 400, we planned a Remembrance Park on Cole’s Hill. We have the property. We’ve done the archaeological dig so now we can build a monument there for Remembrance Park. And part of the license plate revenue will go towards building that park. And that’s a Remembrance Park in honor of the great plague that pass-through Plymouth before the Pilgrims arrived, which wiped out 100% of the natives in Patuxet, which is where we’re sitting right now except for one, and it was Squanto and the only reason he survived is he was taken as a prisoner to Spain. So, there was one native of this town that’s alive.

And then of course, when the Pilgrims landed in 1620, that went to 50% of the people died and then you know in 2020, we had an epidemic and a lot of people died. So, the Remembrance Park, which will be built in Cole’s Hill will remember those three events. The event of natives being plagued in 1619, I think and essentially wiped out, the Pilgrims going from a hundred on the Mayflower down to 50 and the COVID epidemic of 2020. So, thank you very much for your time and I thank you for your continuing support.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you so much.

George McKay:

Any other questions?

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Our next order of business is the Plymouth County Wood Lot and we actually have our State Rep Matthew Muratore who has been kind enough to join us and help everyone understand where we’re at. So, Mr. Muratore, thank you.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the invite. I appreciate that. I’m actually not to unhappy following a turkey. It’s better to being called a turkey, and that’s happened a few times. And also, I’m happy to be here too to see the firefighter ceremony and we’ve witnessed that in the past as being a former Select Board member. It’s just great to see that ceremony. And also, the energy program and how that’s coming around and so timely too, because in the early morning I was at Monday, we passed a Climate Change and Energy Bill. It’s a major bill and it’s on the governor’s desk right now that we anticipate he’ll be signing this week. So, it’s very timely to what you’re doing. So, I congratulate you for that as well.

So, I understand last week, there were some discussions about the Wood Lot and the Gaming Commission. So, what I was asked to do by you, Madam Chair and through you to the members just to give you a little update with regards to the Gaming Commission.

There were some indications that the State Legislature was going to be looking to make changes to horse track racing and I think it’s Chapter 128 Sections A and C, I believe it is changing that section, which right now indicates that a vote of the Select Board and then a community for or against a horse track racing goes to the Gaming Commission that gets filed. I believe this Board voted 5-0 to do that. I confirmed that this afternoon, the latest 4 o’clock just to ensure that the Gaming Commission does have the letter, they do and it is on record that as of now, there is no horse track racing going to be held in Plymouth because of that vote you took, because that is the section of the law that says that.

There is no legislation looking to change that law. Sports Betting Bill, we passed that very late in the morning on Monday and there is nothing in that bill that changes that law either. Now, I think some of the maybe the miscommunication that happened and I’m here to give you the facts of everything.

[0:55:06]

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

I think some of the miscommunication had to do with the Gaming Commission has their own sets of rules and regulations. They have an applicant replication process they’re putting together for horse track racing and they’ve had the application for several years but they’re looking to update it. So, those are public comment period that just recently ended looking for input from people for that application.

The Gaming Commission has closed the public comment period, but again, I confirm, they have your letter and what your response to that is. They understand that and they’d be looking as a Gaming Commission to actually update that application probably in the next 30 to 60 day with their goal of having a new application as of October 1st. Again, there’s no indication that the laws of Chapter 128 Sections A and C are going to be changing on that and that would have to be through the State Legislature. As you know, Madam Chair, we are done with session for the rest of the year so there’s no indication that it’s going to happen. So, that’s the facts and I’ll take questions at this point if you have any questions or comments about that.

Betty Cavacco:

So, Matt, do you think there is anything additionally that we need to do as a Board, as a representative of the Town of Plymouth, we did send two letters. They were fairly strong of our opposition and of course, we went with the wishes of the people, 88% that voted against it. I think the concerns that our residents have and even myself is that we don’t want anything changing in that midnight, if it all could happen that way that would make Plymouth under new consequence have to allow something like that. So, there are several questions that I think as a Board that we can give to our Town Manager and he can discuss them with our legal team. But do you see any additional steps that we need to take because we need this to be so airtight that there’s nothing that’s going to affect the integrity of what the wishes are of the people.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Sure. I did ask that question if there’s anything more that could be done, and it was very clear that your letter of 5-0 vote is very clear and there’s not much more that’s needed at this point. I just go back a step too. Now, I know some of this information that got out there was triggered by the County Commissioners week or so ago when they signed up the lease with Boston South. Now, that lease is for the 90-Day due diligence period. And any development project especially this size and I think you’re all aware of this, there’s a due diligence period that they have to go through.

You have to check for 21E and sort of other testing of the soil and other things that needed to be done on the property and that’s going to allow them to do that over the next 90 days. And then there’s a three-year lease on top of that, that if the 90 days goes well and they make the next step. Up to three years, they have to come up with a development plan, budget, etc for what that property can be. And the Commissioners are very clear about that that before something is built, the Boston South have to come forward to get approval from the Commissioners of what that concept is going to be.

Now, I think the concept that the Commissioners have them public about is they would like to see an entertainment complex of some sort there. Now, that doesn’t mean that’s just horse track racing. That could be a convention center, that could be a movie theater, a ball field and sort of other things that could be happening there. So, they’re going through their due diligence at this point and if the due diligence goes well, go through the lease process and I think there will be time at that point to see what that actually comes out to be. But again, to reiterate, Chapter 128 Sections A and C, the Mass General Laws is very clear. It’s from 1950s maybe early 60s that that law was written and there’s no indication that law is being changed at this point.

Betty Cavacco:

And if there were any indication, I’m sure you would let us know immediately.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Absolutely, yeah. And also, I would bet, if I was a betting man, I’m not but if I was, I would bet there would be several communities in the Commonwealth and several state representatives and senators that would be going against that procedure if that was to come forth.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Matt, thanks for coming tonight. Let’s talk about the license application. I think you indicated that they change that without any approval from the legislative branch.

[1:00:05]

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

That’s right.

Harry Helm:

Okay. And they’re going to be doing that possibly in October.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Come questions, okay? Because if they change the application and remove the stipulation that there be agreement by the Board of Selectmen or whatever governing body then that effectively makes the rule that makes that not included.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

That’s not true. No. They have the right under their rules and regulations to do no application, which is what they’re potentially going to do but they can’t change the Mass General Laws. They would have to request the Legislature to actually do that.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, they can’t just remove from the application that part that says you need to have the agreement of the Board of Selectmen. I’ve seen the application and they say, “Do you have it?” Yes or no? If yes, please attach it. If no, explain why not.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yes, exactly because of Mass General Laws.

Harry Helm:

Okay. All right, good. That’s a good answer.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Thank you.

Harry Helm:

It’s a happy answer actually.

Betty Cavacco:

Not a turkey answer.

Harry Helm:

It’s a happy answer because there is a lot of concern about what the Gaming Commission can or can’t do without legislative approval. So, that was my question.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. John?

John Mahoney:

Matt, with respect to the Gaming Commission and potentially looking at a new application before October 1st, there were public comment period?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yes, it has expired.

John Mahoney:

It’s already expired? So, it’s too late for this Board or this community to weigh in and send them–

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

You already have through the letter you sent with the 5-0 vote. They accepted that is part of that.

John Matthew:

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

So, Matt, one more time just to reiterate. It’s very clear that without legislative change and without our okay, they cannot get a race license in Plymouth?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

That’s correct.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s very clear to everybody. So, okay. The other thing I want to tell the folks–

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Let me just say one thing though, okay? What’s a little different here, and this is where maybe you need to get clarification from is that this is on county land. So, the county has certain rights to what they can do with that land. But I think the belief is they still have to follow the Mass General Laws Chapter 128 A and C that if it’s going to be held in a community, the Board of Selectmen or the mayor or the city council of that community still needs to give a vote. But I would just slightly caution you on that that you may just want to double check that.

Charlie Bletzer:

Because the way I read it, it’s the host community which would be the host community.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

That’s correct. That’s the way it’s being interpreted by the legislature. But I’m not sure, and Steve maybe can help me because I’m not sure that it was written back then that way. I think it is for the host community but I think you’re right, Charlie, Mr. Selectman. I think you can actually interpret it as it would be the host community for that land. Am I correct on that?

Mr. Bulletin:

Yeah. With the continuing caveat that I am an attorney but not an expert in this field, my research going back has shown that 128 13A is the current statute that says, ‘If you are seeking a license to run a horse racing facility, you need to get town approval or city approval, you need the municipality’s approval pursuant to 27133.’ Chapter 27133 is not a sunsetting provision. So, right now, Chapter 128A, all of the provisions of Chapter 128A including 3n which says that you cannot have any horse racing on lands owned by the Commonwealth or any of its subdivision. That provision sunsets each year right now. And it tends to be renewed. It has been since 2017. It’s renewed each year. I expect that has said, it will be renewed yet again. But 27133 separately says that in order to layout a racetrack, you need the approval of the town and that provision is not going anywhere automatically. So, there would need to be an affirmative change by the Legislature.

[1:05:12]  

Mr. Bulletin:

The reference to the county land is in 128A Section 14. Sorry for all the code sections, but that separately says that in order to run a racetrack, the last countywide vote whatever that may be and that could have been a hundred years ago, but whenever the last countywide vote took place, it approved horse racing. So, it’s a two-prong test under 128A right now.

First, you need the county to have approved it. Second, you need the town to have approved it. And 27133 still says, ‘the town has the final say.’ So, the goal is to make sure from our legislature that those provisions don’t change.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you, Mr. Bulletin and thank you, Rep. Muratore. And for all the folks that are here and the folks that are at home, I hope that’s clear enough to you because the town, this Board is not going to okay a racetrack. We’ve said it and we mean what we say and on top of that, a bigger issue is they come back with another proposal and I hope they come back with something that the residents can support but I’m not in favor of any kind of use of that Wood Lot until we get the roads fixed. I mean, the congestion down there right now is awful, it’s terrible and we have 320 apartments that are going to open up soon there. So, that’s a real big issue is the congestion in the roads there.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

And it’s clear, the county has the right to develop the land. And however, they want to do it, they need to do the due diligence and let’s wait to see what they come up with and let’s kind of go from there. We’re kind of taking a wait and see on that.

Charlie Bletzer:

But we’re not going to support. I’m not going to support.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah. And I think that’s pretty clear.

Betty Cavacco:

One of the things that I think is important that we do get the word out is that I think that we have certainly put enough information towards the Gaming Commission and state and the legislatures and our delegation to know that we are completely against horse racing, casino or whatever that we put in that letter because it was quite extensive.

One of the things that I think that we need to do is that we have questions that we should be asking to our legal counsel. One of the things that I said last week was once before it went out to lease, did that land have to be–I mean, was that the Town of Plymouth, were we able to do that? Because that was never offered to us. So, was it made surplus?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah. I don’t believe a surplus land. They’re not giving the land up. I think they’re using this as a vehicle to raise money for their budget. So, I don’t think that but I’m not an attorney so it’s–

Betty Cavacco:

Right. So, I think that and correct me if I’m wrong because I’m going to move forward with this that we instruct, and this is the Board conversation, that we instruct the town manager with our list of questions, the questions that we had from last week and I believe Mr. Senesi has them written down and reach out to whoever, whatever group of attorneys, we have a few, and get the absolute answers to those questions.

I do know that at one point, the Town Manager asked Boston South or the County Commissioners for what their legal opinion was of zoning and all that and maybe you could just explain that a little, Derek.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, through the chair, so you’re absolutely right. So, we have engaged Boston South in the past. They assert that they working with the County Commissioners that they have the ability to site certain developments without necessarily going to the town for the permitting and zoning process. Couple things we’ve done. So, we’ve reached out to them. We’ve asked them to provide their legal opinion. So, our town counselor can react to that. They failed to do that to date. Lee Hartman and I, our Planning Director, we actually had a conversation with regards to this today and when you look at the property, almost seems two-thirds of that property is residential and the other approximately one-third is a commercial/light industrial.

[1:10:03]

Derek Brindisi:

There is actually a precedent that the town has issued permits on that property for gravel removal. So, we’ve already set a precedent that the county has to come to the town going to go through the permitting process. So, we believe and even having some small conversations with town counsel, we believe that we do have the authority through the permitting process and through the zoning process but we can follow up with that and get that in writing.

Betty Cavacco:

And once you have all these questions that like I said that we want answered by legal, we want you to come back to the Board in open session and explain all the answers that you’ve received from our town counsel. So, I think it’s important that everyone knows what we know. I mean, we have been asked to a meeting with Boston South that myself and the vice-chair and you will be attending. I don’t know if Lee is attending, Mr. Hartman, I’m not sure. And they just asked us that yesterday. So, just so everybody knows. But it’s good news that so far we have held the mid bay. There is no horseracing. This Board is never going to approve horse racing unless you the people decide that’s what you want. There’s a lot of misinformation out there. There’s a lot of communications. Social media has blown up although I’ve kind of stepped away from it a little bit but there’s no reason–I try, because I said I stepped away from it a little bit. But there’s no reason to continue with this rhetoric that we’ve done something wrong because we, in fact, in my belief and from what our state representative told us, we have protected the community from such an organization coming forward with something like that. That’s all I have to say about that.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

At least today.

Betty Cavacco:

At least today. So, anyone else? Harry?

Harry Helm:

So, we, the Board are requesting that the town manager take questions to our counsel, get answers, report back to us.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

Anthony? Chairman Cavacco mentioned that you have a record of the questions that were asked last week. What are they? Because if we don’t know them now, I want to start asking them for the record. I think each one of our members should be able to ask the questions that they want answered.

Betty Cavacco:

I have one.

Harry Helm:

Okay. I’ve got a bunch of them too but I didn’t write them down on there. But I’ve got some questions as well.

Derek Brindisi:

If it makes it easier, I’d be happy to collect all those questions and then I can collate them and send those to KP, if that makes it easier.

Betty Cavacco:

And maybe send them to us first so we can review them and say, ‘Yes, this is everything that we have, and it was all the questions from the meeting last week. And if there’s any additional questions that any of the Board members have.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. I’ve come up with a few since that meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Is that okay, Derek?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. I’m happy to do that. Sure.

Betty Cavacco:

Do you want a vote for that or does the–

Derek Brindisi:

Given this is an agenda item, I think it would be helpful to have a vote from the Board to direct the Town Manager to engage KP with the questions that you send me and we’ll get those answers back to you or report those publicly.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. Discussion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I said last week, I really don’t want to spend money on this issue. I don’t think we have to. I’m very comfortable with what I heard tonight. But if it is the will of the Board to ask some questions at our counsel, hopefully, it doesn’t cost a lot to the taxpayers to get the answers for everybody but again, I just hate spending any money on this issue.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, we have spending money on any issue but I think this is our responsibility to have these questions answered because it’s something that we can put out as a public document. We can post it on the town website and even with some of the things that Rep. Muratore has explained to us this evening. I think that’s important to get out there as well.

[1:15:06]

Charlie Bletzer:

And hopefully that puts everything to bed with this so everybody can move on.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. I just like to point out that actually this evening, Rep. Muratore brought up two points that I would like to ask our counsel. One being he himself said we probably should consult with our legal counsel about the rights of the county to do whatever it is they want to do on that land and whether or not state statute actually applies to county land because I think it’s always been assumed that this covers private land. And we have an interesting situation and a complication but I’m going to follow Matt’s advise and ask.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

If I may, just a correction, I never said private land. It’s government land.

Harry Helm:

Right, it’s government land. Right, exactly. I’m just referring to things like Barrington that was private land and other places. I believe Wareham was private land. So, we have a little bit of a difference here, little bit of an interesting wobble in the whole thing that I think that you were indicating it would be probably be wise to talk to counsel.

The other was we need our counsel to find out has there ever been in the past a countywide vote for horse racing? I do not know if there is or not. I think that it would be good to know. So, I’m going to vote yes.

John Mahoney:

Matt, does Mr. Xiarhos still have a precinct in Plymouth?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Who?

John Mahoney:

Steve Xiarhos, the State Rep from Sandwich. Does he still have a precinct in Plymouth?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Oh, Steven Xiarhos? Yes. Technically, right now, he is. He’s precinct 9.

John Mahoney:

I know you’re all busy. The state delegation is busy. I appreciate you coming out tonight.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Just to be clear, John, I’m here on behalf of the entire delegation.

John Mahoney:

That’s what I’m going to say. I expect and I know that you will make sure that the other three, to the two state reps and Senator Moran that you’ll bring them up to speed.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah. They knew where I was coming tonight. We’re all in the same page. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, you have asked if one of us can come to meeting every so often and they’re all in agreement for whenever you want us to come, Sue can come anytime. Kathy can. They can coordinate through Derek or in his office.

Betty Cavacco:

I haven’t told the Board that yet.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Skip that part.

John Mahoney:

So, I just wanted to say sorry that when we compiled the list, Derek, we talked about this list of questions we’re going to send that to KP, just piggybacking on what Mr. Helm said prior comments from State Rep. Muratore, the big one for me is the variable of county government because past and current members of that three-member board have made it clear to me on various issues, not only in Plymouth but around the communities, in the 27 community county that local regulations and zoning doesn’t apply to them. They are above reproach so that’s the primary question that we can be proactive on to see what our legal counsel is going to tell us that they have the right to do and the right that they can’t do at least without going through a process at the local level.

Betty Cavacco:

So, now, I’ll explain what Matt was saying. I had a conversation with Matt, Rep. Muratore, Honorable Rep., okay. And that’s Madam Chairman to you. I did have a conversation because I think it’s really important that people know what our state delegation is doing and I think for the Town of Plymouth, we’re the biggest town in the community or meaning in the state. So, I’ve asked the three of them to attend. They can share, they can all come together. We can do it by weekly as we’re doing our meetings and I think it’s important that they give us updates on what’s going on at the State House that will affect the Town of Plymouth. And if there’s nothing, they can just hang out with us. And if there’s something, at least we hear it. No pun intended from the horse’s mouth. So, I did ask–turkey’s mouth, whatever, whoever’s mouth. So, I hope the Board doesn’t have a problem with that. I was going to bring it up under New Business but Matt blew it for me. Thanks, Matt. But I think that’s important information for all of us to have.

And Matt, I asked you, I think everybody’s done answering questions but I asked if you’d stick around a little bit during our public comment just in case people have.

[1:20:06]

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Sure. Would you like me to give the updates on the other couple of items that you’ve requested. After you take a vote with the Board.

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. Okay. So, all those in favor? It’s unanimous. There was a motion, there was discussion. The vote was to instruct the town manager to take all our questions and go to our legal counsel.

Harry Helm:

And report back in open session.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah, right. And report back in open session. So, okay. So, we have a couple other things.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

So, you would ask me on behalf of Representative LaNatra and Senator Moran and Representative Xiarhos to give you an update of a couple of legislative items. As you know, we just finished session, 12:00 – 10:00 a.m. on Monday morning, after 22-hour all night session. But to give you an update on a couple of those items, first of all, with regard to I think it was the town meeting vote in April with regard to hybrid model of the town meeting support, the bill is in second reading. And even though, we are not in formal session, these bills can pass in informal session.

Informal session by constitution has to happen every 72 hours we have to be in session. An informal is just a matter of a few members from each party to be in attendance for that. Formal session is when the whole 160 legislators and 47 senators go in for formal session. We are out for the rest of the year so there will be no formal session until next calendar year but these are still in play. So, that one is still in play. It’s actually in second reading. After second reading goes to the third reading and then it goes for enactment. So, we’re going to keep following that and we’ll give you updates on where that stands as it moves forwards throughout the summer and the fall.

The second one was a bill, it was a similar bill that was filed for hybrid for the entire community. I filed that bill with the support of Senator Moran and Representative LaNatra to have town meeting representative form of governments to actually have hybrid. There are a lot of communities as you know that have open meeting and town open meetings. Those are more difficult to have hybrid meeting. So, we’ve asked to kind of take that out and had just look at town representative form of government to see if we can have hybrids for those. So, that right now is in third reading now. So, that’s ahead of the town one. So, fingers cross, we’ll see where that one goes. However, I’m not hopeful on either one and I’m going to tell you why.

These bills were put into a larger bill probably three weeks, I think. It was added to a bill but then was removed towards the end of the session because the representative from Flow River [?] actually put it in. it was accepted by the House to do hybrid but what it said is that you must do hybrid. But what it said is that you must do hybrid. So, the word must kind of killed that because it should be an option if the communities want to a hybrid because that was kind of killed at that point but at least these two are in play.

Also, you asked about the bill with regard to the nuclear power plant and the Holtec Bill for the pilot program, and I believe I had conversation with Town Manager on this over the weekend. This bill was not moving. So, it was in third reading. It was sitting in third reading for about three weeks now. So, I finally talked to the Chair of the Energy Committee even though it’s not in third reading but he wanted to have input onto it. And we came up with a compromise. In order to get bills passed, when you know your current bill is not going to get passed for whatever reason, you have to compromise. So, we did compromise. The language in that bill that had to say including and up to I believe it was spent fuel rods and something else was removed. So, it was removed because–well, I’m not sure why it was removed. But it wasn’t going to move otherwise. So, I felt that and with the Town Manager that at least what this bill will do is allow you to sit down and have a discussion about a pilot program. I don’t know if once we see the final language if that precludes spent fuel rods. I believe that the language because they need to sit down with you to do a pilot, I believe it can if you conclude anything. But we’ll have to see what the final bill comes out. But I’ve been pretty much reassured on that one that that most likely will pass in informal session and hopefully pretty soon. So, we’ll see what the final language is on that and I’ll pass it along to you.

[1:25:04]

John Mahoney:

In the timeframe for that specific Holtec article you’re talking about, if that passes, what kind of a timeframe are we looking at?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

I was hoping it’d get passed this past weekend while we’re in session. It didn’t quite yet so my indication is probably going to be the next week or two. We will keep you informed. And I think that’s why it’s a good idea from Madam Chair, your idea of having one of us here maybe every other week. These are the type of things that we can give updates on as we move forward.

There was another one, just interesting one, that had to do with the Plymouth Plantation Highway. Patuxet actually asked us if we would actually have that highway changed, the name of it changed. So, we’re on the process of doing that. That is moving along. It’s been engrossed in the House and is moved on to the Senate now. So, we’re hoping that that will come out in the formal session so it can officially change the name of the highway.

There was another one that police chief asked for which had to do with an act to the appointment of police officers in the Town of Plymouth and that had to do with the increase of the age of taking exam from 32 to 40. So, that is moving along. That’s in third reading now and also at the Senate as well.

Betty Cavacco:

That would be helpful.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah. I think that one will move along pretty quick too. Now, there was another one with regards to–let’s see. I think it was dry cask storage. No, that wasn’t that one. Sorry, I’m trying to read from my phone. I think those are the highlights that you would ask for. Why I’m here is to give you an update too with regard to the budget, the Fiscal year ’23 budget, which you passed last week is now sitting on the governor’s desk for a signature. A few items in there that relate to Plymouth, $90,000 is in there for the Plymouth Waterfront Visitor Center to update that and put extra bathrooms in there. There’s a $150,000 for the Plymouth Housing Authority to finish the house on Oak Street. So, that was some good news for them. There’s $47,000 for Plymouth Police Patrol on rescue boat for the motors. I believe town meeting did not pass for the boat motors but we’re able to put that into the budget. There was $41,000 for upgrades for Plymouth Fire Department operations for the smartboard. So, that is in there. There’s $105,000 for PACTV as well. They want to put together a mobile van so they can update the news programs as they come up so they’ll be able to roam around the towns that they are in to do that. So, there’s a $105,000 in there to do that as well. The Chapter 70 money is over $27 million for Chapter 70 money, which is schools. So, that’s up and is unrestricted general. By the way, the per pupil cost for schools was running around I think it was $30 per pupil in the Commonwealth the previous year. This new budget is $60. So, it’s been doubled. So, there’s significant amount of money being put into the schools in the Commonwealth. Unrestricted general government aid, for you folks, is $4 million is going to be coming. So, that’s up as well.

There’s also some money that we passed a major IT infrastructure bill and transportation bill. It’s all in one. And in that, there’s $1.5 million. By the way, this is bond money. So, it’s not money that’s free cash that come right away. It’s up to a governor to actually have this money released. So, this could take six months, it could take several years in order to see this money. But the important point is that there’s money in there for these projects for whenever the money is released. $1.5 million for the Town of Plymouth for the sidewalk improvements on Route 80. There’s 700,000 for engineering, design and permitting of Exit 13, which is the Route 3 slip route reconstruction planning to alleviate the congestion there. There’s a $100,000 for the Plymouth Regional Economic Foundation for feasibility study for ferry service in Plymouth. Let’s see. There’s a $100,000 for the Town of Plymouth for the reconstruction of the waterfront seawall to increase public safety and protect business in addressing the sea level. $122,000 for the Town of Plymouth for the installation of 18 mobile data terminals, in frontline response apparatus and command cars to increase efficiency, transfer of sensitive and complex information, reduce excessive radio traffic and increase firefighter safety. $54,000 for the Town of Plymouth to purchase of installation level 2 police electric vehicle charging stations. Let’s see. There’s 2.2 million for the water main and storage water drainage system for the intersection of Court Street and Hedge Road in North Plymouth area. There’s $250,000 for the Plymouth town work pedestrian improvement and sidewalks.

[1:30:06]

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

And 1 million for Nicks Rock Road and Squanto Road reconstruction projects. So, those are all items that we as a delegation have supported and were accepted into the budget. And there’s infrastructure transportation budget, IT budget that is bond money. So, I just want to be clear. It’s not money that’s coming to the town yet. It’s going to take some time to get that, but at least that money is there.

The unfortunate part of this whole exercise and the problem with waiting until the last minute in a lot of these conference committee reports is the Economic Development Bill did not pass. The Economic Development Bill was the bill that you probably heard most about. That was going to be money that would be rebates coming back to folks. I think single tax payers will get $250 back, married couples look at $500 back. There was a total of $1 billion in tax cuts in that economic development and that did not pass. And that can’t in informal session unless the bonding is taken out of and that’s all the bonding that was taken out of the economic bill. That’s a possibility that may happen, but what’s triggered this and you may have heard this is there was a 1986 voter approved law that was passed that said if the State of Massachusetts had excess of $2.3 billion in any single budget year that that money, whatever that money is, that’s certified by the Secretary of State in September of that year would go back to the tax payers. A percentage would go back to the tax payers on the percentage of taxes that they pay the previous year. That came up I believe on Wednesday or Thursday by the governor as sort of a reminder that people that have been there a long time forgot to vote. So, that’s significant. That could be close to $3 billion coming back.

The governor believes that that $3 billion plus the $1 billion in the Economic Bill could actually be afforded to give back to taxes to people in the next coming year. But the leadership in the House and the Senate wanted some time to study so that’s kind of why that held off. So, we’re hoping that this will all come back again at some point. But a couple of items that were in there for Plymouth under that Economic Bill were $75,000 replacement of the wooden boardwalk along the harbor. There was a $100,000 for Mass Audubon for Tidmarsh that was certificate for them and there was a million dollars for the Town of Plymouth for the design and reconstruction of the Town Square that you were looking for as well. There was also almost 1.6 million for upgrades in Murrow Hall as well that were part of that bond as well. So, we’ll keep you updated on where that stands as time goes on but at this point, that Economic Bill has not gone through but we’ll let you know.

Also, there was a million dollars for Nathaniel Morton recreation facility repairs that was in there and yeah, that seemed to be it. So, that kind of gives you the update. So, what we’ll do, Madam Chair is we’ll work through the delegation, we’ll get them this information at least the next time you want to meet with somebody, they’ll have that information to give some updates on that and whatever else is happening at the time.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah. I mean, honestly, you guys pick a schedule. Our next meeting is the 16th. If you want to come in here, we’re on a two-week summer schedule.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Two weeks? Okay. I will let them know.

Betty Cavacco:

And I believe the next, the 16th will be all remote.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Okay. And we won’t wait till those meetings if some of these other things pop ahead of time. We’ll be sure to let you and the Town Manager know.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect. Thank you. John?

John Mahoney:

Matt, I didn’t know you were here tonight for such an in-depth review of what was going on. So, just off the top of my head two quick things. You talked on Chapter 70 money and then you gave us statistic per pupil went from $30 from $60. So, it costs us and I don’t know exactly, I know it’s with $13 to $17,000 a year to educate a student. I don’t know what the accurate number is but it’s in the teens. Okay, you’re pushing $20. So, what are you referring to specifically?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

So, the Commonwealth does a per pupil cost when they actually give out this money. So, in the past, it’s been running I don’t know $15, $20 for a number of years, Derek. I think two years or maybe four years ago went up to $25 or $30, which was significant and to have this as double. So, the way they do it, they average it $60 per pupil in the Commonwealth to pay for education.

John Mahoney:

Why is that seemed like peanuts compared to what we’re paying to educate each individual. Chair Cavacco was saying it’s almost $20,000. It doesn’t seem to be–

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

The Commonwealth doesn’t pay for the entire education as you know.

John Mahoney:

I am aware.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

The cities and towns have to pitch in as well. So, this is significant increase from the Commonwealth to the cities and towns. So, it’s less that the tax payers of Plymouth would have to pay.

[1:35:01]

John Mahoney:

I understand how that works but it seems like a small amount.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

$30 was a small amount, $20 was a small amount, $60 is significant in the scheme of things. Could it be more? Of course, it could be. I think it was a delegation that led by Representative Josh called it probably four years ago, I think we were looking for a hundred.

John Mahoney:

So, that’s 60. If we have 8,000 students, that’s $480,000 so that 480 falls within the Chapter 70?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Of the 270 million, yeah. I’m sorry, it’s 27 million.

John Mahoney:        

Okay. All right, Matt. I will take your word on that one.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Thanks, John.

John Mahoney:

You’re welcome. The other thing you know as well as anyone that this community has been the dam removal leader basically in 21st Century Massachusetts. So, the Department of Ecological Restoration has a database where you can go in and click on the state and there’s 3,000 dams in there, Matthew. Okay? So, up until 5 years ago, there were two high hazard level 1 dams in the community. One was owned by the Town of Plymouth and the other one was owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts down on State Road near High Point. So, the hypocrisy to me is that this community removed five barriers on Town Brook over a 17-year-period. The fifth and last barrier was the Level 1 dam. You go over there now, I mean, it is stunningly beautiful, it’s phenomenal. You see children always at play in the skateboard park and in the basketball court. It’s a stunning achievement. And then whenever this community inquires at the state level, what’s going on with respect to the removal of the dam down on the State Road of Manomet, it’s crickets. You have a densely populated residential neighborhood downstream that the Commonwealth acknowledges that if that dam were to fail, there will be significant potential loss of life and significant property damage. I’m not asking for them to remove it tomorrow but I think the community deserves an answer or at least some timeframe to say, “Hey, we’ll be there in 5 years, next year or you know what, we’re never going to take care of it.” That’s all I’m asking for.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah, sure. It’s the first I’m hearing about this. What I’d ask for is if David Gould can send some particular information to you, Madam Chair or the Town Manager send us some information on it and as delegation we will check in too to see. It may be on a list somewhere but we’ll check that out, we’ll find that out, we’ll get back you on that.

John Mahoney:

Thank you.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah, you’re welcome. One last thing too, if I may, this morning and Selectman Bletzer was here. We were honored to have lieutenant governor here and the Secretary of Transportation here to present a check to Town of Plymouth. I think it was 274,000, Charlie and Derek obviously was running the show there. Did I take your thunder on this? Were you going to tell them that? I’m sorry, but it was just exciting to see that Plymouth got another 274,000 for the streets program and more importantly, which is what I really want to say is that that program started I think in 2020 during the pandemic with $5 million and it was just really to help cities and towns because they were hurting and cities and towns were calling the governor and saying, “Look, we need somebody to help our downtown areas and to help our communities.” Then that program is now a $50 million program. It’s a permit program now that’s in the budget. So, we’re very proud that’s been put in there. That’s going to continue to help communities like Plymouth so congratulations on that.

Betty Cavacco:                                        

Excellent. Okay. So, just in case, if you’d like to stick around for a little bit and we’re going to go–is there any more questions from the Board about anything? So, we are now going to go to public comment and I’m actually going to take Pat Adelman who has been there with her hand raised ever so gently for a long time.

Anthony Senesi:

Pat, you unmute yourself.

Pat Adelman:

Thank you and thank you for taking my question. It was for Representative Matt Muratore, I wanted to know if the same stipulation that applies to horse racing where the Select Board has to give their approval, if that also applies to any kind of gaming facility. Thank you.

Rep. Matt Muratore:

I only checked it out specifically to horse track racing. So, I’m not sure about the gaming part. My guess is it is but that’s something you may want the town counsel to just double check on.

[1:40:00]

Betty Cavacco:

The letter that we sent, Ms. Adelman did specifically say gaming.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah. I think it does but like I said, you need to double check.

Betty Cavacco:

What was it? Old fashion horse betting or historical horse racing, yes, thank you. So, it was all encompassing of all that but we can check and make sure that town counsel has that information. Go ahead, Pat and just please state your name for the record. I think this is another one for Mr. Muratore.

Pat McCarthy:

Anybody can but since he’s here. Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18 Town Meeting member, and I don’t like to be pessimistic but see I don’t totally trust Boston South Development. So, this is why I’m asking this question. I was in touch with Matt a few days ago, whenever. Thank you for getting back to me. In reviewing the 59-page application that went before the Gaming Commission. The end date was July 26th and then there’s no new posting. You updated this. So, in that application process, which I kind of re-reviewed it but not every single word but a lot of it and this is just a verbiage that making me a little nervous because it did say under Section 4.1, it asks if the applicant’s proposed facility and premises has been approved by local authorities and then it also asks if it’s been approved in 4.3 and you have to provide the documents, the applicant would. And then has it been approved by the vote in the county in which, and then I read and I can’t remember if it’s in this document but in the Gaming Commission website, it also stated somewhere and this is where Matt could clear this up, it said that the vote by the local–I’m summarizing the way I interpreted it. I’m not telling you it’s totally accurate but it said that the vote had to be taken after the entity applied for the license. Also, it talks about the host community approving and that it mentions also abutting towns to the host community would have to vote also if they thought they were going to be impacted by the entity coming in, whatever this horse racing situation was coming in. So, that just made me a little nervous even though I know we had a non-binding referendum and we voted and you voted and I’m really happy about all that and I’m happy that you’re going to ask town counsel. And then I don’t know if I should ask a couple of my questions kind of run together here in terms of concerns. I don’t know. But that was like a technicality kind of thing.

The other issue that makes me really nervous is in their 19-page lease agreement, which I re-read that a couple of times and I’m not a lawyer at all but that first 90 days, which started on July 21st is when they can do all their due diligence inspections and then they have a right to terminate or they can continue but who knows what happened with those “inspections.” And in particular, I’m concerned about the environmental inspections that would be on that land for whatever they’re going to want to do. So, again, I guess, if any of you want to ask that. I know it’s between the county and entity. It’s not between the town and the entity but if town counsel could read that 19-page lease agreement, I just had a question about that.

And then of course, I have other kinds of questions but I was concerned about that 90 days and whatever kinds of inspections they have a right to do. It’s a lot of verbiage of all the inspections they have a right to do. And would we ever know anything about them? And they’re supposed to go before all the boards? And when are they going to do that in the 90 days? When are they really going to do that? And then what else are they cooking up their sleeve? So, overall, that’s without being legally correct, those are my thoughts. Thank you.

[1:45:09]

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Thank you, Pat. Just to be clear that this is like any developer that comes in the community and I think this is the process that most businesses that come in and want to do a due diligence permit is to do all those things. So, that’s why doing the 90 days makes sense to do that. That information will be public because they’re going to have to go back to the County Commissioners at a public meeting to kind of go through that if they’re going to go to the next steps. So, I know that information will be all public.

With regard to your first question with the application. If I wasn’t clear, let me be crystal clear. What I said was is the letter that you submitted with the 5-0 vote, that the board has made the 5-0 vote is the comment period. Okay? And there’s nothing more that the town needs to do or can do because there’s no application from the Gaming Commission. So, you’re absolutely right. So, if and when there’s an application in the Gaming Commission then that would be the time for the town to once again reiterate. They don’t have to do a vote of the community. They could just do from the Board making that vote. It just needs to be a majority vote to do that. So, I hope that’s crystal clear.

Elise Bruno:

Hello. I’m Elise Bruno, Chair of Precinct 18. I just wanted to say thank you to you guys for reaching out to the State Reps and really opening and clarifying a lot of the information and thank you for coming down. It really helped out.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Where is Precinct 18? I don’t even know where that is.

Elise Bruno:

It’s at Exit 13. Yeah, old 5. So, I just had a question. It kind of falls under the county versus town thing again. With that special permit you had mentioned with Kingstown, with the gravel and sand operation, they left a pit there in that globally rare pine barren. So, I was wondering who enforces those kinds of permits?

Derek Brindisi:

For that type of permit, that would be enforced through our Inspectional Services Department.

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, can you look into that? Have them look into that?

Derek Brindisi: 

Yeah. We can certainly take a look at that. Sure.

Elise Bruno:

Thank you. I appreciate it. My other question is kind of about the megachurch that’s going on. I don’t think it’s in Precinct 18 but it’s really is a stone away. So, I just heard a lot of concerns about that and I was just wondering if for their development project, will they have to come before the Board or who kind of oversees a project of that size?

Betty Cavacco:

I believe that would be Planning and Zoning. I don’t think they’d be coming in front of the Board.

Elise Bruno:

I was just curious. So, that’s it. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

And Ms. Holdsworth?

Anthony Senesi:

Ms. Holdsworth, you can unmute yourself.

Lynn Holdsworth:

I think I’m unmuted now. Okay, I got it. I have a couple questions actually and observation and some questions. Chapter 128A Section 3L prohibits horse racing in Commonwealth owned property or property owned by communities they’re under which would include the county. And I don’t know, Matt, have you taken a look at that? That’s my first question. My next question, the Gaming application. It seems like they’re putting the cart before the horse, if you will. The process seems like it’s inconsistent with Mass General Law Chapter 128A Section 2. That statute requires that an application shall be filed in one calendar year for racing and the following calendar year and yet the new application is being set up in such a way that you could have a piece of land that has not yet been developed such as our Wood Lot.

[1:50:09]

Lynn Holdsworth:

Applying for an application with absolutely no race track and it might authorize the Mass Gaming Commission to grant a license. There is no provision in 128A for granting an application for racing in future years and they have been very clear and the legislature again this year, they amended the provision that kept the sunset law continued the 128A for yet another year. It was going to continue for three years but it’s only continued for a year. So, clearly, it’s a year-to-year sort of license yet the way the new application is set up, it seems to be set up so that somebody who wants to invest in a Wood Lot might be able to get a license today, set up some maybe gaming licenses because you can get a gaming license if you have a horse racing license now once the governor signs it. And there’s also some questions about some were cars racing and what have you. It seems to me that could be a whole lot of betting going on before the shovel ever hits the ground basically. Can you speak to that, Matt? What’s going on?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Sure. Yeah, absolutely. Let me try to be in clear if I can. So, whether it’s a new application or an old application, the application to apply is October 1st. Okay? And again, the letter of the Board of Selectmen sent was really for public comment period because there’s no application then. Now, anybody can file an application and anybody has the right to do that. What happens is there’s a period of time after the application is filed for any comments or questions or anything like this to happen. And it simply, at this point, because in Section 128 that it’s a simple vote of the Board of Selectmen once the application is filed. And once the application is filed on October 1st doesn’t mean October 2nd, it goes into play. It takes several months. It takes several months for the application to be either approved or disapproved. So, there’s plenty of time for the Board of Selectmen at that point to send in their letter of support or non-support. I’m hoping I’m trying to be as clear as possible. There’s nothing more you can do at this point because there’s no application filed but anybody has the right to file that on October 1st.

Lynn, I’m sorry I forgot your first question though. Can anybody remember her first question?

Lynn Holdsworth:

I’m trying to unmute myself. There we go. 128A Section 3L prohibits racing on land owned by the Commonwealth or subdivisions thereof.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Yeah, and I think that’s what we talked about earlier. That’s the clarification that the Board needs to get from town counsel.

Lynn Holdsworth:

I agree. I mean, I’m very glad that the Board felt the need to bring the town counsel in because it seems evident that Boston South they’ve got some [inaudible]

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

If I can interrupt you for a second. There is no plan. At this point, there is no plan in place. What the County Commissioners voted on a week or so ago was to lease the land to Boston South. The first 90 days is the due diligence and then within 3 years, come up with a plan, budget, etc., that needs to happen. So, we are putting the cart before the horse because there’s nothing out there yet. So, again, anybody can file for it. It doesn’t mean that they would get an application granted.

Lynn Holdsworth:

The first purpose of land was horse racing.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Exactly. Again, they have the right to do that. Who know? This Board may change in a year or two and they may come back and there could be a vote of 5-0 and they want it. You don’t know. So, they have the right to go for that and I don’t think that this Board in the next three years will probably change their minds but they have the right to do that and that’s what they are pursuing. Again, the County Commissioner is very clear. They would like to see an entertainment complex there. If it could be some horse racing there, that’s fine as well but if not, they’re okay with that.

[1:55:09]

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

But as we know, they can do other things on that land as well but that’s their preference at least that they would like to do.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak under public comment? No. Okay. Next is the Town Manager’s report.

Derek Brindisi:

All right. Thank you. Although the State Rep did steal a little bit of my thunder, I guess I’ll keep my comments brief. Since Representative Muratore talked so much about the Bond Bills and the ERMAX [?]. the ERMAX we’ll be receiving those dollars soon. Bond Bills, we’ll have to wait and see. I just want to let you know, we do have a process in place. So, one thing I really appreciate about is Rep. Muratore, Rep. LaNatra, Senator Moran, they often reach out to the town and they often asked us, what are our needs? And so, now that we have a grant writer, we have Tiffany Park. She’s building those needs through all by different departments. So, when those requests come and they come fast and they come furious, we have these pre-built needs already ready to go and so, we’re able to work with out state delegation in order to advocate for the various capital needs of the community. So, again, really appreciate all the work from our state delegation this past year in getting us the dollars that we need. And then again, we did talk a little bit about the streets program but this was a $280,000 grant award through this program as previously mentioned. This program is going to focus on improving the streets in Silux [?] or at Nathaniel Morton and over the Training Green. So, we’ve identified those as two areas that we need some pedestrian safety and some improvements. So, again, these dollars are going to go a long way to making our sign locks even more safe than they are already.

As far as Morton Park, so we talked a little bit about Morton Park about a week ago. Morton Park this past weekend was uneventful. For what we understand, things went well. Like I had mentioned earlier, we were working with the police department and we were working with the Recreation Department to ensure that we had all the safety measures in place so all of our patrons could enjoy that space in a safe manner. So, again, happy to report we didn’t have any issues. So, we’ll continue to employ those strategies through the remaining parts of the summer.

As far as White Horse Beach and the whales, early this morning, we were told that the coast guard and environmental police continue to patrol those areas, doing the best that they can to again, make sure the waters are safe not only for the boaters but for the mammals as well. But later on today, we received notice that they believe the whales have migrated north. They’ve been cited in the Boston Harbor. So, as far as we can tell, we think a lot of the sightseeing maybe over. But again, we’re continuing to monitor the area with the Harbor Master’s office and report back to the Board if we see anything. And I’m sure many of you will see it before we do.

Key preparation: so, we have a predicted 100-degree weather day coming Thursday. Found out today that that’s going to roll until Friday as well. So, we’re already actively preparing with the Fire Department Emergency Management, Barry DeBlasio’s team will recommend resources to ensure that we have cooling centers available if needed. So, we’re going to wait and see in the next couple of days to determine whether or not we need to put those in place.

The first meeting of the Simes House Task Force had taken place today at 3:00 p.m. We had a very lively discussion, very good meeting for the first time. We came up with I think almost a dozen various action items for next week’s meeting. The plan is we’re going to continue to meet at the Simes House. We’re going to move the meeting’s time from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to accommodate one of our members. So, we’ll be meeting there at least for the foreseeable future every Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. over at the Simes House. We’re going to move to the second floor. Today, we held it in the first floor. There’s no air conditioning so we’ll move to the second floor if we continue to have this heat. We tried to be good to try to replicate what it was like to live in that house 200 years ago with no heat, so.

And last, I just want to let folks know that this coming Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the library is out third annual Arts and Crafts festival. Pending any questions, that’s all I have.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. So, anybody have questions?

[2:00:01]

Charlie Bletzer:

I just like to reiterate and I want to give kudos to the police. I visited both Morton Park and Fresh Pond. Fresh Pond, I only went there on Sunday apparently and Saturday. There was a lot of loud music on Saturday but when I was there on Sunday, the beach was very clean, the lifeguards were very happy. And I actually met the Chief there and we talked to some residents and they talked about Saturday, there were some issues but Sunday, it was perfect. And so, the Chief let them know if there’s issues like that, just call the police and they’ll come down and will take care of it.

At Morton Park, I was there both Saturday and Sunday and I talked to the staff and they said the police were coming in and out. I know on Sunday, it was a detailed on the beach as well as sitting near the entrance. On Sunday when I got there, the beach was closed. So, the road was closed to the beachgoers and they really appreciated the police presence. So, they did a great job on that.

Derek Brindisi:

Thank you. I’ll pass that along.

Betty Cavacco:

Great, thank you. So, next we have Select Board Open Session – New business/ Letters/ Old Business. I have a letter that was drafted today that we are sending to the Attorney General, and I just like to read it into the record so folks know what we’re doing. And this is the opposition to discharge of radioactive water from Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and the letter states:

Attorney General Healey,

The Town of Select Board has been informed the recent reports about Holtec International’s plan to remove water from the spent fuel pool and discharge their radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay. The Town of Plymouth Select Board voted on July 26th, 2022 to oppose plans to discharge radioactive water from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant Stations reactor vessel and spent fuel pool into Cape Cod Bay. Discharging the contaminated water is not the only option available to Holtec. Instead of releasing the water into the bay, the company has other alternative actions to take that include trucking the water to another location. The Select Board in the Town of Plymouth is deeply concerned about the potential adverse impacts of any discharge of radioactive water would have on the region’s public health, the environment and the local economy. We therefore state our strong opposition to any plans to discharge water containing radiation or other contaminants in Cape Cod Bay.

And Anthony, if you can post this on the town website, please. Thank you.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

Sorry, but you triggered my memory on another bill that I believe it was Representative Josh Cutler – Pembroke that filed just recently with regard to that issue. And we’ve all signed on to it trying to put a moratorium to stop the water from being discharged and give us time to think about it to what more we can do. I’m not sure where that’s where, you know, it was just filed so I’m not sure where that’s going to go but at least it’s been filed and that will be another update that we can give you.

Harry Helm:

Question, Matt. I was under the impression that that was part of the Economic Development Bill. It was not?

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

No. This is a separate bill.

Harry Helm:

Oh, okay. I thought they were putting the moratorium in with that.

Rep. Matthew Muratore:

They may have but this was a separate request that we asked for. I believe that if it is in there as well, I believe that Economic Bill will come out at some point with our bonding stuff so that part we can update it too but it doesn’t mean that will go through. So, we’re trying every angle we got.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Does anybody have any new business, old business, letters? Sure.

Charlie Bletzer:

Derek, I get some calls from the president on the way to a speech association down by the full sail and they had a question about the ramp, the boat ramp right next to the full sail. I guess it’s really sunken and it’s become a real safety issue now not just for the people trying to get boats down there. They said they were all getting stuck but for the folks that walk down the ramp that sand ramp. So, I admit I talked to JB. I mentioned it to you today and he seems to know how to fix this problem so if you could just talk with him and see if something could be done about that before somebody gets hurt down there.

[2:05:11]

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. Happy to follow up. I’ll connect with the Director tomorrow morning.

Betty Cavacco:

One of the things that made that ramp stable was they used to put crushed stone as the basecoat and then put sand on top. The last hurricane where we lost the ramp, we lost everything. And then they were only filling it in with sand. The problem is it’s only being filled in with sand. So, we need that basecoat back there. And I know I’ve talked to JB about it a few times and hopefully it will change now, so.

Anybody else? New business? I have some new business. We could put on the agenda the White Horse Beach ticket prices for parking tickets speaking to some of the officers, we’re getting a lot of people that don’t have stickers and there’s four or five people in the vehicle. It’s 50 bucks, just ticket me, I’ll pay $10. That’s not helping. So, we can make it an agenda item and discuss raising the White Horse Beach ticket prices.

And also, the town lot, we have a town lot that sits on Taylor Ave. and it’s right beside my parents old store. For some reason, they’re not ticketing in there and you have to have a beach sticker. Guest passes are not allowed in there but there are a lot of people with guest passes that are going in there. So, if we could address that as well.            

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, we can follow up Pilgrim on that one.

Charlie Bletzer:

Just one suggestion, talk to the PGDC about how much you can charge for ticket. I know there’s laws of about how much you can charge with penalty. So, I would just check that first.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, the good thing is that we actually made White Horse Beach its own parking district, Town Meeting did. So, we have a little bit more leniency.

Charlie Bletzer:

No, I think it might be state law. So, I would just check that, so.

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, if you could find that out. And come back with a recommendation up to $200 that’s what you have to pay if you park in the handicap spot somewhere in that vicinity.

Derek Brindisi:

I can do that.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? New Business? Old Business? Letters? No. Okay. We’ll move on to license and administrative notes. The first is a group of licenses. If anyone has an issue or a question about them, I would seek a motion to move them as a group.

Charlie Bletzer:

I just had a question on Roll Street Tavern, and my question is and I don’t know if Derek knows this but they’re relinquishing their alcohol license, All Alcohol. Are they closing the restaurant or are they just not going to serve alcohol?

Harry Helm:

It’s closed.

Charlie Bletzer:

Oh, okay. It is. I didn’t know that. Okay. That’s too bad.

Betty Cavacco:

So, do we have a motion?

John Mahoney:

I move those to approve.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Administrative notes. I’m seeking the same, move as a group unless there’s questions.

John Mahoney:

Well, I’ll abstain from number one.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Is there a second?

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? With one abstention. Okay. Motion to adjourn?

Harry Helm:

Motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you everyone and we’ll see you in a couple weeks. Our next meeting will be full remote.