Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 8-30-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board Minutes 8-30-22

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

Betty Cavacco:

Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the August 30th Select Board meeting. If you join me for 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:

Thank you. The Select Board has been in executive session since 5:00 p.m. And now, we return back to Open Session. I’m going to do this Public Hearing first for the Aquaculture License and then we will be voting on all the Administrative Notes and Licenses before we start getting into the other parts of the agenda.

So, Aquaculture license for William Marani. There he is, okay. Is the harbormaster here? No. I haven’t seen him either. Can you identify yourself for the Board?

William Marani:

Oh, certainly. My first name is William and my last name is Marani, and I am a resident at 253 Standish Avenue.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect. And we do have a letter from the Harbormaster that says:

Dear Select Board,

We would like to recommend the assignment of William Marani from the Aquaculture waiting list to the one vacant aquaculture site within the Aquaculture Development Zone (ADZ). I have spoken with Mr. Marani and he’s willing to accept the site and is eager to get started with his Aquaculture operations.

Respectfully,

Chad Hunter

Do we have a motion?

Harry Helm:

Motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second?

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

It’s unanimous. Congratulations.

William Marani:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m going to change the order. So, next will be all the Licenses, Permits, Vehicle for Hire, Pole Petitions, Keno and the Administrative Notes. Do the Board Members have any questions regarding any of those? And if not, I look to move them as a group.

John Mahoney:

Through the chair, I just have to abstain from the minutes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

I have a question about the licenses. KKatie’s Express in Manomet, there is no 761 State Road and I was wondering where the location actually is. Anthony was looking into it.

Anthony Senesi:

Through the chair, KKatie’s is going to be located where the old Fortune Teller used to be. It’s next to, I believe, it was the Marylou’s.

Harry Helm:

Next to what?

Betty Cavacco:

Marylou’s. The building, I think the attorneys are in there as well.

Harry Helm:

Okay, but it’s not in the Mayflower Plaza? Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct. Any other questions? Someone would like to move as a group?

Harry Helm:

I move as a group.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second?

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, Charlie seconded.

Harry Helm:

One of us motioned and one of us second. Just pick.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect. All right. All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. So, the first order of business is the Suicide Prevention Month and Day Proclamation. Do we know who’s presenting for that?

[0:05:17]

Betty Cavacco:

Proclamation from the Town of Plymouth,

Whereas, the Plymouth Select Board takes pride in recognizing National Suicide Prevention Day and Month,

Whereas, suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in United States and the second leading cause of death among individuals between 15 and 24 years of age,

And whereas, in the United States, one person completes suicide every 14 minutes.

And whereas, it is estimated that 5 million people in the US are survivors of suicide loss.

And whereas, an increase in overall suicide rate in our country was seen in 2019 representing a change in the recent pattern of stability or slight declines,

And whereas, suicide is a community problem and thus must be community response through various initiatives to reduce suicidal behaviors,

Whereas, the Plymouth Suicide Prevention Coalition, which is dedicated to reducing the frequency of suicide attempts and death through education, awareness and action urge that we as a community:

1. Recognize suicide as a national, state and Town of Plymouth public health problem and declare suicide prevention to be a Plymouth County priority.
2. Acknowledge that no single suicide prevention program or effort will be appropriate for all populations or communities.
3. Encourage local initiatives based on the goals contained in the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention that will develop and implement strategies to reduce the stigma associated with being a consumer of mental health, substance abuse and suicide prevention services.
4. Develop and implement community-based suicide prevention programs and suicide bereavement support services.
5. Implement training for the recognition of at-risk behavior and for delivery of the affected treatment.
6. Increase access to in community linkages with mental health and substance abuse in the entertainment and news media.

Now, therefore, a great many suicides are preventable. Therefore, it be resolved that we, the Plymouth Select Board do hereby designate September 10th, 2022 which overlaps World Suicide Prevention Day on September 12th as National Suicide Prevention Month in the Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Do we have a motion?

Harry Helm:

I’ll move to make that proclamation.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second?

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

It’s unanimous. Okay. Public comments. Mr. Serkey?

Richard Serkey:

Good evening. Richard Serkey, Precinct 2. I am here just to ask whether or not a Select Board sponsored article is intended to be submitted that would seek the filing of a home rule petition to change the month in which municipal elections occurred. I asked the question only because there were some discussion at the end of the charter commission meeting last night that this was contemplated but I didn’t see it on your agenda for tonight.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Brindisi?

Derek Brindisi:

Yes. Through the chair, so that article that Mr. Serkey is referencing is to be heard at our next meeting on September 8th.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Richard Serkey:

On September 8th?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Richard Serkey:

It’s going to be an article before town meeting, but it’s not going to through the Charter Commission first?

Betty Cavacco:

It will be an article through town meeting.

Richard Serkey:

I think it belongs before the Charter Commission because they’re doing extensive work about our form of government, but I’ll wait until September 8th.

[0:10:00]

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Pat McCarthy:                                                                                                                 

Good evening. Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18, Town Meeting member vice-chair. I just have a couple of comments to read into the record prior to your next item on your agenda. It’s regarding an in-person town meeting. It is time to meet in-person and it can be done safely. Events are being held consistently now indoors. Fundraiser events such as the Habitat for Humanity gala and the Library Taste of the Town are scheduled for the fall. The Phil has all their concerts scheduled and other events are being held at Memorial Hall. Over 800 attended the opening ceremony for the school department at North High. Masks were not mandatory. Citizens have the choice to get fully vaccinated, wear mask and social distance.

In 2020, former Superintendent Dr. Gary Maestas provided information on how we could meet safely inside North High and I have some bullet points.

1. Use of all of auditorium and mezzanine for town meeting members. They will have plenty of space. Encourage all to wear masks and be fully vaccinated and do a test before they come.
2. FinCom staff, department heads and other boards can be in a classroom and utilize the technology of North High to watch the meeting. They can come in to the main area to speak on issues and return to the classroom.
3. Citizens and guests can watch from the cafeteria and join the meeting if needed.
4. Bag lunches could be sold instead of having the cafeteria line. I know that the town can coordinate what is necessary with the school department.

Most town meetings in Massachusetts are open and no one knows how many will come. If those towns can do that in their way, it’s way past the time for us to meet in-person. COVID, unfortunately, in my opinion is here to stay and we need to take care of ourselves and others. We have to live with it. I’m one of those old people and choose to be careful but town meeting is one place I will gladly go and stay safe. It is important to have interactions with others on town meeting business especially with about 50 new town meeting members that only have participated in a couple of items in June. They have not even met anybody in-person. So, I urge you, as a Board in the Town of Plymouth to have an in-person town meeting so we can interact properly. Thank you.

Joe Hutchinson:

HI!  Joe Hutchinson, Precinct 17. Thank you for the time. As you just heard, this is an ongoing argument. Some people say that it’s an integrity problem that the only reliable form of town meeting is in-person and others think that it’s a risk management problem and simply aren’t willing to risk the health and lives of their neighbors. That’s an argument that’s been going on for too long and we just had the third survey on it. I guess, what I really want to say is that I would like to take a look at what the point is, what the goal is why we are going to town meeting, which is the work of the town. It has very little to do with the venue.

Precinct 17 has a caucus every month. At the most recent one, we discussed how we want to deal with this problem. We’re going to be hybrid for those who feel vulnerable and there are those who feel vulnerable. And in-person for those of us who prefer the in-person experience. I think that both venues provide valid outcomes. There’s no evidence so far that in-person versus that the town meeting has failed in any way from having been virtual.

So, the town is going to pass through a solution. We have a petition in front of the legislature for a hybrid town meeting and that will give us the flexibility that we need to have either hybrid or virtual or some variant. So, that’s actually the model that we’re working towards.

[0:15:15]

Joe Hutchinson:

Secretary Gullivan’s Town Meeting Handbook, he lays out the work and we can do the work in both venues. So, in a nutshell, I‘m having to let you know that caucuses, in-person, we can make improvements to both along the way. So, I believe that having a caucus every month, that having frequent caucuses is preferable to just a single caucus or even maybe two just before town meeting.

I think that we ought to be keeping at caucuses along the way, keeping up with Kevin and the FinCom and participating at that level, at the caucus level. So, if you want in-person experience, there’s the way to have it. That way, you can discuss among yourselves whether you want a mask, whether you want a distance, how you want to do that.

We can also have major improvements, I think, to the virtual environment. We’re not the first organization to have to deal with COVID and related. The churches, I am told, have found great solutions for this. We should go out and ask what are the improvements that other folks have made and can we make them for our environment as well. They can do chat, they can do captions, expand the online volunteer staff, test the environment. There are number of improvements. I’ve talked to Mr. Triffletti about this and he agrees.

So, just as a summary, I urge us to work in both venues toward improving town meeting on the way to the hybrid that will give us the flexibility that allows us to have a legal town meeting any way we want. Thanks for your time.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Mr. Vaz and then Mr. Golden.

Leonard Vaz:

Good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Leonard Vaz and I’m a precinct member of Precinct 1 and the oldest sitting town meeting member, almost 60 years. I’m 90 years old. I have no trouble getting around. I play golf a couple times a week and it’s time to put to Steve Triffletti roadshow to bed. We go to Plymouth North High School with plenty of room, plenty of space. You don’t have to be sitting on each other’s lap. We can sit there and do business.

It’s time that we end this virtual town meeting. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead. Excuse me. Hold on.

John Mahoney:

To the Chair, the last three commenters are commenting on the next agenda item. It would be best if the moderator presented his case and then the Board would open it up to the public.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, it’s public comment. I mean, we can certainly do that or just let them finish. There’s one more person and then Mr. Triffletti can do his.

David Golden:

Thank you, Madam Chair and good evening members of the Select Board. I don’t know how to follow that. Thank you for your many years of service, Mr. Vaz. My name is David Golden, and I currently serve on the Cultural Council of the Manomet Village Steering Committee and the Board of Health. I’m not here representing of those groups. I am here tonight as a town meeting member and the chair of Precinct 7. To begin, I want to bring us back to the events which transpired at Plymouth Special Summer Town Meeting held June 22nd, 2022.

The meeting began in its usual fashion with all the customary pump and circumstance of the occasion. However, as the meeting progressed, chaos soon erupted. As technology failed and debate was truncated. Immediately upon the first ballot, it was abundantly clear that the VVoter system was not properly recording our vote submissions. And many town meeting members weren’t getting their votes counted.

[0:20:10]

David Golden:

Frustratingly, those members who contacted the support line were told to raise a point of order but the VVoter platform also failed to notify the moderator when some of those members attempted to do so. The situation created confusion among members, uncertain of whether their votes were being recorded or not. Little guidance was given by the moderator, the assistant moderator or the support line staff. Instead of having a streamlined process for recording votes, we were presented with multiple methods to submit our responses. Such an approach is not acceptable. It creates mistrust in the integrity of our votes and it creates nothing but frustration on the part of the members.

Now, I’m sure the moderator will get on in a moment and tell you that we’ve had six successful town meetings using a virtual format. What he really means is that we’ve conducted six expeditious town meetings where business is rushed, votes are hastily taken and little true legislating is done because we’re shackled by our technological constraints.

These issues would not impede our proceedings if we were operating with an in-person format. More troubling than the technological turmoil is the fact that there was an attempt to severely limit our ability to fully debate the issues before us from the very first article. As we discuss Article 1, the moderator cut off several members who wished to speak on the motion. When members petition to allow their colleagues to continue to speak, the moderator reasserted his authority.

We then spent more than 30 minutes discussing whether the town meeting members have the ability to override the moderator’s decision. Rather than simply allowing an additional few minute for the few folks who needed it, the moderator created unrest and furor among members.

When finally pressed by the chair of the committee of precinct chairs who sought to appeal the decision, the moderator recessed the meeting. When proceedings recommenced, additional time to debate was thankfully granted. However, much time was wasted.

Moreover, dozens of members complained that the VVoter platform seemed to not be working when they attempted to register to speak. The lack of transparency regarding the speakers queues disturbed members. Once again, these issues would not be present if we were permitted to join the speakers’ queue in-person nor would the moderator’s unfettered control of debate be allowed to waste so much time.

Another town meeting will soon be upon us, and the moderator is here to tell you that the ongoing dangers of the pandemic will once again prevent us from having an in-person session. At the most recent Board of Health meeting, I asked the moderator if his intention was to host the meetings virtually until such a time there is a hybrid option available to us. The moderator confirmed that that was indeed his intent. He informed the Board of Health that should the request for a virtual platform be denied, he would continue the meeting indefinitely until the pandemic situation changes dramatically or a hybrid option becomes available. However, he can’t tell you what he means when he says that dramatic change needs to occur in order for us to be safe. Instead, he’ll equivocate by telling us that he’s not a scientist and then he’ll follow that up by a litany of sources such as his friends, his brother and his clients from his law practice upon whom he relies to make his determination.

I pause it that the anecdotal data obtained from a moderator’s family and friends is insufficient and we should instead make decisions based on the realities of our community. Here are the true facts, and I’m merely done.

One, on February 9th, 2022 the night of Plymouth’s local mask mandate was rescinded. Dr. Barry Potvin, the Chair of the Board of Health, reported that there had been 12,847 confirmed cases of COVID in Plymouth. More than six months later, at the August 24th meeting, that number had only increased by 1,947 confirmed cases. On the same night, Dr. Potvin reported that there have been 218 confirmed deaths in the town. That number was revised by the time that the Board of Health met on April 13th and has remained at 205 ever since.

The current 7-day average for the number of confirmed cases for the entirety of our county is 73. The 7-day average for the number of confirmed deaths is zero. Only 3.1% of staff and patient beds and all of Plymouth County are occupied by COVID-19 patients.

The CDC currently list the entire State of Massachusetts as low risk. This means that there are fewer than 10 cases per 100,000 population during a 7-day period and that average over a 7-day period, fewer than 10% of staff and patient beds are occupied by COVID-19 patients. Every county that borders Massachusetts is classified as either low or medium risk meaning not only are we in tremendous condition here in Plymouth but we have a huge buffer around us.

[0:25:00]

David Golden:

Lastly, the CDC rescinded its social distancing guidance on August 11th, 2022 knowing that much of the population of the United States has at least some level of immunity to COVID-19 due to vaccination or prior infection. I’m not sure what metrics the moderator needs in order for us to feel safe hosting an in-person town meeting but I believe the data I just shared speaks for itself.

Given the data and the concerns that I discussed earlier, I entreat you, who decide of the time, place, and manner of our town meetings to no longer allow virtual town meetings. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Mr. Golden. Anyone else Public Comment? Okay. Then, we’ll move onto Mr. Triffletti, Town Moderator, Town Meeting Location Discussion.

Steve Triffletti:

Good evening and thank you, Chair of the Select Board and also, members of the Select Board, also those in attendance. First of all, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to participate virtually since you offer all of us a hybrid model, which is allowed under our state law.

As we know, currently, in Massachusetts, we’re not allowed to do that at the town meeting level just looking–can you see me?

Betty Cavacco:

No.

Steve Triffletti:

No. I’m looking for something that will tell me that I can put the video on, if that’s possible.

Betty Cavacco:

It’s usually a little camera down at the end.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, there’s a little camera next to a little microphone on the left-hand.

Steve Triffletti:

I see the microphone, I’m not seeing the camera. I only see the microphone. Well, anyway. So, in June as mentioned by the previous speakers, town meeting voted for–I have a note, they didn’t vote for any other type of homeroom petition but they did vote for the hybrid model. And since that time, I’ve been in contact with the state to support that. In fact, there was a joint legislative committee both members from the house and senate. I submitted a letter in support and I’ve been in touch with the legislative delegation in order to encourage at the state level for the approval and adoption of the homeroom petition.

Over the summer, as I begin the plan for hybrid town meeting in the fall, we became aware that in fact the hybrid may not be approved by October. And so, that time the assistant town moderator conducted a survey of town meeting members and the survey was a simple one, asking town meeting members that if the hybrid were not available, what would be the preference?

And surprisingly, we had over a hundred town meeting members respond and approximately half, about 50 some of the town meeting members preferred in-person and another half or 50 preferred that we meet virtually. Since that time, I’ve met with community precinct chairs. I’ve also met with the Board of Health and wanted to get feedback regarding town meeting and whether or not to proceed with once again remote participation, which is allowed by statute.

One of the issues that really has continued is that there is risk. When I met with the Board of Health, the chair said there’s obvious health risk for meeting in-person. Another member, Dr. Reed said there are risks. We have to weigh the cost and the benefit as we do in medicine. Another member, Ms. Lorenzo said, which is more inclusive since there is a risk. And I could go on with all the members of the Board of Health as to their comments. But I am also guided by Massachusetts law specifically Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 39 Section 10, which says, “In pertinent part that whenever the moderator determines that voters in attendance are being deprived of the opportunity to participate therein for any reason whatsoever then the moderator shall in it’s monitory not directory, the moderator shall on its own motion recess the meeting and adjourn the same to another date not later that 14 days until we can accommodate the voters attending and enable them to participate.”

[0:30:09]

Steve Triffletti:

After listening to people and I hear what Mr. Golden had to say and to some extent, I understand what he’s saying anecdotal evidence or data. I mean, he asked me at the Board of Health what the metrics were and I think I told him taking out of context what he said tonight, I think I told him I don’t have metrics because I’m not scientist nor was I voted as moderator for that skillset. But what I do know is that there are town meeting members who have said that they are at risk and that they will not participate if it’s in-person. So, then I looked at statute and determined that there are some town meeting members who are not going to be able to participate. I listened to some of the other comments and what Pat McCarthy said was certainly very valid but when she site some of the other events, they’re not governmental meetings. They’re not filled with voters and that’s really the difference here between other gatherings in the town.

Aside from town meeting, all other governmental meetings in the town can be by hybrid. So, people have the opportunity to participate, to vote regardless of whether or not they’re in-person, but that’s not true for town meeting right now. So, when I listened to Mr. Hutchinson, he speaks to the risk that he also is concerned about fellow town meeting members who are vulnerable and that’s my concern as moderator. When Mr. Vaz mentioned that he was the oldest and he’s 90. Well, I happen to know another town meeting member who is 90, who feels vulnerable and would not come in-person.

So, there are different points of view and I understand and respect the different points of view but in the end, I got to make a decision about whether or not under the statute, there’s going to be anyone deprived the opportunity to participate for any reason whatsoever. And I’ve determined based on the ongoing risks of the COVID pandemic that there are town meeting members who would be deprived the opportunity for any form of in-person and their only way to eliminate all risks is to have it virtual. So, I’m asking the Board tonight once again to schedule this under the statute that allows us to do it via remote participation. Further, I am indicating that if for any reason, this time the Board does not wish to proceed in that manner then it is my intention on October 15th to then continue town meeting 14 days at a time until such time as a hybrid model is approved for us to continue hybrid or until such time as the Select Board then is in agreement to proceed virtually.

I’m doing this based on the statutory authority but also the statutory responsibility that I have as a moderator to assure that everyone who’s a voter at town meeting member has the opportunity to participate at town meeting. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Board members? Harry?

Harry Helm:

First of all, Mr. Triffletti, I would like to point out that a threat is a threat regardless of the background. I’ve said this before, I don’t like being threatened. I don’t know about the other Board Members. I don’t know about the residents of Plymouth, but I doubt very many of them liked to be threatened.

Question for you, in the six previous town meetings, has there ever been an attempt to seriously look into the possibility of having an in-person town meeting and those people who felt uncomfortable to have special seating conditions? So, that it could be taken place in-person. As Mr. Vaz pointed out, Plymouth North High School Auditorium is a pretty big place. Has there been any serious research into this?

Steve Triffletti:

Thank you, Mr. Helm. Certainly, in the past, as Patricia McCarthy mentioned, there has been discussion about what could be done to provide alternatives. But in the end, it comes down to is there still going to be risks? And there is going to be risk. There’s going to be risk for people. You increase the risk with the more people that you have.

[0:35:05]

Steve Triffletti:

So, smaller gatherings obviously are different from large gatherings and I just would also want to respond to your comments about threat. It’s not a threat at all. I’m merely giving advance notice to the Board, to town meeting members and to the community that because of statutory authority and responsibility that I have and given that we have an ongoing pandemic, given that town meeting has voted for hybrid and we have substantial number of town meeting members who have said they want it to be virtual if they can’t be hybrid, it’s my responsibility to take all these factors into account. And for that reason, that’s why I’m determined that it’s appropriate to request once again that we have a town meeting by remote participation and further because I was told last week when a letter or an email went out that your Board wanted in-person, I wanted to clarify to everyone that the moderator does have authority to recess town meeting from time to time if in fact it’s determined that voters are deprived the opportunity to participate for any reason whatsoever, and that’s really the issue. Will all 162 town meeting members be afforded the opportunity to participate or would one of them be deprived? And even if one were deprived, that’s a concern.

Harry Helm:

Thank you for that lengthy explanation, but I would like to point out to everybody in case you missed it, there was no answer to my question. There has never been a valid attempt to actually look in to having it in-person and keeping people safe at the same time. So, thank you for answering it by not answering it. I would also just like to point out once again, I’m sorry, Mr. Triffletti, but a threat is a threat.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes. Mr. Triffletti, I got a question for you. The last meeting not 162 members were there. Is there a possibility that some members couldn’t participate because they’re technically challenged and they can’t do the Zoom? And if so, that’s a problem right there by having the remote, they wouldn’t be able to participate.

Steve Triffletti:

Thank you. That’s a good question. We have worked with the town meeting members. At every virtual town meeting, we have provided for training, we provided equipment. People have gone to the home of town meeting members if that were needed or there’s been the opportunity for tech buddies at Plymouth North High School. So, the issue of the technology and being able to participate remotely has not been an issue in terms of the denying any town meeting member or voter the opportunity to participate and vote.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, how about the embarrassments that maybe they don’t want to admit that they’re technically challenged and they might be too embarrassed to participate? And also, as far as the in-person, last week I was at church on Sunday. I saw town meeting members there. Some have mask on, some didn’t. I was at a comedy show, full house. Some people had mask, most people didn’t. So, the option in-person is if you worry about the COVID, you put the mask on. I think that’s proven that that’s effective. So, I think it’s time. And I said it last time when I voted for hybrid that in-person is what the people want. I believe it’s much more effective than the virtual. I’m voting for in-person because the stats prove it, Mr. Vaz and Mr. Golden was perfect, was great. The stats show that the COVID is not that much of a threat that you can put a mask on and be safe. And also, as Mr. Vaz said, that whole balcony in Plymouth North is empty. You can sit by yourself. You can go in by yourself, sit by yourself if you’re uncomfortable being around the crowd. Like I said, I’m voting for in-person. I think it’s time that we go back to the most effective way of having town meeting. Thank you.

[0:40:18]

Steve Triffletti:

Mr. Bletzer, you’re correct. There are significant number of town meeting members that would like in-person, but there’s an equally significant number that do not want to be in-person. And so, I’m trying to weigh all of those points of view.

Charlie Bletzer:

We can’t have it both ways? There’s no remote. It’s either virtual or in-person.

Steve Triffletti:

Until we have the hybrid, that’s correct.

Charlie Bletzer:

Well, we don’t have the hybrid. So, right now, it’s either virtual or in-person. I mean, if it’s virtual, there are people that are technically challenged that are embarrassed to have some high school kids, which I think it’s great what they’re doing the support buddies, I think it’s a fantastic way to go and I wouldn’t have a problem doing that if I need it but there are some people that might be embarrassed and they’re not going to be able to participate if it’s virtual. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. So, a couple of questions for the town manager. Mr. Brindisi, can you give us an update on the status of that Special Act Request?

Derek Brindisi:

Sure. Through the Chair, that’s a great question. I actually had a conversation with Representative Matt Muratore yesterday morning and I asked him this question. As we all know, the Special Legislation was filed late back in June. It was towards the end of the 2022 formal session. It made it to its second reading. At that point, there was enough time to finally get its approval. So, that being said, the legislation will be refiled in the beginning of the next session, which begins January 1st.

After talking with him, we don’t believe that again, looking at the time it takes to pass special legislation that that legislation will be approved for the annual town meeting. So, in my opinion, I think the earliest we could see a hybrid town meeting would be October of ’23.

John Mahoney:

Okay. Thank you. As the legal opinion that we got from Seder & Chandler have been provided to the town moderator?

Derek Brindisi:

It has not.

John Mahoney:

Okay. Steven, the Board got a legal opinion from our town counsel and I’ll just cover the second page and just paraphrase some of the comments in the second paragraph.

The CDC has reported that Plymouth County’s COVID community level is low. This rating reflects the lowest level of COVID-19 risk. Notably, the CDC summary for Plymouth County makes no mention of the need to avoid public gatherings. Rather, that merely states that Plymouth County residents should wear mask while using public transportation at that day. “May choose to wear a mask at any time as an additional precaution to protect yourself and others. As the town meeting is scheduled to take place in high school auditorium, town meeting members may choose to wear a mask.

There’s a couple of other points in there but I’m not going to read the whole thing. So, this has been going on for two years. I think it’s time to get back. I’m sympathetic to individuals who are concerned and I understand that. We need to get back to in-person meetings. Fenway Park is open for business. The Boston Garden, the Patriots are going to start hosting 60 to 70,000 people in a ball over the course of the next few months. Topsfield Fair, the Biggie in Springfield. So, there is no doubt in my mind that this especially with 6 to 7 weeks to go that we can facilitate an in-person meeting. Those individuals who are uncomfortable sitting in that main body of that auditorium, they can participate somehow and get their votes counted. So, I don’t know why this is the last holdout with respect to getting back to some sense of normalcy. Unfortunately, we’re going to be dealing with this probably for the rest of our lives.

[0:45:04]

John Mahoney:

The number I’ve always looked at, Steven and I’ve got some statistics in front of me. I believe it was provided by you. I just look at the data sheet from the state and I look at hospitalizations. And basically, since March, we’re currently at 582 hospitalizations across the Commonwealth or a state of 7 million people and it’s pretty much been fluctuating between 5 to 650 for the last 3 to 5 months. So, there’s a way of getting this done. You may disagree with Mr. Helm qualifying your comment as a threat. I think certainly it’s an ultimatum that I don’t want to deal with. 14-day increments hold up this community’s ability to do business. I look forward to meeting in-person on Saturday, October 15th and then really getting back at it 6 to 7 months later back in April. Thank you.

Steve Triffletti:

Mr. Mahoney, thank you for your comments. I would say I certainly not seen that letter but I have received a letter from Town Council Mark Rich dated August 23rd and after citing the statute that I related to you, hence by saying thus if the moderator determines the town meeting members are unable to participate, he may determine to adjourn the meeting to 14 days at a time. So, again, I certainly agree that there are many other gatherings that are larger but when I listened to the ones that you cite. None of them are governmental meetings, none of them involve voters who have to have the opportunity to vote and that’s really what’s the issue here.

John Mahoney:

Steven, can you expand on that? So, why is that the difference as opposed to me sitting in a bowl over in Foxborough with 67,000 other people. How does that increase the probably of somebody potentially getting COVID?

Steve Triffletti:

So, the difference is you can go to Foxborough and you’re not one of the 162 town meeting members. We have 162 town meeting members in the Town of Plymouth and it’s my responsibility to assure that they can all vote and I have been told by multiple town meeting members that they will not be able to vote and participate if it’s in-person. And we also conducted a survey and the survey results were that half of those responding approximately 50 wanted the virtual. So, while I’m listening to all of these comments and I agree, I want to be in-person and as soon as there’s a hybrid, we’ll have that. But until, we have the hybrid, we’re denying town meeting members the opportunity to vote because we know that some of them will not participate in-person but they will participate remotely. And that’s really the issue here.

Betty Cavacco:

I’ll save myself for last. Oh, no, please. So, I appreciate you coming in front of us, Mr. Triffletti but there’s a few things that we’ve done research on prior to this meeting. We actually held our own little survey and we had almost a hundred members as well. 63% voted for in-person, 38% voted for remote. Although I do believe that you have authority during a public safety or public health crisis, I do not believe you have the authority now.

I mean, I’m not going to support a virtual meeting. I think that if anyone was around couple of days ago, the Town of Plymouth school department had their opening. There was 800 people in that auditorium. So, we do have correspondence from our special counsel that will support an in-person town meeting. Like I said, there’s a lot of data out there and I just don’t see it. I mean, we completely support the hybrid and I know we’ve instructed the town manager to reach out to Matt Muratore and see if there’s anything that he can do to move it along whether it’s not in session. But in the interim, I will not be supporting a virtual town meeting.

Mr. Quintal?

[0:50:30]

Dick Quintal:

Good evening. Steve. Help me out here. According to our town charter, it gives you the authority to open and then to close town meeting if you feel necessary, is that correct? Is that by our charter?

Steve Triffletti:

I don’t have the charter in front of me, but I believe that’s correct. But again, the authority that I’m relying on this evening is Mass General Laws Chapter 39 Section 10 and that’s the State’s Statute that allows moderators to upon the start of town meeting to then on the moderator’s own motion adjourn the town meeting. So, in listening to the chair’s comments about the survey, I haven’t seen that survey but again, whether it’s 50% or whether it’s 38% that want virtual, I’m not going to ignore that number of people that were saying that they don’t want to be in-person right now. But it’s the statute, Mr. Quintal, in which I’m relying. Although I know certainly there’s authority in the charter for the moderator as the presiding officer to do certain things. But it’s the state statute right now on which I am guided and relying regarding my responsibility as town moderator.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, it’s a state statute.

Steve Triffletti:

Yes. It’s not an emergency statute. So, previously, when we were first had to shutdown the pandemic, you may recall, I continued town meeting 5 times at 30-day periods. So, the spring annual in that year in April was continued until August at which time we finally had a town meeting and that was because we were waiting for the state legislation to begin enacted the enabling legislation for remote town meeting. So, that was under the emergency statute and that was for 30 days in time.

Now, that there’s no longer that emergency legislation, the applicable legislation is General Laws of 39 section 10.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

As far as Chapter 39 Section 10, our counsel states that this section deals exclusively for members who are in attendance and who believe they are being deprived of their ability to participate. So, I don’t believe that has anything to do with people that don’t want to go there to participate but I guess that’s it.

Dick Quintal:

That’s why I asked the question, part of the reason because I was unclear on exactly which actual law he was basing his decision on.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. And if the decision is made that the town moderator decides that they’re going to try and postpone it, obviously town meeting can overrule that by two-thirds vote. So, I think it’s just time we get back to business. Anybody else? Any other board members? Any comments from the public? Mr. Canty?

Kevin Canty:

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Select Board. So, my name is Kevin Canty. For those that don’t know, I’m the Chair of the Advisory and Finance Committee. Our primary purpose as the adviser in Finance Committee is to prepare for town meeting by hearing all the articles that are going to come before town meeting issuing our recommendations and also, subsequently attending caucuses to assist folks in digesting the large amount of materials that they are going to be deliberating about on the day of town meeting.

Since town meeting has gone virtual, it has come to me to make procedural motions to request that town meeting be held in a virtual format.

[0:55:06]

Kevin Canty:

I have done that every time. I have done that particularly at the beginning because back in 2020, there was a time where we didn’t know how COVID was spread. There was an extended period where there were no vaccines available. There was a period where masks were not freely available. And it was important that we got the business of the town down at that time. Since then, I have made that motion every time despite the fact that the overall risk in the community has waned over time. I say that as somebody that is currently one of the only people in this room wearing a mask because of the work that I do and because of family members that are particularly vulnerable. So, I am able to participate in my daily life and in my work for the town by assessing the individual circumstances that I am in and balancing what I need to have done in those spaces with the other considerations in my life. I believe town meeting could do the same.

My chief priority is that town meeting occur at the time that it is supposed to occur. The idea that town meeting could be delayed two weeks a time potentially in perpetuity until a legislation is passed to allow a hybrid format in the event that the moderator won’t budge and the Select Board won’t budge is in my opinion an untenable situation that should be avoided at all costs. We cannot have the legislature of this town held hostage by the meeting an unstoppable force and an immovable object or perhaps more aptly in this scenario, two immovable objects as they may be.

Under the statute that the moderator seeks to have a virtual town meeting in this scenario, the Select Board has to approve it and the Select Board has decided, has stated, they haven’t voted yet but they’ve all stated how they’re going to vote, they’re not going to vote to approve a virtual town meeting. The last few times that I made the motion for town meeting to occur in a virtual format was primarily so we can get the work of the town done on that particular day. We were all there. We were logged in. Although there were some folks that didn’t want to participate in a virtual format, it was more important that the work get done. It is still more important that the work get done.

We need to have this town meeting as scheduled in the format that it is going to go forward in and apparently it’s going to go forward in an in-person format. I think unfortunately the moderator needs to come around to that line of thinking. I say that as somebody in a position that was appointed by the moderator and could be removed by the moderator should he choose to do. I will point out in the statute that he is citing, Mass General Laws Chapter 39 Section 10, and if the chair would give me the leeway to read that statute into the record so everybody knows exactly what the operative clause is that he’s relying on.

“Whenever the moderator determines that voters are being excluded from the town meeting because there is no room for them in place to provide or that voters in attendance are being deprived of the opportunity to participate therein, for any reason whatsoever, he shall either on his own motion recess the meeting for any period during the day of the meeting or after consultation with the members of the Board of Selectmen then present adjourn the same to another date not later than 14 days following the date of said meeting on places and facilities sufficient to accommodate all voters attending and to enable them to participate therein shall be available.”

I will cite back to the Chair’s comments that it is only those members of town meeting that are in public, that are in attendance rather that are relevant that day. Folks that didn’t come to Plymouth North because they were afraid and they couldn’t participate are not relevant to this particular consideration. Further I would point out that the moderator can only unilaterally recess to a point later in that same day that the Select Board have to be consulted according to the statute to have this 14-day continuation. It says it right in the statute after/or after consultation with the members of the Board of Selectmen then present adjourn the same to another date not later than 14 days.

So, the moderator I think is in error in relying on the fact that he can unilaterally postpone town meeting by this 14-day period. I understand the moderator’s position. I think that aspects of the virtual town meetings have worked well. I don’t think it worked particularly well to cut their speaking time to three minutes and to prevent them from extending it and then having a 30-minute discussion about whether we were going to extend it or overrule it and all that. I don’t think that was a particularly good use of everybody’s time and effort. But I think that generally, the town meetings have worked mostly well in a virtual format. But this meeting is clearly not going to go forward in a virtual format. It needs to go forward on the day that it is scheduled. There’s too much relying on it. Members of this town need to rely on their legislature to be able to meet and not be held hostage by any particular person, any particular body. That is my personal opinion after having served on the Advisory and Finance Committee for the last 8 years and I think it is imperative that we do everything we can to prepare for and execute and have this town meeting on the date that it’s scheduled. Thank you.

[1:00:51]

Virginia Davies:

Good evening. This is Ginny Davies, a representative from Precinct 4. I’ve been a town meeting member over 16 years. I was a high school nurse for 26 years at Plymouth North High School. I want to bring out something that I realize make it missed. When people needed technical assistance, they were told to go to Plymouth North High School or wherever it was and to have a teenager be their buddy. When I would come back to school every fall, I would get a cold, I would bring it home, I would get my immunization and finally be fine. I would continue to bring colds home but never get them the rest of the year. Teenagers than children carry stronger and different germs than we do so that was really high risk to bring somebody who needed to sit really close to somebody and work on a computer. So, this order doesn’t make sense.

We need to live with this. It’s going to be with us forever like the flu. The school can be set up very safely. So, anyway, just a little tidbit of common sense. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm, you have a follow-up?

Harry Helm:

Yeah. I was going to save my comments for discussion after the motion but given what Ms. Davies just said and what Mr. Canty just said, I just need to point out right now what I was going to say. So, it seems that we have been willing to create in-person solutions to technical concerns among technically challenged town meeting members and with the possible consequences as Ms. Davies just pointed out. Yet nothing has been done to create in-person solutions for an in-person meeting for town members concerned with COVID, which is basically one of the things that Mr. Canty was pointing out. I think it’s high time we dealt with this. Mr. Triffletti, in-person meeting and figure out a way to put the people who have concerns about COVID in a safe space and participate in town meeting. That is what you’re charged with, that’s what the residents want. I think that it’s high time after six town meetings that we start doing this.

I just like to finish with statement that was in the news today. Eric Cioffi, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources for our school district talked about the return of normalcy after COVID restrictions. And he said, “I think it’s something we’ve all been looking forward to. I came here just at the start of the pandemic and watching the progression to get back to what we’ve all wanted to be at has been a big relief.” I think it’s high time that town meeting follow that same path.

Dick Quintal:

I’d like to make a motion to move forward with town meeting in-person.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Charlie? You’re muted, Charlie.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. It is unanimous. Our October town meeting annual fall town meeting will be held in-person.

[1:05:09]

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Next stop is our Senior Task Force and I see Mrs. Bratti and the whole task force with her.

Michelle Bratti:

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you for joining us.

Michelle Bratti:

Of course. Thank you for having me. It is truly my pleasure to be here. Thank you, Anthony for all your assistance. I’m assuming I’m just going to press this forward or back. Good for me. Oh, there we go. Thank you again. I truly wanted to start by saying I appreciate the Select Board voting to actually establish a Senior Task Force because it’s so necessary in our community. We are a strong committee. You will see mostly for those that can see in this room just an amazing, amazing group of people who are part of this task force. So, we’re going to move on to hopefully something that is positive and we all can agree on, which is the validity and the awesomeness of the Senior Task Force.

So, I’d like to introduce you to the Senior Task Force. Who are we? We are an incredible 17-person member who has been meeting every other week since November. That is the dedication. I certainly as the Director of Elder Affairs am in a paid position in my role. I do it with passion as well. But the people behind me and the people on this task force do it as a volunteer because they care and they are experts in their field. So, I did take a moment. I did the pictures just to keep you awake so you had something visual to see.

Harry Helm is our Select Board liaison. I am the Chair of the Senior Task Force. Joanne Moore is the Vice-Chair of the Senior Task Force. She is the Director of the COA in Doxbury. And Steve Bulletin is our Secretary and you may know him from the Planning Board. I would like to quickly go through the other members so you do understand the professionalism that we have on this committee.

Elizabeth Connell known as Betsy Connell is the interim Executive Director of the Massachusetts Association of Councils on Aging. She’s in attendance.

Nicole Long, Executive Director of Old Colony Elder Services.

Sarah Cloud, Director of Clinical Services for Beth Israel Deaconess.

Karen Peterson was the manager of Community Benefits and Community Relations, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, in attendance.

Amy Naples, Executive Director, Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce, in attendance.

Barry DeBlasio, Town of Plymouth, Director of Community Resources on Zoom joining us.

Captain Kevin Manuel, Town of Plymouth, Police Captain.

Pat Achorn and Terry Mucci, Center for Active Living Advisory Board Members and owners of Senior Voices.

Kathy Castagna is the Center for Active Living Advisory Board, Plymouth Planning Board, Masterplan Task Force.

Kevin Hood, President of Hood Remodeling.

David Hood, certified Senior Adviser, CarePatrol.

Sandra Smith, Senior Real Estate Specialist;

And Cheryl Botieri, MS, Family Educator and Support Specialist.

Why am I telling you all that? Because you have an incredible, incredible group. Because of your appointment of this committee, we’ve come together with purpose, with enthusiasm, with passion for what we’re going to do for this town.

What is the purpose? Why? What is the purpose and mission of the Plymouth Senior Task Force? To create a sustainable community blueprint of excellence that serves seniors. What does that mean? We’ve arrived. To designate Plymouth as a leader and model community for adaptable senior policy, to recommend senior policies to be adopted by the Plymouth Select Board and supported by Town Meeting and town Administration. Why is this important?

A senior friendly focus is important to the fabric of our community, current and future residents. If I ended right now, I would simply say 40% of your town is 55+.

[1:10:03]

Michelle Bratti:

There are 17 and counting 55+ communities. We need to take care of our seniors. Because they’re soon to the majority. We are a desirable location retirement community. It’s important.

So, what did the Senior Task Force want to focus on? We wanted to focus on four areas. When we started back in November, we said, “What does this look like? What are our goals?” We looked at community livability and transportation, senior communities and senior voices, a relationship between seniors and town government and we looked at Plymouth becoming an age and dementia friendly designation. That one stuck. We decided to focus our energy on becoming an age and dementia friendly community. And the reason we did is because being designated an age and dementia community is endorsed by the World Health Organization, the White House and Massachusetts Legislature. But most importantly, it covers all the areas that we kind of looked at and said, “What do we need to do here?” We looked at housing, transportation, communication. We want our seniors to be able to look at you all, us, the town and the community and say, “Oh, yes, they’ve heard us. They understand us.”

Social inclusion and participation, we just went through a heck of a time of social isolation. Our seniors were hit the hardest. We don’t want that to happen ever again. Civic participation, public safety. You see a captain on this task force. Those are important pieces.

What does an age and dementia friendly community mean? What’s the purpose of it? Well, it focuses on a comprehensive needs assessment to really decide what your town does want. It looks at economic development, diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s reflective of our residents. Carver is different. Kingston is different. Every town in this Commonwealth is different. We’re unique because we’re Plymouth. We have longevity. Our economy, 40% of Plymouth is 55+. It needs to have a deliberate recognition of the distinct Plymouth villages. We’re as proud of North Plymouth as we are of Manomet, as we are of South Plymouth. We need to recognize all of our villages.

There’s an enormous geographical footprint in Plymouth. We’re huge, right? We’re huge. Becoming an age and dementia friendly community, there’s no set requirements. We get to make it our own. But what does it look like? So, what does an age and dementia friendly community do?

It improves communication between the town and elders. It bridges the digital divide. It combats social isolation, encourages inclusion, helps senior’s aging place. This is a big one. We want our seniors, 40% of them and counting to be able to stay in their homes, if they so choose. How can we do that? We can partner with communities, Harper Help in the PACE program. If no one is familiar with the PACE program, that is right here, new in our community and it assists seniors aging in place.

Quickly, I’ll read, “The program of an all-inclusive care for the elders 55+, for people age 55 and over who have the opportunity to live at home and qualify for nursing level of care.” What PACE does is essentially has an entire team go to people’s homes so they can stay there. So, what am I showing you up here? Well, what I’m showing you is some facets age and dementia friendly communities. See the bench on the top? Simple solution. If you have seniors or elders that can’t stand without assistance, you buy benches with the middle seat, with the middle arm, you get up. Mobility, simple. What else does it look like? Well, it looks like all the walking trails in the world that you have, we have over 40. It’s beautiful guide, I’m sure you’re familiar with it.

[1:15:01]

Michelle Bratti:

Plymouth has some of the most incredible walking trails. We put a banner, a rail on one of them, two of them, four of them and seniors intergenerationally now can walk those trails with some assistance. We get education for emergency personnel free, that is no cost because people need to be trained. Signage. That’s what an intergenerational playground looks like. It’s healthy spaces and places for grandparents, grandchildren and community members for all ages. It’s a place where seniors can work out, can rest, can watch their grandchildren. It’s intergenerational.

And finally, let me show what it would look like for our businesses. Those are universal emblems. We are dementia aware, in Plymouth, I crossed out Wasaga Beach because we’re not that. Plymouth is an age-friendly community for seniors. Please envision those decals in our local banks, our local restaurants, our local business. Inviting seniors and those with dementia to feel safe in their community. It’s super important.

I want to leave you with one more example, the Purple Table. The Purple Table is a project that costs zero dollars but what it does is it allows those with dementia to maybe enjoy a meal that they might not have. So, imagine Charlie Bletzer, someone calls Eastbay Grille for reservation and they have somebody who wants to take their parent, their husband, their wife, their cousin, their sister, their brother, their child who has dementia, out to eat because they love Plymouth and it’s a great community to do so. They call a restaurant and they say, “I’d like to make a reservation for the purple table.” Purple is the recognized color of dementia. And that wait staff and that restaurant knows that someone is coming in with dementia. So, they take just a little extra special step to ensure that maybe the table is away from noise or the full noise of restaurant. Maybe they’d take a little extra step that they have that wait staff be a little more patient. It’s the little things that allow us to live so comfortably in this community.

What is dementia in Plymouth look like? Not great. This is Plymouth residents only. In FY 19, there were 8,310 Inpatient discharges. From FY 17 to FY 19, 28% increase. In Emergency Department visits for those with dementia, 52% increase from FY 17 to FY 19. And did you know that BID Plymouth has an entire wing dedicated to seniors presenting with dementia and other cognitive disorders.

What are we going to do to become age and dementia friendly? What’s our first step? We need a comprehensive needs assessment. And this is really deciding and understanding what Plymouth seniors want, not with seniors nationwide or another towns want, but what Plymouth seniors want. We reached out as a group to do our research and determine that the most authentic and professional way to have this done and this is a requirement to become age and dementia friendly is to do this through the Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging Gerontology Institute, UMass Boston, they are the gurus. They’ve done over 70 of these and to answer the question that you might have, how many age and dementia friendly communities there are in Massachusetts, there are between 90 and 150 in active stages of doing what we are doing, but we are going to do it better because we’re Plymouth.

[1:20:10]

Michelle Bratti:

This will take 10 months. They will cooperate with all of us. I won’t give you all the details. We’ll cut through some of these.  But I do want to share with you, I wanted you to have the information so you see. Basically, again, the study is to focus on what we want. So, those 9 several tenants that we saw, not all 9 of them might be applicable to Plymouth seniors. There’s a really in-depth survey that’s done.

They look at four community forums to hear from residents of all ages. Three focus groups are done to support the study. Up to six one-on-one interviews with town officials and other key informants. Looking at age 55, huge survey goes out to everyone age 55. There’s written and web versions of a questionnaire to be used as a survey. They provide an electronic version of the report to the town as well as an in-person presentation of the findings of the report to CAL, the Plymouth Senior Task Force, the Select Board and the community at large.

It may come back that our seniors and those with dementia in Plymouth want to focus on two major areas. It would be at your choice to then decide what we tackle. There’s a budget, of course. I’m not asking for that this evening. I just wanted you to be prepared that the needs assessment is $35,000 includes all the elements of the age and dementia friendly comprehensive needs assessment and $15,000 for outreach in terms of making sure that we are able to tell all of our residents that this survey is coming, that we can have focus groups, that we can have meeting with stakeholders in this community. It’s a community endeavor.

So, this gives Plymouth the tools necessary to move forward and innovate. An age and dementia friendly designation opens future funding opportunities for us. And I do want to share with you what that funding might look like. If I can my notes that is, excuse me. I think, Derek, when you had visited us, it was the community-based programs that were brought up in terms of what that might be helpful. There’s funding available if you are an age and dementia friendly designated community. What that looks like is it opens grant opportunities. There was 1.1 million awarded for age and dementia friendly communities for open spaces and looking at revamping roads and sidewalks and things such as that. And also, there’s opportunities. So, if there are towns that are considered progressively forward and they are looking at age and dementia friendly and taking care of their senior residents, there are unique grant opportunities for that as well.

What we envision, plan and execute will be specific to the needs of Plymouth residents with input from all of us: citizens, businesses, non-profits. It’s the one area where we all get to come together and decide what are we going to do for seniors, what is our blueprint going to look like? How are we going to be a friendly community for elders and those with dementia? And I honestly think we will be leader. So, thank you for your time. Thank you for your support. Any questions that you may have, I’m more than happy to answer. But this is an amazing group behind me. So, thank you for that.

Betty Cavacco:

So, I just wanted to say that Article 4 regarding this is on the agenda for next week. So, we will take it up then and I appreciate you coming in front of us and explaining everything. John, do you have something?

John Mahoney:

Michelle, great job to yourself and the whole committee.

[1:25:00]

Michelle Bratti:

Thank you.

John Mahoney:

For years, I’m a firm believer of whatever we can do to keep seniors in their houses for as long as possible is what society should be doing. I don’t remember–I know that in September of ’12, Plymouth North High School opened up. So, I don’t know if the senior center or the building you’re in opened up at the same time or was it around the same?

Michelle Bratti:

2012, yes. December of 2012.

John Mahoney:

So, when you put those statistics up there and I think it was 40% of the community is over 55.

Michelle Bratti:

Yes.

John Mahoney:

Okay. So, a decade in and we went from the bottom floor to the pen house pretty quick with respect to the infrastructure that we invested in our seniors. So, is it still sufficient to accommodate that growing population?

Michelle Bratti:

Do you have two hours?

Betty Cavacco:

No, he doesn’t.

Michelle Bratti:

We appreciate what we have and that is the truth. And we certainly are very creative and crafty in making it work. There are deficits though. There are areas that we absolutely cannot accommodate 40% of this town both in physical structure and in staffing.

John Mahoney:

Okay. I’m just curious because we’re always in this state of talking about infrastructure, maintenance, modernization, new construction and it’s always the discussion that the board is having perpetually and–

Michelle Bratti:

I would love the opportunity to lead or have further discussion on that.

John Mahoney:

Okay. You can schedule that through the chair.

Michelle Bratti:

Perfect. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. So, next, we have Special Town Meeting Articles. Derek, I don’t know if we have stuff here that you’d want to move some of these along or if you just want to go in the order that they’re in.

Derek Brindisi:

We’ve listed all the articles for the Board’s consideration. Staff is here to answer any questions. So, some of these articles are fairly simple like the first article, for example. It’s more of an administrative change. But we’ve listed them all just in case the Board have questions and staff, again, they’re available to answer any of those questions.

Betty Cavacco:

Do any of the board members have any questions about any of these articles? If you’d like, I could read them into the record. Just to put them in there.

So, Article 12 (Amend Center for Active Living Meals on Wheels Revolving Fund.

Article 16 (Amend Bylaw Chapter 132-1 Plastic Bag Ban – Definitions)

Article 17 (Amend Bylaw Chapter 132-4 Plastic Bag Ban – Enforcement)

Article 18 (Transfer Parcel off Billington Street to Agricultural Commission)

Article 10 (Amend Zoning Bylaw – Lot Regulation)

Article 11 (Amend Zoning Bylaw – Use Table)

Article 13 (Retirement Board COLA)

Article 1 (Withdrawn)

Article 2A (Supplemental Budgets)

Article 2B (Supplemental Budgets – Enterprise)

Article 5 (Pavement Management Stabilization Fund)

Article 14 (Nor’easter Storm Funding)

And all the information we have back up in our packets.

Dick Quintal:

And they pulled 18?

Betty Cavacco:

Did they pull 18? Oh, and they withdrew 18, correct?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right. That was withdrawn this morning.

Betty Cavacco:

Does anyone have any questions on those articles?

Harry Helm:

I have a request that may I see the Mistress Stoners in the audience and if you might quickly review so that we have the information but so that the residents who are tuning might hear what is being suggested in Article 16 and 17. And also, Articles 10 and 11. Lee Hartman is here and I think that the residents might like to hear what is being proposed. So, if they did not tune into the Planning Board the other day.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead, Derek.

Derek Brindisi:

If I could. So, those are great suggestions. If there are no questions for the other articles, it’s getting late and I would appreciate if staff could go home if there are no other questions for the other articles that haven’t been mentioned. Selectman Helm has already mentioned four articles he’d like to discuss.

[1:30:29]

Betty Cavacco:

Do you have anything, John?

John Mahoney:

I thought we would have gone through them one at a time as they were listed on the docket but certainly the Finance Director, I would like to–I’m hoping Article 13, just a little synopsis of what’s going on there. You have to get into the 2A and 2B with respect to the budgets and I do have a couple of questions on Article 5, the Pavement Management Stabilization Fund. And you said 18 was pulled, so.

Derek Brindisi:

So, I haven’t heard any questions related to Article 12 regarding the Revolving Fund or Article 14, the Nor’ Easter Storm Funding.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct.

John Mahoney:

Derek, when the Finance Director comes out, I mean, certainly she can comment on the Article 14 also, put that under.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I know that Center for Active Living Meals on Wheels and I believe that’s meals for the seniors. But I do have a question, do we actually serve meals there on a daily basis for the residents? I know some other towns do.

Michelle Bratti:

So, the change in the revolving, that’s an existing revolving and we’re adding to it because we’re opening the CAL Café, which we always serve meals. We serve one meal, a single meal, congregate and now, we are evolving to offer choice for seniors. So, different menu items, different price points and staying open longer so there’s more opportunity for socialization while breaking bread.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

John Mahoney:

I’ll move approval.

Dick Quintal:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? Nope. Okay. All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

About time you woke up. Thanks, Charlie. On Article 16, I just have a question. I was there and I believe maybe John was. We had a plastic ban years ago and how is this different from what we already have on the books? So, why is this coming back to the board or the town?

Ken Stone:

Good question and that’s primarily why I’m here. I won’t go through all of that just to save time from you all. When we put the plastic bag ban in the standard at the time in terms of how we defined a carryout reusable bag was among other things was 3 mm thick. The idea of that was that it would be too expensive to manufacture and then distribute a bag of that thickness for free and that in turn would lead stores to charge the dime that they’ve been charging market basket, etc. And that would predispose people to move towards paper or a truly reusable bag, and that’s been a resounding success. I had a video on that. I won’t go into all of that, but it’s been a great success.

We’ve eliminated based on industry predictions of how many bags come out of supermarket, etc., we’ve eliminated approximately 18 million disposable bags coming out of just the supermarkets alone. In just Plymouth, 52,000 a week that what breaks down to. If you add in the big box stores, we’re talking about 25 to 30 million bags. So, we’ve eliminated that litter and as the video I would have shown, many people are moving to the reusables.

The problem is that after we passed our bag ban, and by the way after we pass that, every town on the South Shore used us and passed them as well.

[1:35:10]

Ken Stone:

Now, bag bans in three quarters of all the towns in the state. The majority of people are living on the bag bans. People saw that it was a good idea. So, over 4 million people, Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Lowell, Brockton, all the big towns have done it as well.

But what started to happen after we pass that ban law is certain businesses began giving those bags away for free, which is a disincentive for people who moved to the other kinds of bags. The first response of towns that came after us was to pass a bylaw that said, “Well, we’ll go to 4 mils.” That didn’t work either. Then some folks in Rhode Island, a town in Rhode Island came up with a very elegant solution and the solution was to say, let’s go with a definition of a carryout bag that is zoomed and with stitched handles and not fused ones. That effectively eliminates those bags. The ones that are being given away for free or even the ones that are being sold for a dime.

By the way, Rhode Island now, the entire state has a ban law that does that. Towns after us when that idea came along, began passing bylaws with that definition. Kingston is the last town who have passed a bag ban, they used that definition. And that was the definition that was on proposed state bylaws. We didn’t feel like we needed to do anything here in Plymouth for some time, but I brought two bags with me. Big Lots has begun to give these bags away free. Walmart has begun to give these bags away free. Pet Supplies Plus has been giving these bags away free when they ran out of paper bags, which seems to be happening a little more often than perhaps it should. And I just got the bag they’re giving away free and in fact, it doesn’t even match 3 mil regulation. The concern is that this is a leak in the dam and that if these stores, especially stores like Walmart, begin to give these bags away free, other stores are going to follow suit and will very quickly be back to where we were before we have the bag ban that’s in effect today.

Towns that have had this bylaw not nuance to the passing it with that are now putting forward amendments like this one in their towns. Brookline, Millis, towns doing this to stop that flow. We don’t want to go back to the position where we had amount of litter plastic bags that we had before. And if you talk to anybody who does the clean ups, those bags are gone. We don’t want to slip back into that situation. So, that’s the rationale for 16. I don’t know if you want to hear the rationale for 17, but that’s 16.

Dick Quintal:

I’m just trying to find the difference between the previous bill that we have. If I’m understanding you correctly, some other stores are using the plastic bags but aren’t charging

Ken Stone:

Correct.

Dick Quintal:

So, my only concern in this is like if they can’t have the bag, they use the plastic. Post-COVID, I can tell you being in business, the supply chain is really spotty and bad by everything. I mean, do I know how it might apply to this? I don’t. But it applies to this like it does anything else, stop parts for your cars, your vehicles, we can’t rent trucks with refrigeration units. I mean, the auto retract miles 2 years away or we can put it and get a truck delivered to us. So, I mean, I don’t want to put forward something that they might not be able to comply with.

Ken Stone:

Well, I would suggest that’s not the case. Currently, this is the kind of bag that would be required. Stop & Shop has these 2 for a buck. They got a ton of them. If you go into Job Watson [?], she’s giving away those bags. They have a wall of these kind of bags for sale. I bought this bag at Market Basket. This is a phenomenal bag, buck and a half, it has a zipper, it has insulation, it feels like a piece of Samsonite luggage, there’s been no shortage of these kinds of bags that would be required. They’ve been there right along and they’re there in the store in great numbers currently. I don’t foresee that as a problem.

Dick Quintal:

And who’s going to enforce this? I see this is the article after this, enforcement.

[1:40:09]

Ken Stone:

The enforcement will stay the same. Basically, nothing changes about–

Dick Quintal:

So, no enforcement?

Ken Stone:

No, that’s not true. There’s been–

Dick Quintal:

Well, who’s enforcing it right now?

Ken Stone:

The Board of Health and there’s been a couple of–first off, there’s been no fines levied whatsoever. Why? Because like in almost every town that has these bylaws, stores comply. There have been two or three that did not. They were given a warning and they within a day were able to get the proper bags in. So, there’s no shortage either. But the Board of Health is enforcing it. The change that we are doing in that one is the person who wrote that was sloppy and I can say that because I wrote it. The thing that it talks about is that a fine for the first offense will be this, the second offense will be this, so forth and so on. But it didn’t give parameters for what constitutes an offense. So, is the first offense one day and then till whenever you get your bags back in instead of first offense this year but a second offense next year. So, we’re just adding a sentence that is also the one that was in the state bylaw. Basically, what it says is that each day will be considered an offense. So, first day – a warning, second day – $50, third day – $100 and then $200 everyday after that. And again, whenever a warning has been given, business has been able to get the bags in within 24 hours. So, nobody should ever end up with fine but this clarifies that. It takes any ambiguity out of it and if somebody did have trouble getting a bag, most do not. They could appeal to the Board of Health who are the enforcers and regulators. And if they needed a few more days, they could probably get it but it certainly makes it have a bit more teeth in terms of somebody really delaying going a long time. So, that’s the only change to that. These are minor changes to what exist but important changes especially in terms of things slipping backwards.

Dick Quintal:

I applaud the effort but I don’t know if I can go as far as making people pay for bags at checkouts especially that mostly big superstores are now going to self-checkout. You take a small business like my own, since Plymouth banned the bags, we totally banned them. We don’t carry any bags. We give you a box, and most of the people after they know that are bringing their own bags. I mean, so I’d rather see myself you enforce and strengthen the bylaw we have now. But to make another project and a few more steps at the cash register when people are aggravated as it is because nobody likes to wait and that’s what I see. I see aggravation for them. I see a lot of aggravation for whatever business it is trying to keep track all that. It’s just simplify it, from my support. Hit them with a fine, I don’t know if you–do we as a community have the right to set our own rates or?

Ken Stone:

No, we do not.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, that’s part of the problem right there. I’m in favor of everything except charging individual residents a fee for bags. I don’t think that’s–

Ken Stone:

Oh, if I can interject? People are already paying the fee at 10 cents for the plastic bags that are available in all the market.

Dick Quintal:

Well, if they are then what are you here for then trying to change–

Ken Stone:

Well, again, what I said is that because some are starting to give it away free, others will eventually follow suit and we’ll be back where we were where plastic bags are being given out in large numbers and we’ll be back having litter everywhere. And as for the small business, we wrote into that bylaw an inclusion for small businesses like yours. So, if you wanted to give away plastic bags, you could but the big businesses that give away more in a week than any small business gives away in a year will still be having to do what they’re already basically doing. They know how to do this. It’s not going to be hardship for them. And if you want to see my video, the vast majority at places like Market Basket are using paper or bringing reusables. Very few are taking those bags. But if they’re given away free again, everybody will be taking it.

[1:45:03]

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Harry Helm:

So, Mr. Stone, nothing in these two bylaw changes prevents business from using paper bags?

Ken Stone:

No, not at all.

Harry Helm:

And they’re free?

Ken Stone:

And those are free, yeah.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, basically, the concept here is that large corporate businesses have been trying to getting around the disposable bag law by using a heavier grade of plastic that was not anticipated that they would and then giving it away for free.

Ken Stone:

Exactly.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, essentially what we have are the largest users or largest businesses giving away plastic bags have found a way around our plastic bag ban?

Ken Stone:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

And the intention of these two articles is to correct that?

Ken Stone:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

And you are telling us that most communities are in the process or already have corrected that loophole?

Ken Stone:

There are communities that are in the process and anyone that has passed the bylaw were recently is using this definition.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. I bring it back to the board.

Harry Helm:

I’d like to motion that we recommend Articles 16 and 17 to town meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second?

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion?

Kevin Stone:

If I may, one correction. I think the Article that you have, that was presented to you a week ago, there are two minor changes to it that couldn’t get to you by the time this came before you. They’re minor but they’re important. The ones that will actually go into the Article, do you have the copies in front of you?

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, do we need to reschedule this because if there’s changes on what was proposed–

Derek Brindisi:

I think I’ll defer to the Assistant Town Manager but from what I understand these changes were miniscule in nature. So, if you want to just present them quick so the Board knows what the changes were?

Kevin Stone:

So, basically, one of the stipulations was that if it’s a plastic that it’d be a non-toxic plastic other than polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride. I eliminated polyethylene. Basically, that was because when I put this together, I was actually thinking about polyethylene terephthalate, which is toxic. Polyethylene itself is not and many of these bags are made out of polyethylene. So, that wasn’t here. I took that out. And then in the last sentence, it said, “That these plastic bags generally be considered a food grade material that is no more than 4 mils thick.” Now, we’re having it say, no less than 4 mils thick. Makes it a little clearer and that’s what’s the language no less than in the last bylaw. And many of these bags are 4 mils thick and they’re fine, they’re very sturdy. So, those are the two minor changes. Everything else and especially the idea of zone and stitch stays the same.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone? More discussion? Do we have a vote? All those in favor? Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Opposed. It’s 4 to 1.

Kevin Stone:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. So, we want to hear about the Zoning Bylaws, correct? And how about if we take the Retirement Board? We see Mr. Retirement Board in the audience? We don’t want him getting too tired.

Lynne Barrett:

So, I’m before you tonight. Lynne Barrett, Director of Finance, Vice-Chair of the Retirement Board. Two members also with me tonight, Dale Webber and Robert Ness. We would like to present to you Article 13, which is an article to increase the COLA base for retirees. In 2010, the legislature enacted a law to allow by local option towns to increase the COLA base. And what the COLA base is every year, we vote a COLA at the Retirement Board no more than 3%. So, the 3% gets added to that base every year to our retirees.

[1:50:30]  

Lynne Barrett:

So, back in 2011, we increased it from 12,000 to 14,000 and now, we were coming before you to increase that base from 14,000 to 16,000. So, basically, what that means is it’s an increase to a retiree of $60 a year, $5 a month. We have approximately 763 retirees. So, on an annual basis, that’s a cost of 46,000 for that additional $2,000.

Some other information that might be useful to you is currently right now, the average pension for retiree in Plymouth is $27,601. So, this addition I think is needed for our retirees and especially I think tonight we talked about how important our seniors are and I think our own retirees deserve this. So, we would kindly appreciate your support.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Any questions? Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

So, just so people watching and make sure I understand this, this isn’t coming from the tax payers or the general budget. This is actually coming from the retirement fund, correct?

Lynne Barrett:

It comes from the retirement fund. So, the town pays into the retirement fund on an annual basis, the appropriation but it will be coming from that retirement fund.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. That’s it for me.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else?

Dick Quintal:

Motion to approve as presented.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

Four in favor and one abstention.

Okay. Zoning Bylaws. Oh, Lynne, I’m sorry. Do you want to just go through all your stuff?

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah, if there are any other questions regarding. So, the other articles I have tonight are Article 2A and 2B, which is the supplemental budget article for the general fund under 2A. And then under 2B is supplemental budgets for each of the enterprise fund. We gave you some detail explanations and memos from the departments of what increases and adjustments were required. But if there’s any specific questions, I’d be happy to answer.

Betty Cavacco:

Does anyone have any questions on 2A and 2B? Do we have a motion?

Dick Quintal:

Motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

Unanimous.

Lynne Barrett:

Article 5, Pavement Management Stabilization Fund. So, what we’re asking for here is to just transfer from free cash that amount of motor vehicle excise receipts that we received in excess of our budget for fiscal 22.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Lynne, so, when you say the budget, you put together a process in 2017 by which we’re only allowing, and correct me if I’m wrong, to have the excise to grow in the general fund by roughly one and a quarter eight percent a year for over the prior 20 years that it averaged 3% growth. And we’re trying to take that, call off that delta of 1.75% and use that to repay the money that we’ve been using–that come in  meaning it’s been giving the DPW directed to improve our roads.

Lynne Barrett:

That’s correct. Yes.

John Mahoney:

Okay. So, the question and it’s probably best for the DPW director but I’ll ask it to you and certainly to the town manager, he’s gotten $3.5 million allotments, correct?

Lynne Barrett:

That’s correct.

John Mahoney:

So, FY 17, 19, 21 off because of the pandemic and you came back few months ago and you got this third one, correct?

Lynne Barrett:

Yes.

[1:55:08]

John Mahoney:

And I’ll ask this to the town manager, the question is we were told in 2017 because we got desperate, there was a $135 million exposure that if the DPW Director wanted to go out instantaneously fix all the roads to bring them up to an 80% level of safety, he needed a 135 million. So, I guess my question would be, would the two and soon to be third $5 million investment in roads, are we treading water? Is our exposure still 135? Have we made a dent in that? Is it now trending downwards and it’s lower than that or with inflation for example, it’s really we are fixing some of our roads but the exposure is really now 140, 150, 160? It’s still growing. So, is it still growing? Is it trending downwards or are we just staying neutral? That’s my question. You don’t have to answer it right now. Unless of course you know the answer.

Lynne Barrett:

No, I don’t.  I know we just recently–I think they actually are updating the roads evaluation program that they did way back in 2017. So, I would think, you know, we would have that information for you. I don’t know if we have it right now but we’ll get it to you shortly.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. We can get you an update to the road rating. I think it’s what you’re referencing in the Pavement Management Program is the road rating. I don’t know what the road rating was in ’17. But I think–

John Mahoney:

But I want it to equate to dollars. Does that make sense?

Derek Brindisi:

Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

John Mahoney:

I want to know if we’re still–are we still airing more again in the future generation or is this–and I know this is making a difference, trust me. If anybody ever drove down River Street a decade ago, you know what I’m talking about. And we’re finally proactively investing in roads. But I want to know that if we’re not making a dent in it and the numbers are still growing then what do we need to do–what’s the number we need to give to the DPW Director every two years incrementally to get that number to start trending down. That’s the question. That would be the second question.

And then the question I have, another one question I’ll ask you, Lynne is that so this system that you set up in 2017, is it working? This payment plan, this bucket?

Lynne Barrett:

Yes. Yeah.

John Mahoney:

Okay. And in the near-term future, it’s sustainable with respect to paying back those?

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah.

John Mahoney:

Okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, do we have a motion?

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

Unanimous.

Lynne Barrett:

And the last one I had is that Nor’easter Funding. It’s just that storm from last October what we have left. We recommended to transfer from free cash to pay that off.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay, great.

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Lynne Barrett:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

And now, we have Mr. Hartman. A quick explanation.

Lee Hartman:

So, I’ll go through this fairly quick. If you want quick, let me know if I should slow down. So, we have two articles. And the first thing you’re very familiar with, it’s the goals of the Board of Selectmen and one of the goals you have is to encourage strong and vibrant economic development in business sector. So, we have two articles representing to town meeting. I should point out that both of these were supported last week by the Planning Board. This one on the three-to-one vote and the next one on the four-zero vote.

So, we have in Plymouth what’s called the Unified Complex Design that we do in the Industrial Park. So, we’ve done over 20 of them. It’s been in place for a couple of decades. It’s been a very successful process that we use. So, what happens is that it gives you the ability to put multiple buildings on our lot. And as long as the Planning Board decides it’s a unified complex, you can do that. It’s worked really well. It’s kind of crazy to think that you can build a 40,000 sq foot building by right but if you did two 20’s, you need a special permit. So, again, this has worked really well in the industrial work. I have some examples I’ll show you. And what we’re looking to do at this town meeting is expand this unified complex, allowing multiple buildings on the lot without going through with the Board of Appeals, adding it to the Airport District, Mixed Commerce, Highway Commercial and Cedarville Enterprise District.

[1:59:58]

Lee Hartman:

You know the airport. Basically, the airport district is basically the airport itself with some areas just to the north of South Meadow Road. Mixed Commerce is Colony Place as well as the area where Amazon is and a little other additional land on Cherry Street. Highway Commercial is Home Depot Drive and Shops at 5 Natalie Way. And Cedarville Enterprise District is that land located on Hedges Pond Road just north of the old landfill. So, it’s decided by the Planning Board if it’s unified. It’s only for structures. So, if you have use like retail that we need a special permit, you still need that special permit. If it’s aquifer protection, you still need this. This only allows for multiple buildings. And again, we’ve done this a bunch of times.

One of the things I’ve been asked to do for town meetings is present with consistency with our current masterplan. I won’t go into this but again, we give some of the reasons in maximizing development in the limited commercial land we have. It’s one of the goals of the masterplan.

And I just had some examples here. So, this is the medical building on Resnik Road. It says Christie McCall but that’s really Industrial Park Road. And this was a unified complex proposed with an addition to that medical building as well as the daycare that’s next door to it.

Now, the unified complex I think we all know Registry for Motor Vehicles. So, this is up on the top right of the screen is the Industrial Park Road and you’ve got the Registry Building plus three additional buildings, two office buildings and MAP Academy to the rear that we view as Unified Complex.

This is, if you’re coming off of Plympton Road or coming from the Market Basket heading down on Commerce Way towards the Colony Place, these are the two medical office buildings right on Commerce Way just off of Plympton Road. The third one that’s there is proposed but not yet built. This is a building. This is the old. I call it the Bartlett Nuclear Building. And again, this allowed for an addition to the existing building on the right. This is Industrial Park Road and allowed them to separate those two buildings on separate lots.

And then the last one, I believe it’s the last one is again Resnik Road up on the hill, the medical building and the new medical office building at 41 Resnik Road. So, again, great tool. None of these would have been able to happen without our lengthy special permit process. It’s worked well and we would recommend and we ask for your support on this to expand it to these other commercial districts. Thank you. Fast enough?

John Mahoney:

It was too fast.

Lee Hartman:

I can go back.

Betty Cavacco:

Do you have a question, John?

John Mahoney:

Yes. So, Lee, again, I was too fast. So, the last thing you said was none of that could have happened without the lengthy special permit process.

Lee Hartman:

Right. So, if you want to build a 40,000 square foot building, so for example, this one here. If these two buildings, 45 and 41 were together, attached, you could do that and get your permit and users are allowed. Only because they are separate buildings, you have to go to the Board of Appeals and say, “I want to build two separate buildings that are not attached and it’s on the same lot.” And our bylaw says, to do that, you need a special permit. So, what this is saying is, whether it’s one 40,000 square foot building or two 20s, you should be able to do that without going through the whole process just to build the building.

Now, if you have a use in there, that triggers the special permit. For example, retail or some other use that needs a special permit. Still needs a special permit for the use. This only just allows you to put multiple buildings on the lot. And again, as I pointed out, we’ve done it over 20 times in the Industrial Park as well as in Camelot Drive and it’s worked very well.

Betty Cavaco:

Anyone else?

Charlie Bletzer:

Chairwoman?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Charlie Bletzer:

Lee, great job. I hope town meeting supports this. This is very important what we’re trying to do and make it easier for this business district committee and grow and help us. So, it’s a great start. Thank you.

Lee Hartman:

I’ll also point out for both of these articles. One of the other things we’re seeing in Plymouth is more and more desire to build 40Bs on our commercial land. So, I think both of these articles are trying to give property owners every incentive to do commercial development and not convert more land to yet another 40B in this town.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, great job. Thank you.

[2:05:00]

Harry Helm:

I’d like to move that we recommend Article 10 to town meeting.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second.

Betty Cavacco:

10 and 11?

Harry Helm:

Well, I think 11 is separate. So, we’ll have Lee explain it. So, let’s just do 10.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion?

Dick Quintal:

Lee, does this include Scobee Circle?

Lee Hartman:

Yes, it does.

Dick Quintal:

Definitely.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor?

John Mahoney:

Sorry, Ms. Chairwoman. Lee–sorry.

Betty Cavacco:

Hold on, Charlie.

John Mahoney:

Lee, when you look at page 1 here for Article 10. I think you put the packet together, the backup data?

Lee Hartman:

Yes.

John Mahoney:

So, it says, “needing justification.” This goal seeks to increase the town’s commercial tax base and shift some of the community’s tax-based burden away from the residential taxpayer. So, I want to promote economic development that is sustainable, that is focusing on good paying long-term jobs. You referenced 40B, you talked about brick and mortar. We’ve had these conversations over the years. Brick and mortar retail is going away of the dodo. I don’t–and I had this conversation with Mr. Cole. The focus should be on getting industries or businesses to this community that will put down sustainable jobs where people can live here. And obviously, affordable housing is a different piece of the puzzle. It’s a conversation for another time. But we’re in theory, they’re not traveling up to 120A into the city to go to work and I had this quality of life where they’re here. I just–

Lee Hartman:

In just about every case, retail would still trigger a special permit through the Zoning Board. So, this is office space. This is manufacturing. This is warehousing. Those are the uses that are allowed. Special permit uses such as retail would still be a special permit use.

John Mahoney:

But it is mathematically impossible to shift it away from the residential base. Okay?

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. I think it says to minimize but yes.

John Mahoney:

And it doesn’t say that in the paragraph I’m looking at. So, the Plymouth Industrial Development Corporation was founded 1962. You have a phenomenal example of sustainable jobs. You talked about the Industrial Park in North Plymouth. Hundreds of companies and thousands of sustainable jobs, the tax base between Camelot and North Plymouth Industrial Park is only 230 million and we’ve added about ten billion. But I’ve seen the updated numbers from the Finance Director in the last 50 years of residential. You’ve got another 2 to 5 billion residential in the queue over the next two decades and I think the focus really should be on sustainable jobs, sustainable businesses. And that’s just not going to happen. I just don’t want to plant the seed of–you can call it misleading. It’s just inaccurate. It’s not going to happen. And we want to be welcoming to businesses and it’s a bunch of things we need to do to facilitate that.

Harry Helm:

Well, I’ll just say that I’m in total disagreement with Mr. Mahoney on this. I think that this will bring better paying jobs. Right now, the average wage for somebody working in Plymouth is $20 an hour. Mr. Hartman has mentioned that those types of jobs would require a special permit. Okay? So, what he is proposing here is not about $20 an hour jobs. It’s about those types of jobs that you’re talking about. And I understand that you don’t believe, that it is impossible to turn the tide of what Plymouth is becoming from a residential area. I understand you believe that. I tend to believe that we can. That through this and other methods, we can prevent that future that you see with all of this residential development because we must do it. So, I disagree with the tenure of what you said because I do think things are possible. I do think it’s possible to stem that tide. And I think this is part of it along with Article 11.

[2:10:12]

Dick Quintal:

I think it’s a great idea. We’ve been doing it for a while and the way I see it is you’re using the property until it’s full. I mean, the town doesn’t want to go. They’ll have it in the past. The town has no really commercial space, Industrial Park, to speak of. So, I’m in favor of this and I’ve seen it in the exact park I’m in and it works beautifully. You touched on a few of them. And if the town can get some more tax that way, you know, and I agree with you, John, it’s not our way out but you know what, every little bit helps. I’m going to support it.

Betty Cavacco:

Any other questions? Go ahead, Charlie.

Charlie Bletzer:

As I said, this is a stat. We need to get high restrictions to go higher too to help us with this. But every time, we had light industrial commercial, it’s going to take a little bit off for the residential taxpayers. That’s the point that Lee is making. And we have to make this process easier for these businesses to come in. And the average you’re talking about, you’re not going to get the $20 an hour jobs. These are office buildings, which are going to be higher paying jobs. We don’t want a situation where we had it on Gable, we had it at Colony Place where they went to 40Bs because the permit process was so hard for them to get their commercial. So, they went to a 40B residential. And that’s I think the point Lee is trying to make. This is a stat and in the right direction and I just hope town meeting passes these articles.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Dick Quintal:

I’m going to abstain.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, three affirmative, one abstention and one no. All right. Article 11.

Lee Hartman:

So, the next one and just I’ll go into a little bit before. So, we have some uses here that we’re looking to convert from special permit to allowed uses. I’ll go through each one. But one of the things that’s important to point out and it kind of applies to the last one too is that special permit process takes two to five meetings on a regular basis. You have to go for a special permit before the Planning Board, Steering Committee sometimes two Steering Committees and then to the Zoning Board of Appeals. And each time you go to one of these meetings, you have the legal team or a team with you. You have an attorney, an engineer, landscape architect, an architect and sometimes other specialists too.

So, this special permit process tends to be fairly expensive. I was asked to get some examples in Plymouth. I’m told the average cost to go through that process is between 50 and 75,000. In larger cases, legal fees alone could cost between 10 and 30, sometimes on the complicated cases, it can easily exceed a hundred thousand. Engineering, 40,000 to a 100,000 on a larger case and easily can go over 200,000 on a complicated case. This is just to find out whether or not you have yes or no. So, I’m coming to the town. I think I have a good project. I’m going to go through a process and I’m investing this kind of money just to find out whether I can put a shovel on the ground or not. Many people go through it. A lot go through it but it also for certain users I believe the ones I’m about to show you, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

So, we have some changes we’re proposing. There are uses that already exist in most cases in each of these zoning districts. And there are uses that in my opinion and I’d say the Planning Board’s opinion since I’ve supported this also is that the condition that you can do with the special permit, there’s limited value to it for the uses that we’re talking about. And then again, like last time, non-retail. Retail is not the focus here. We have plenty of it in the town. You want to do retail, then you need that special permit process.

And just to give you an example how we got here. So, people say, “Well, why are we changing all this?” So, this is the old Zoning Bylaw we had before we went to the new table. This is just one example. In R-20SL District, the uses you can use, the two-family use and all uses allowed in R-40 Districts. And now you go back to the R-40 District and the R-40 District says, all uses allowed in the R-25 District now goes to the R-40 District and all special permit uses are allowed in the R-40. So, now you go back to those districts and they will say, “Here are the uses allowed.”

[2:15:14]

Lee Hartman:

Oh, and now, you have to go back one more set to the RR district to see which use is allowed. So, when we took that kind of complicated cross referencing and put it into our table, you could start to see how things just as we work with this new table just don’t make sense. So, we have a handful of changes that we’re proposing and again, things to try to encourage commercial development in the town.

Right now, a prohibited use in the Airport District is both sales. It’s already there all over the district. It was allowed under the old bylaw but again, when you look at the table now, it says prohibited. That means you can’t do it, period. You can’t do it even by variance. So, again, we’re recommending converting that prohibited use of both sales to an allowed use in the Airport District. And I would also point out in a community with 37 miles shoreline and 365 ponds, it’s a very important part of our economy to have that marine related uses in the community.

Banks, financial institutions prohibited in Arterial Commercial. That’s the Stop and Shop Plaza on Samoset Street, Pilgrim Hill Road where Walk on Justice. Right now, you can’t do it. It’s prohibited. So, again, looking to allow for banks once again as they were before we did the new table from prohibited to an allowed use Arterial Commercial. Special permit right now for bank in the light industrial district. Again, this is a very low-impact type use in the community looking to make it and allowed use in light industrial. It’s prohibited also in the Airport District, which is very similar. It is really a light industrial district. So, again, making an allowed use in the airport.

And in mixed commerce, which again, is where Colony Place is, it’s a special permit and we’re recommending to convert that to an allowed use too. And again, thanks are low impact use in the community. Pilgrim Hill Road, again, I think you’re familiar with these. I’ll probably walk through them more with the finance committee. We have the two industrial parks: Camelot and North Plymouth.

Marine Yards, again, just like marine sales, it’s prohibited under no circumstances allowed in the light industrial district or the airport district. But yet, when I go to both of those districts, I see that use everywhere. So, it’s a use that is or was previously allowed and should be allowed. So, we’re looking to convert that use of marine yards from prohibited to an allowed use in those two districts.

Non-automotive. And again, non-automotive is prohibited in light industrial and prohibited in the airport now. Again, both of those districts, if you look at service facilities, they’re all over those two districts. This one going from prohibited to special permit, not allowed. So, this one now says that all those uses can occur but if you want to do a new non-automotive repair shop, it would be by special permit.

Aviation uses are allowed in the Airport District. For some reason, they’re prohibited. Now, this is not flying the plane but it’s doing repairs and aviation related industries prohibited in the light industrial districts. So, we’re just looking to mimic what’s allowed in the airport district for aviation related uses.

Heavy equipment sales and services. Right now, special permit in both the airport and industrial district. It’s a good use. It’s a type of use you need in your industrial parks. So, again, recommending from special permit to allowed uses. And then light industry, which is allowed in every other district except for mixed commerce, which again is Colony Place and Cherry Street is prohibited in our mixed commerce but allowed in all those other districts.

In definition, fabrication, processing, packaging or assembly that employs electric or other noiseless or substantially noises inoffensive motor power, utilizing hand and quiet machinery. So, we’re not talking about something that’s from massive use. But again, another use to encourage besides retail development on mixed commerce and besides 40B.

Manufacturing of Renewable Energy. So, this is not creating a wind turbine or creating a solar field. This is producing the material that you would then sell to somebody who would put those in. It’s prohibited in our highway commercial, which is Home Depot Drive, Shops at 5 and Natalie Way-Holman Road prohibited, not allowed. ’t’s allowed in every other districts. We’re recommending making that instead of a prohibited use and allowed use like it is in every other commercial district.

Consistency with the master plan. Again, the goal here give people some alternative, encourage those uses, maximize the commercial land we have now, and again, minimize that process of the special permit process for uses that I would say are reasonable uses that should be allowed in each of those districts. So, again, with that, I would ask for your support. Thank you.

[140:24]

Betty Cavacco:

John, do you have anything?

John Mahoney:

I move approval.

Harry Helm:

I second that.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion?

John Mahoney:

I’m going to clarify a few things from that last article’s discussion. So, I think there was some confusion. So, the overall philosophy in the discussion and I had with Mr. Cole, our Economic Development Director was to focus on and if you could put it back to the prior slide, Lee?

Okay. So, look at those last two bullet points. That’s more along the lines of what I want to say. Maximize the value of your existing commercial zones, your existing industrial zones, your existing highway, commercial light industrial. Okay? Let’s do what we can to streamline the process, to make sure that maximizing that out. But we’re focusing on industries that are going to in theory deliver long-term sustainable jobs. Say what you want about that prior article, but at the end of the day, these developers go with 40Bs, because that’s where the money is. There’s no doubt in my mind. They’re making money. It’s unfortunate that the Town of Plymouth is at a bottleneck. If you look at the three towns below us, Bourne and a couple on the Cape, there’s no land left. If you look at north of us, there’s no land left. And I forgot what the number is but I think we’re leading the state new residential permits in the last year or two, Lee, correct? It’s well over a thousand, correct? So, they’re making money. And what’s where the profit is so that’s why they go there.

I don’t want to belabor this point, but we can go into the diversification of the tax based three months from now, Lee, somebody, an individual whose last name is Dunn will be standing at that microphone with a giant pie chart on that screen. And we then vote whether or not we want to go to a split tax based or keep the unified rate and then she goes through all the numbers and I’ve seen that a dozen time it’s really like watching paint dry. I think you’ve seen it a few times. So, when those numbers get up on that board, they are stark. And I don’t think I know for one hundred percent certainty that it is mathematically impossible to diversify the tax base and even suggesting that we can is extremely dangerous and irresponsible and this is why because you’re implying, you’re telling the public that the reason that their residential taxes are high is because you didn’t diversity the tax based because you’re anti-economic development.

This town has so much development that is coming to it in the last 50 years. It’s not funny and that’s the problem. There’s a misconception there. It sows the seeds of doubt and all it does in return is lead to higher taxes, larger government and more debt. So, I support this second article.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. All those in favor?

Charlie Bletzer:

Aye.

Betty Cavacco:

It’s unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Hartman. As we move along to the town manager’s report.

Derek Brindisi:

All right. I know it’s getting late so I’ll get through my four-page town manager’s report as quickly as possible.

So, early voting is open until this Friday at the Great Hall during Town Hall hours. So, we’ll be closing early voting this Friday at noon. So, just to remind folks that the primary election day is September 6, so this coming Tuesday throughout the 18 precincts from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm.

Moving on, as you may heard, the concession stand at Forges Field had caught on fire this past week. As of this time, we are suspecting that those are electrical fire that caused the event. We think it may have been a faulty breaker. So, more to come on that. We’ll still have the fire investigation. The town is working with the insurance company to pay for the replacement of the building.

Labor Day Weekend will be the last weekend that we have staff, lifeguard staff and other beach staff at our beaches. However, Long Beach will be staffed by Marine and Environmental Affairs personnel through September 17th.

[2:25:18]

Derek Brindisi:

We have been notified by the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission that they will be voting on and presenting the Police Department with the re-accreditation on October 26. So, much credit to the chief and his command staff for going through the re-accreditation process.

As of this school year, the police chief will be implementing two new school resource offices that will rotate through our 8 elementary schools. As you can imagine, school safety is the chief’s top public safety priority.

Another announcement with the police department, we have 7 new academy graduates. The graduation will take place this Thursday in Memorial Hall at 11:00 am. So, again, adding 7 more police officers to our staff. Just as on the side, at the same time, we have three police officers that are transferring and two that are retiring. So, we take two steps forward and one step back.

The Planning Department has identified all of the properties that face School Street from their rear, which have an excessive amount of graffiti. Letters will be sent first to the property owners, learning though the responsibility to remove the graffiti while we offer financial assistance from our community development grant program.

Tomorrow, there will be a contingent of staff and other partners in town that will be conducting a site visit in New Bedford with the American Cruise Lines. You may have heard that American Cruise Lines has recently come to the town and has expressed an interest in making Plymouth a future destination. So, more to come on that. I know Chairman Cavacco attended the early meeting. On a personal note, I’d like to thank Phil Chandler who is our Harbor Committee Chairman for reaching out and making this connection with American Cruise Lines. So, we’re hoping if things go well through negotiations that we could see anywhere from 4 to 6 stops starting next summer here in town.

And then last, I’d like to just mention that September 4th, we have the lighted boat parade that starts at 7:30 in the harbor. The parade will pass through the channel, pass by the boat ramp, Town Wharf and then the state pier. Pending any questions, that’s all I have for this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

Does the board have any questions for the town manager? Great Thank you. Next item on the agenda is Selectmen’s Open Discussion – New Business/ Letters/ Old Business. Do you have anything? No. The only new business I have is that I was notified once again today. Well, actually it’s old business. Fresh Pond is having difficulties there. I guess, there was–I don’t know exactly what happened but I think that–and I see that Mr. Malaguti is in the audience. I think that it’s time that we really take a hard look at what’s going on for these ponds and beaches.

Unfortunately, the Pond and Beach Committee has been stagnant. I don’t know if it’s time that we either disband it and start over or we just move forward? I mean, our residents, we’re too big to be catering to people outside of our town and these ponds and beaches are the first one that suffer for it. If Mr. Malaguti wouldn’t mind speaking?

Everett Malaguti:

Yes, Everett Malaguti, Chair of the Natural Resources and Coastal Beach Committee. I a hundred percent agree with that. I know that while we are big, I want to make sure that we try and care to both sides as equally as possible but I’m emphasizing more on the residents more than the tourist but not also hurting our major economy as well at the same time.

I do agree there needs to be a major revamping of all the regulations for our beaches and ponds so that we’re streamlined but also, maintain efficiency and that people aren’t seeing different for one end of town to another end of town, creating the hopscotch effective we’ve seen over the past one to two decades of changing rules in one so then everyone congregates to another one that has lesser rules. So, I do agree that the Beaches and Ponds Committee that obviously is the purview of the Select Board to determine if they want to continue that. I will happily lend assistance anywhere possible as well as other committee members on my committee to assist them if needed.

[2:30:13]

Everett Malaguti:

We are tasked right now heavily with Morton Park issues and are going to have another couple of meetings within the next month to dive deeper into the issue to hopefully resolve that before the next season comes about. So, that we’re not playing catch up again. And obviously, while Morton Park is the large issue at the moment, it’s not forgotten about the other major entities that we have for our recreational opportunities.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. I know that I’m liaison to the Natural Resource, your group there. And I’d be happy, if you need anything, just let me know and hopefully we can work together because I just think it’s time that we have to make a move and make sure everything is consistent across the board. Mr. Brindisi?

Derek Brindisi:

If I could, just so I’m clear, we’ve talked a lot about bringing together a committee this fall. We’ve had many discussions at the staff level and asking staff to support a committee. So, I guess, the question is has the–will the board make a decision in the future as to which direction? Is it going to be Everett’s committee or are you going to re-invigorate the Beaches and Pond Committee?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, like I said, I think the part that I’m concerned over is that the Beaches and Pond Committee is stagnant. I know that Chris had reached out to them trying to set up a meeting. So, I think everything should be under some sort of umbrella. I would think that that would be the Natural Resource Group. And we can appoint sub-committees and stuff like that under that one umbrella. But I know that people are demanding change and there’s nothing that we can do to fix it unless we fix it all.

Derek Brindisi:

And that’s great to hear because like I said, whether it’s the police chief or Barry DeBlasio or Anne, our Recreation Director, they’re all interested in being a part of this conversation. So, I just want to be able to move them to the correct direction. So, we will definitely re-engage with Everett and support his efforts.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. I think the next–is there any–

Charlie Bletzer:

I got old business.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

Derek, could you talk to Mr. Reeds and I’d like to get and account him of the 15,000 that were given to the three questions that he needs answered. Last week, we talked about it and for the next week, I’d like to get what the three questions are that he needs answered that are going to take 30 hours and $15,000. And if we can get that maybe in the next meeting when Mr. Serkey is here because he’ll be in our next meeting. Maybe Mr. Serkey can tell us if we’re getting our money’s worth, you know, on these three questions. So, if that’s possible, I’d like to get that for the next meeting.

Derek Brindisi:

Just so I’m clear, Mr. Bletzer, you’re referencing the Charter Commission’s request–

Charlie Bletzer:

The Charter Commission, they said they’re consulting couldn’t answer three questions and they recommended they’re getting legal opinion for three questions. Can I question him to–it’s only a few questions, seems like a lot of money. So, I’d like to see what those questions are to see the complexity of those questions and get an accounting of how that money is being spent on as expensive.

Derek Brindisi:

Understood. I can circle back with Mr. Abbott, the chair of the committee and ask him that question.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. And maybe Mr. Serkey might see it in the agenda and maybe he can weigh in on that because he likes getting up there and speak, so maybe he can get up there and speak about these three questions. So, it’d be helpful. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anything else for the town manager? Because I think the next is–oh, I’m sorry, Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

This was actually under the Selectmen’s business on the two articles we have. And I know John voiced his opinion on it and now, I’m going to voice mine. Unless you built the building on this town or try to do a project in this town, then you understand what these developers if you will, not even developers, business owners have to go through and the hoops that they have to go through and the coming back and the coming back and you have people telling you what kind of roof to put on your building? No, that kind of roof, this kind of roof. And we want this and we want–you know, there has to be a limit.

[2:35:27]    

Dick Quintal:

There has to be a balance and Plymouth is not known as a business-friendly community but there is a car dealership, somebody that is trying to build a storage facility off the old next Rourke Road interchange. It shouldn’t be such a difficult long drawing out process. And when I have people that are going through this process that I do not even know making phone calls to me and explaining what they have to go through. It’s nice to hold a tote but I commend Lee a little bit for doing that was some of our goals, I believe from the previous year, speeding up the permit process not to give the house away but make it a little easier and a little less expensive. If there’s a certain board or boards that want certain things then how about like a little premium with them and go over it and then come back next week, come back in two weeks, go to this board, go see them then come back here. I think the big fault in this town is nobody looks at the zoning bylaws that we have on the books. We all sit here and we all complain, board after board at what Water Street looks like, what this street looks like, but who’s actually changing the zoning bylaws? Nobody. So, you know, we’re going to put a task force together and get all these people with these ideas, why not conserve our energy together and then correcting the problems that we do have. I mean, that’s the way I see it. And I have to say that because unless you’ve done it and you have the architect with you and you have the lawyers with you, you know, I used to tell them, “Stay home because I can’t afford all this.” And I’ve been one guy and just keep my fingers crossed and it worked but it was very repetitive and I just think we need to be a little more business-friendly.

Last week, I covered for somebody and I had to meet somebody for an inspection and the window was 9:00 to 12:00 or 9:00 to 1:00, okay? So, this resident requested, a call maybe 30 minutes before the inspection. They don’t do that. So, in other words, you have to wait four hours at that location, not only did he have to wait there four hours, that’s his house. But the contractor that did the actual work had to sit there and me and him had a big conversation because this kid had to go to work and I covered for him. So, I don’t want to say too much about it but it seems like that that a very difficult, any home owner doing any job don’t understand, it’s very difficult. And we’ve asked a hundred times and we have made progress, don’t get me wrong, on simplifying the permit process, if you will. And you say about the 40B and there’s a lot of money in it, well, there’s a hundred acres sitting on Long Pond Road. That’s what we’ve been trying to avoid from day one. Do I say it publicly at this table? Absolutely not, but since we’re talking about it maybe that’s some of the little driving force behind me that no one’s ever asked. Nobody’s taking the three minutes to ask me.

And the 40B where Home Depot is, whatever it is, Depot Drive, [inaudible] on that property. That’s one of the reasons I ran for this job because I was very disgusted in what I saw there and when I see there, I’m going to use the word horrified. So, that’s one of the–there were three reasons and that was the biggest one. And I’ve been told all over that the town would not negotiate and work with the developer. And I know and David Gould for it. Even there at different meetings, that’s it. Nothing special. Always a gentleman and always really into this but that’s the reputation. That’s what happened. That’s why that went the way it did and it was wrong. You should have tried–whoever was here should have tried to stop that and negotiate that. And that’s what I’m trying to do as long as my part here is on the Board or the rest of us.

And what happens on the hundred acres? Because something is going to happen there. So, you know, I’m trying to stay level-headed, which I have been.

[2:40:03]

Dick Quintal:

Other people are all fighting about a racetrack. Put your energy in there. I think that’s wonderful. I’m watching the bottom, the end result, what’s going to best for this town and I’m going to tell you, there’s a traffic issue on Long Pond Road that has nothing to do with anything on those hundred acres but it needs to be addressed and that’s what I’m focusing on right at the moment. So, that’s all I have to say. And I commend Lee for doing what we’ve kind of asked and to do the last year. I mean, we did. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

I’m not going to counter that. I just under old business, the question was because of the primary next week, is it true that we’re meeting a week from Thursday?

Betty Cavacco:

We are.

John Mahoney:

Okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Yes. We’ll be meeting on the September 8th next week. So, it will be next Thursday. Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Charles Bletzer:

Motion to adjourn.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Everybody have a great week.