Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 9-8-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board Minutes 9-8-22

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 Plymouth Select Board Meeting, Thursday, September 8th. Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

All:

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

Betty Cavacco:

If you would remain standing and join us in a moment of silence for the Queen of England who passed away today and had her throne for 70 years.

Thank you. The board has been in executive session since 5:00 p.m. The first order of business is a Public Hearing with Shikku Hot Pot and Noodle Bar (Amendment). Do we have any–oh, there you are. Okay.

Patricia Cho:

Hi, again. I’m back regarding the amendment to Shikku hot Pot. I hear some questions in the back, hot pot is a dining experience where there is either a grill or induction on the middle of the table or you could do individual and you get the ingredients that you would like and you cook it in the broth you like. So, it’s a very family or group-oriented experience. So, we want to bring that to downtown.

The amendment is rather than having the kitchen downstairs, we’re going to bring it upstairs for liability purposes.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Well, I’ll move the issuance of an all–wait a minute. Is this for an All Alcohol License as well?

Patricia Cho:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. I don’t have–oh, we already granted the first one except for the move of the kitchen and the second one is the move for an All Alcohol license. So, in accordance with Chapter 138 of the Mass General Laws as amended, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held remotely or in-person at Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street, Plymouth Mass. on Thursday, September 8th at 6:00 p.m. to consider the application for an All-Alcohol restaurant license from Shikku–is that the way I say it correct? Shikku Corporation doing business as Shikku Hot Pot and Noodle Bar, 18 Court Street, Patricia Cho, manager. New description of premises will be as follows: 1100 square feet of dining area which includes a commercial kitchen on the ground floor. There will be seating on the ground floor and additional seating in the lower level to accommodate larger groups. Part of the lower level would be used as a prep station and storage and there will be a restroom on floor for customer use. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter should please attend this meeting. Do we have a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make the motion to approve as stated.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second?

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Congratulations.

Patricia Cho:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

The next is Licenses and Administrative Notes. Unless the Board has any questions about anything specific, I’d like to move them as a group. Anyone?

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. Public Comment. Is there anyone that likes to speak in public comment? Please state your name for the record. And if you’ll excuse me for a second, I’m going to get my glasses.

[0:05:06]

Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18. Can we comment when you’re doing the articles or should we speak now?

Betty Cavacco:

No, you can comment when we’re doing the article.

Pat McCarthy:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Anyone at home? No? Okay. We’re going to go right into the 2022 Fall Town Meeting Article.

Article 22 is a Citizen’s Petition for horse racing. And I don’t believe that the petitioner is here. Am I correct? So, I don’t know. Derek, if you–or Brad?

Brad Brother:

Yeah. To the Chair, Ms. Holmes reached out to us earlier today and asked if we could postpone. Totally up to the Board as we have a pretty packed agenda already next week. And we had anticipated this article being done tonight. So, it’s up to the Board if you guys want to review it tonight or push it off to the 13th.

John Mahoney:

I’ll make a motion we table until further date. Did you say the 13th?

Betty Cavacco:

Well, it’ll be the 13th or the 20th.

Brad Brothers:

It has to be the 13th because you guys are signing it on the 13th.

John Mahoney:

I make a motion we table this article until we can hear from them.

Charlie Bletzer:

I second it.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Discussion? All those in favor. Unanimous. Article 19 Increased Parking Fines. Go ahead.

Derek Brindisi:

Good evening, everybody. So, what’s before you under Article 19 this evening is a Home Rule Petition to allow the town to increase parking fines, which under current statute is no more than $50. This would allow, if approved by the legislature, would allow the town to increase parking fines up to $150. So, the rationale is simple. I mean, this Board knows better than most that we’ve had numerous complaints over the course of the summer. We’ve had individuals who have attended this meeting to talk about their concerns specifically in the Fresh Pond area, the Morton Park area and most recently the Drew Road area, how we’ve had because of overcrowding, we’ve had intrusiveness in our neighborhoods because these individuals cannot find parking inside of our parks so they have chosen to park along the roadways illegally.

And so, we’ve also heard anecdotally that folks would attend what would go to one of our beaches or ponds and they may have 4 to 5 individuals in that vehicle and recognize the $50 fine, say the White Horse beach area is only $10 to park for the day. So, the proposed legislation that’s in front of you today would give us another tool in our toolbox by increasing the fine amount in those areas as a deterrent to prevent illegal parking.

I can tell you last night, this was highly debated with the Administration and Finance. It was rejected and not approved by Administration and Finance, I believe by a vote of 5-8, I believe. And their rationale was that they thought that this was a shotgun approach because it’s too broad. And that they were concerned that if this legislation was passed, it could be applied in the downtown area and could affect tourism. So, what I handed out to the Board this evening is an amendment to address those concerns by A&F last night.

So, you’ll see under Section 2, Paragraph 2, you will see that in bold lettering that’s underlined, I’ve included and I read the entire sentence so everybody understands where we’re headed with this. “Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 28 and a half of Chapter 90 of the General law, Section 21 of Chapter 40 or of any other general or special law to the contrary, the Select Board of the town of Plymouth or the town manager as its designee may establish by rule or regulation a schedule of fines for time restriction and other parking violations. Now, this is where we try to provide a little bit more clarity and other parking violations within parking districts in town that require a beach sticker. So, adding, “within parking districts in town that require a beach sticker,” this provides a little bit more clarity in trying to address the concerns that I just outlined.

[0:10:05]

Derek Brindisi:

So, how would this be applied? Now, we know we have two parking districts here in town. We have the downtown development area and then we have the White Horse Beach parking district. We know that the Morton Park area and Fresh Pond in particular have been trouble spots this past summer. So, we have to go ahead create parking districts in those two areas for this to apply. Once we create parking districts, we would then require beach stickers for those areas and then we could apply up to $150 if the Board so chose. Pending any questions, that’s all I have.

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t have a question but I’ll make a comment. There was quite a bit of confusion last night at A&F. And what the basis is, is exactly what you said. And I think clarifying that language to say that it would, wherever is required a beach sticker, I think it’s easier for people to understand that because I know for a fact and I’ve been witness to it and our private security firm that’s down at White Horse Beach that $50 is nothing. And like you said, they get five people 10 bucks apiece, even if it went up to 75, it’s still $15 apiece and it’s not a deterrent. So, one of the big things is we have major problems at Morton Park Andrew Road. So, I think being able to put something like this in place is important because unfortunately, we have to start catering. It’s not unfortunate, but we have to start catering to our residents. They are the people that pay for the upkeeps of these places and we have to do what’s best for them and not what’s best out of our bubble. So, I support the amendment and hopefully, it’ll go through town meeting. Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes, Derek, I just want to make a statement that I watched the Fin Com last night and I was kind of disappointed. And the reason why I was disappointed was I didn’t think they understood the whole concept of what this article is about. I can say one thing, this is not a money grab by the town. It’s certainly not a money grab by Park Plymouth or the PGDC. Okay? I was on that board for nearly 15 years. We had one increase in 15 years. No, I’m sorry, we did two. We had problems with the handicapped parking spots being abused. So, we went from $100 to $200 and it helped, that’s helped, doubling that fine. But it’s not a money grab. PGDC has no, and I talked to the chairman today, about raising the fines in downtown, the waterfront, the development district. So, how this all happened was unlike any of the boards in town, the town manager and the Select Board, we get all the phone calls from the people that want to complain. And believe me, I’ve got multiple calls: Morton Park, Fresh Pond with two of them. I already knew about White Horse and the parking has helped out a lot down there, the fines down there. So, we bring the complaints to our Town Manager. And he went out and he did a study and he found out that we have four problem areas: White Horse, which is already a district, that’s $50. So, that’s already more than downtown. So, they have their own district. So, he found that Morton Park, Fresh Point and Drew Road are three of the other problem areas. So, what we want to do is create a district. So, we’re able to make a fine that will deter people from illegally parking. A lot of you people in the room don’t know these problems. One of the meetings coming up, there’s going to be pictures, I believe on September 20th, but go down to it on a nice weekend, go to Drew Road, the cars are just pulled over. They just pull over on the road and go into a little pond down there. It’s awful.

Fresh pond, the same thing. When the parking lot is full, they just park on the streets. They don’t care. And the same in Morton Park, we have to have police down in Morton Park, that’s how bad is. So, all we’re asking for is to give the Town Manager the ability in certain districts of raising the fines and hopefully it’s a deterrent. And believe me, one of the Fin Com members last night, I won’t say his name but said having $150 fine is unfriendly. And then in the next breath, he wanted to have and Mr. Abbott, you were there. He wanted to have boot the cars and tow the cars. I mean, that’s the most because the PGDC that came before us, we talked about ways we could move because it’s all about moving the cars and the way we could stop people from–one of them, we brought up about towing and we brought about booting. And we voted it down and the Chief of Police is here tonight and he’ll tell you, they’re not going to tell the cars. There’s a lot of liability in it. So, that’s not an option.

[0:15:19]

Charlie Bletzer:

But towing and booting is the most unfriendly thing we could do for tourism. So, this is a very simple concept, only in certain districts. And I believe it’s Morton Park, Fresh Pond, Drew Road and White Horse Beach. We want to be able to up the fines that we believe will deter illegal parking. And believe me, we’re not going after the law-abiding citizens. This only affects violators. So, I don’t understand why Fin Com didn’t get it and support it last night. So, I was very disappointed by it. But I’m supporting this and it’s a tool that Derek needs to deter all this. We’re all tired of the phone calls. So, anyway, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anything else? John?

John Mahoney:

Derek, we know obviously Mr. Bletzer knows that the PGDC is a quasi-public/private entity that they generate their revenue and it doesn’t go into the proverbial general fund. They have it under their control and they do go off and do whatever they do with it, which is obviously invest in infrastructure parking garage over here and securing incremental spaces down near the waterfront. So, in the other areas of the town when we collect these parking fines, where do those moneys go?

Derek Brindisi:

So, that’s a good question. So, as you pointed out and what I learned last night is the downtown area from Stephen’s Field all the way up to Cherry Street is what they call the development zone. So, in theory, that’s their own parking district which as you pointed out they keep those funds. Anything beyond that development zone, PGDC, they process the tickets, they’ll hold the appeal. And for that service, we pay them a 25% fee based upon the ticket price. So, the remaining 75% goes into the General Fund.

John Mahoney:

Okay. So, now, that I’ve recovered from that answer, I’m looking at–so, the introductory cover letter from you, currently, the town is restricted by the provisions of General Laws Section C-90, Section 28.5 Any parking violations should not exceed $50 and then it goes on if paid within 21 days and it goes for 55 and never exceeding for 75 if paid thereafter. So, I participated in a site visit with you a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Bletzer attended, yourself, I think we had one or two staff members out here and there was another 5 to 6 members of the public and we went down the Drew Road and we marched half a mile off into the woods and we found this pristine freshwater resource that people were recreating it. And I can remember a few years ago and I can’t remember if the current chair was with us or not, but we had significant issues down at Morton Park. Okay, she’s not. So, the board voted for significant changes over there. I think we reduced the daily capacity in the summer of 200 cars down to 100. I think we might have closed the back entrance and had it exclusively coming in off the Summer Street. And I’m guessing that we probably doubled whatever it costs per car to get in there for a day visit.

I think that delivered some results, but my concern here is ultimately, even if this is approved and the ceiling is $150 tonight, that’s a significant jump for me, you’re not going to set the rate, you might come up with a proposed schedule of rates, but this Board ultimately has to sign off on that, correct?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. So, that’s a two-step process. So, I think the first thing we want to do is we want to work through one of the committees with staff to create parking districts. Right? So, like follow the same model we did with White Horse Beach and create parking districts at Fresh Pond and Morton Park, assume we get committee support for that concept. And once we create the parking districts and we come back with a schedule of a fine structure, that would be presented to this Board for final approval.

John Mahoney:

I understand it. You don’t want to see people whether they’re residents of the community or outside of the community coming in and running roughshod over these areas that we want them to be able to passively recreate at.

[0:20:13]

John Mahoney:

But even if we weren’t in this situation, post pandemic with inflation through the roof and the cost of gasoline and the basket of groceries going from 50 to potentially 150 in my mind overnight is a significant jump. That’s a significant jump. And I’ve never been a fan of the general fund. Obviously, if you know me, you’ve heard this before, if you’re going to go from 50 to 150 overnight, I mean, all that revenue cannot be allowed to go into the general fund. And I’m not suggesting other than that, but at this stage of the game, a buck 50, even if you were to come back and suggest something at a lower rate, the Board has the unilateral ability to make a motion to just max it out at a buck 50.

Derek Brindisi:

That’s correct. That’s right.

John Mahoney:

So, at this stage of the game, I couldn’t support that max.

Betty Cavacco:

But–excuse me, John, we’re not setting the rate tonight. The rate is the max where the Board of Selectmen have control over what that rate will be once the districts are put in place. So, we’re just giving them a ceiling from $50 to $150 or whatever it will be.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, the ceiling is a 100–under the proposed legislation, the ceiling is 150. Right now, the ceiling on the statute is 50. So, this gives us flexibility to go from anywhere from 51 to $150 of an increase, which as I mentioned would come back in front of this board as a proposed recommendation that you would have final approval under.

John Mahoney:

I understand that completely. I’m just fearful of, it doesn’t matter what the composition of the board is, that the Board has the potential to override a recommendation of yours. You could say $85 and somebody could just make a motion and obviously, by a simple majority say, “We’re going to max it out right now at a buck 50.” That exists and I just–

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Betty Cavacco:

Doesn’t that exists with everything we do?

John Mahoney:

Not necessarily. So, that’s for me. I mean, you’re looking at tripling under current state guidelines.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead, Charlie.

Charlie Bletzer:

John, what we’re doing now is not working. So, this is a deterrent we’re going to try. Even if we do it for a year, I don’t care. But you’re talking about fining somebody that’s parking illegal. They’re breaking the law. So, you’re not talking about law abiding citizens that are going to get fined like this. And hopefully, they get fined once and they don’t park there again. And I know you can talk to the environmental guys out there and they just wardens down the Drew Road. I think I heard you have three wardens on the weekends down there working Drew Road and it’s crazy. It’s a safety issue down there. It’s dangerous. So, we’re trying and we asked Derek to identify the problem areas. He identified them and this is a solution that we hope works and we have to try something. The fine as it is now is not working. So, that’s why we have to up this.

Betty Cavacco:

Pat?

Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, Precinct 18. I certainly, I support the concept totally and I did watch the meeting totally last night. I just have a few logistical questions and I hope you form a parking–I know there’s no standing parking committee yet for the town, you had the White Horse Beach Parking Committee, at least that’s the only one I could find online today under your Boards and Committees. So, my concerns are in terms of creating, how do you create the No Parking sign in front of someone’s house? And I don’t know exactly how you do it at White Horse Beach. I know you need a parking sticker to go to the beach, etc. But say like going in Morton Park Road in the subdivision that’s off on the left, that wings down on blocking on the name of that right now. It’s a semicircle, it heads down towards Route 3. So, people in theory could go park in front of someone’s house. They’re park all day or overnight or whatever and they don’t get a ticket because they hike it and walk in just like the people used to park at Shaw’s parking lot and walk down to Morton Park.

[0:25:08]

Pat McCarthy:

So, in theory, I’m just and all the little side streets off of Fresh Pond, so, do people get No Parking signs in front of their house? I mean, in theory, I don’t quite figure it out. And part of the ownership, like I live in a public way on Long Pond Road, maybe I’ll have a parking district soon with New Hope Chapel coming in. So, anyway, if people park all along in front of my house and they’re parking part on my land, but mostly on the town side, it’s all theoretical. So, in some of these neighborhoods I’m just down the road, the implementation of how it’s monitored. So, that’s your thing. But I will support the concept for sure and I think it needs to be dealt with and I know it’s an issue on Drew Road because I live near Drew Road and I certainly know those ponds from over the years. So, I just think as you go to caucus meetings, to explain it fully would be really good because last night, I was really concerned that they–well, the Finance Committee seemed to get all mixed up about it. But I certainly support the concept.

I mean, maybe I get a No Parking sign put in front of my house and I take it down like they do the orange cones in Boston or something.

Betty Cavacco:

So, fortunately, we already have the footprint of what a district would be like. And that is White Horse Beach. Now, people that have a beach sticker can park on any one of our streets as long as they have a sticker. So, it would be the same thing for all these other districts. And the signage is that we would come up with, if it’s Morton Park in their side streets and everything like that, we would come up with this street to this street is now the Morton Park parking district. A sticker is required to park here or you’re going to get a ticket.”

Pat McCarthy:

Okay. So, would I end up with a No Parking sign in front of my house if I became part of the parking district? That’s all I’m saying. How does somebody driving around the neighborhood know not to park?

Betty Cavacco:

You might. You might.

Pat McCarthy:

No, no, I’m just saying. That’s all I’m saying the part how it’s implemented and how people know about it. Okay. No, but I certainly support the concept, but I certainly think that I’ve been around a long time and if I get a little confused, I think–well, I get a little confused but out there, other people might be more confused. That’s all, and presenting it. And thank you very much for going for in-person town meeting. Thank you so much for your vote.

Betty Cavacco:

You’re welcome. Okay. Bring it back to the board. Do we have a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I make the motion.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? It’s 3 to 1 vote to move forward. Okay. Now, next is Article 21 Home Rule Petition for Election in November.

Derek Brindisi:

All right. So, I’ll give you the bottom-line up front on this article. So, this is again, this is a legislation to amend the town charter that would in summary would take our May local election and move it to November. In order for that to take place, it would require that the local election will only be had in odd number of years. The reason being is because state and federal elections are done in the even number of years. And so, we don’t want to have a local election on the same day as a state election, that would be too confusing for the voters. Um And so, in my memo, what I provided was just an example of what a sequence of elections would look like over a four-year period.

Keep in mind that in the legislation, it allows for an ordinary transition. And the reason you need an ordinary transition is because right now, pick on the Board of Selectmen, you all serve three-year terms. Given the fact that this is going to be every other year election cycle, we would have to change the term limits. So, in my memo, what I did just for the sake of understanding Is that in 2025, again, this would be the first year that it could possibly take effect would be that there’d be three board members elected in 2025, there would be no election in 2026 because that’s a state election period.

[0:30:14]

Derek Brindisi:

And then in 2027, the remaining two board members would be elected. So, this would require a four-year term under this situation. Now, part of the reason that this is being presented to town meeting is that there’s been voter apathy. We always talk about civic engagement and lack of civic engagement. It’s not just a problem in Plymouth, but it’s a national problem. And so, I had worked very closely with our town clerk on looking back retrospectively in the last 10 years. And what the May voter turnout looks like versus the November voter turnout look like. And it’s very clear, the data tells no lies. The May local election average approximately 5200 voters over that 10-year period as compared to 27,600 voters in that same year period in November.

So, I guess some would argue how does this translate if this were to move forward here in town? We had one town meeting member who attended last night’s meeting, who talked about another community that is a town and it actually has a similar election cycle in November for a local election. And again, working with the town clerk, Kelly was able to provide some data that suggested that the local election and this other community I believe had a 24% voter turnout in a November local election over an eight-year period. That was the average, 24%. So, if we translated that 24% into the number of voters, which I believe is about 50,000 registered voters here in town would be 12,000 individuals would vote in November in Plymouth under the scenario that I just described based upon that other community’s experience.

So, again, we’re going for 5200, potentially, up to 12,000 again, using the data from this other community. So, again, this is for the Board to decide but if you look at the data, the data is telling and it may suggest that we would get a higher voter turnout if we move to November odd number of years election cycle. Pending any questions that’s all I have.

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a question. Derek, I might have misunderstood this. So, it’s going to be the odd years and it’ll be just be the local election, not the same year as the state election.

Derek Brindisi:

That’s correct. That’s right.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, you have stats showing that a local election in November is double with what a Saturday in May would be?

Derek Brindisi:

I have data from one town. So, November elections are very common in cities. The City of Boston, City of West Springfield, they all have November elections. It’s what they do because city councils run on two-year cycles. It’s not common for the town form of government, but again, it was brought to our attention that there is one other town that we know, there’s probably more, but there’s one. And so, I asked Kelly to just look at their data, look at their voter turnout in the town that has an election in November and what was their experience. Their experience over that eight-year period was that they had a 24% voter turnout in November, that town local election in the odd years, 25%.

Betty Cavacco:

And we have data about what our elections have been in May, and even though, a state or federal election in November, we have data that more people turn out in a November election.

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Betty Cavacco:

I know Mr. Pizer would like to speak on this article, but this has been something that we’ve talked. I know that I’ve brought it up for more than a year closer to two years about changing our election, and I know I spoke to Mr. Pizer about it and Pearl, God rest her soul spoke to her about it and had extensive conversations with our new Town Clerk, Kelly McElreath. So, I just wanted some people to know, because we did receive some emails today that stated that it was all of a sudden. This hasn’t been all of a sudden. This has been for a couple of years. So, I kind of want to clarify that, so people don’t think we’re trying to do something all of a sudden.

[0:35:10]

Betty Cavacco:

When people think about elections, it’s just natural to think November because everybody votes in November for everything. So, that was one of the reasons why I felt this was important to move forward with, just because every single year, every single election, I know this Board gets it, I know other people that are active in our government, it’s like, “What are we going to do to get these numbers up? What can we do? What can we do?” And then you come up with something like this, and it’s like, “No, we can’t do that, but what are we going to do?” So, I mean, for me personally, I think it’s something worth trying. Like I said, it can’t be implemented, I thought it was actually 2024, but it can’t be implemented until 2025. But I certainly think it’s worth the effort to see if it actually does change our voter apathy, because having, 45,000 or 50,000 registered voters in the Town of Plymouth, and only getting 5200 is sad. And I think we should do everything we can to change that number. So, I just wanted to give people a brief basis of why I tried to move this forward.

I’m going to bring it back to the Board and then Mr. Pizer and then Mr. Serkey and then Mr. Abbott.

Harry Helm:

This will be a question to our town clerk. The first question I would have, has it been investigated? By changing this around, is the town meeting election cycle problematic because aren’t there state statutes or is it in our charter that um determined that a certain number are elected in certain years?

Kelly McElreath:

I have seen a state statute that says town meeting members are elected on every year, three would be elected through the charter. I’ve seen that written in the charter. However, that being said, if this other town that we identified last night, and I did speak to the election’s coordinator of that town this evening and he says his town meeting members, it’s a town meeting member town as well, and they get elected every two years. So, there is precedent in the state for that to happen.

Harry Helm:

But there is possibly statute that we would have issues with, even though Saugus doesn’t seem to feel that they do.

Derek Brindisi:

So, I can hopefully clarify that. So, under Section 2-2-1 of the town charter, it says that town meeting members are elected for three-year overlapping terms, so that’s in our charter.

Harry Helm:

Okay, but it doesn’t specify anything about every two years or every year?

Derek Brindisi:

So, the proposed legislation, I believe it’s in the paragraph two references an ordinary transition. So, as I suggested to A & F last night that in my opinion, what probably should take place much like a committee was appointed for the re-precinct thing, a committee should be appointed to go through the term limits for all of our elected officials and come back to the Board for a final recommendation before implementing this legislation.

Harry Helm:

But is that part of the article?

Derek Brindisi:

No, not before. The legislation just calls for an ordinary transition. And so, the ordinary transition would take place after the legislation was approved, where we would set up in my opinion, a group of individuals that would look at what the terms should be and then come back for a recommendation.

Harry Helm:

So, it would not be up to that group to say, I know that you passed this and we have the Home Rule Petition as passed by the state legislature. But in our estimation, in looking at the terms this won’t work. We would push forward with it.

Derek Brindisi:

Right. We would push forward with it, right because it’s been approved.

[0:40:07]

Harry Helm:

Another question for the clerk. Do you see going to this sort of every other year format and the complexities of running these elections, particularly if certain, if the charter revisions are passed in May with some of the new additions, particularly to the Regional Board of Selectmen meeting. I mean, do our elections become overly complicated for you? And in your estimation, do they become overly complicated for our residents?

Kelly McElreath:

So, I haven’t had an opportunity in all honesty to really dig into what the proposals have been from the charter commission. I’ve been a little busy just trying to get my feet wet in the Town of Plymouth, so I apologize for that. But I have heard that there’s a north and south area being proposed for two additional members for the Board of Selectmen. I would hope that in that charter commission that that is being proposed by precinct and not by some boundary line that’s out there because that would really complicate the printing of ballots for the different precincts if we have somebody that lives one street over getting a different ballot because their Selectmen is represented by an imaginary line. So, that I would need to understand more. I will say this, November does get a lot more publicity because candidates advertise for the City of Boston, the City of Worcester, Springfield and other cities. So, I have had voters coming in November to me like are we voting today because everyone’s out there voting. And no, I have to explain it’s the city. I’ve actually had election workers coming to me in my previous community, “Am I working in November?” “No, you’re not because we don’t have an election.” So, there is something to be said to that. I will also say because of the Votes Act that was passed this past session by the state legislature, the Selectmen have the opportunity to opt in early voting and vote by mail, you, the Selectmen can decide to keep both of those options for the voters in the communities.

So, vote by mail and I would make the assumption that you’d want to do that to help the voters vote easily. So, we would still be offering at the local election vote by mail as well as early voting for the local election. And when it comes to having those elections in November, we already kind of have a formula on how that works because we do it every other year for the state elections. So, it just kind of put us in the mode that our elections happen in November. I’m envisioning, it streamlines the office a little bit because we would go into election mode starting in late August, early September.

Harry Helm:

Okay, thank you. I have a question for Mr. Abbott. Thank you. A question in regards to my question to the clerk because I have not had a chance to read the revisions. I printed them up to take with me this weekend to Virginia and have exciting reading in the hotel. How is it proposed in the revised charter that the areas for these two new area specific Select Board members would be determined? Is it by precinct or is it a line drawn?

William Abbott:

The commission has discussed this would be by a combination of precincts. So, we’d follow precinct lines like three precincts or four precincts.

Harry Helm:

Okay, thank you. Thanks.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, while you’re standing up there, Mr. Pizer, is it okay if he goes ahead of you?

William Abbott:

To speak?

Betty Cavacco:

Please.

William Cavacco:

I just want to say something as an introduction and I’ve said this before but I think it’s worth repeating that it’s been no secret that our nine-member commission has been working 16 months. Just completed at 62-page draft. It’s done, it’s finished. It’s being typeset for publication, the OCM next Wednesday and two days later, we sent it to the Attorney General in Boston.

[0:45:05]

William Abbott:

We’ve been complying with every detail in Chapter 43B as we’re required to do and have done since the several 1000 signatures got the charter on the ballot last year and there was the election in May and we’ve been working ever since on the process. We have a budget of $95,000 appropriated by the town meeting, which we hope is being well spent and will not be wasted. We hope to return some of it when we’re finished that have not been used but the state statute must be followed to the letter to make what is a two-year process valid. There are no ifs, ands or buts.

The charter we prepared to approve this month must be exactly the charter which appears on the town ballot next May with the only possible changes being minor edits or the deletion of an item we’re proposing that we decide no longer to propose it and we revert back to the existing language. In other words, the charter can’t be amended at this point. The town manager wants to amend the charter with this petition. It’s not going to happen to this charter until after it’s gone through the process onto the May ballot and been approved and then you can talk about possibly amending it.

Nothing further can be added to the charter to reflect any current change in our form of government. And we have many times publicly, dozens of times announced the milestone dates for when these things have to be finished. So, it was a complete surprise to us, complete utter surprise, last Monday when we had our final working session on August 29, we’re making our final edits, getting it ready to be published, took the final vote for the very first time we hear about this warrant article. Very first time, nobody in our commission had heard of it and neither had anyone else in the room. We didn’t know it was coming. We didn’t have a clue. No member of this board has ever suggested to our commission that any time in our previous 16 months that we changed the voting cycle, no one and I went back and reviewed the minutes in which members of the Select Board did speak to us over Zoom, not once was this ever mentioned.

I try to remember even before that, yes, once we ask Larry the question and he immediately said “No, we can’t do. It was prohibited by state statute.” And he’s going to talk to this point in a minute. But he referred to the statute on representative town meeting that if you have a representative town meeting, you comply with the representative town meeting statute and it does not provide for two-year terms, provides for three-year terms as our current charter does and as the new drafted charter does. And both of them says three-year terms of town meeting representatives.

But I asked the, as you know, we’ve been using the consultants who works on hundreds of charters across the state, the Collins Institute for Public Management if there’s any way we could accommodate this in our draft charter. The director of the institute, he’s also our advisor, told me last Monday night that his head is spinning trying to think of the many changes we would have to make in this draft charter to accommodate a biennial election cycle, every odd year in November. There are so many changes. We have an annual fiscal and financial all through our charter, the budget cycle. The terms of the officers, the fact that we’re going to have annual town meetings. I mean, there are so many changes in there that just won’t happen that have to be revised and we have to be amended.

I think something has to give here and to resolve this problem, I ask the Board to figure out which way you want to have it. I’m suggesting you let our current draft charter that we just finished wind its course to the town wide ballot and see what the townspeople think then decide whether you want to press forward with this kind of a change in our election cycle. Just consider the timing here. If you seek to change the election cycle with your petition, I think everybody I’ve asked says it’s going to happen if it does it all. The state’s not going to approve it until after next May, sometime in the fall, probably a year from now or late summer. Do you really want to be asking the General Court to approve a change in the Plymouth charter only a few months after Plymouth’s voters have adopted a brand-new charter? Does that make sense? How was the general court can square that with the fact that a few months before that the townspeople have spoken?

[0:50:09]

William Abbott:

They’ve adopted a charter or if there’s a way for your petition to get adopted before the May adoption of the draft charter, then you’re basically declaring the whole charter drafted null and void, wasted two-year effort and a waste of the monies that have been appropriated by town meeting. It just doesn’t make sense.

In conclusion, it does seem obvious that our drafted charter and Article 21 cannot coexist and go forward together. I just want to make one comment on the proposal itself. It’s still I find it that what we’re comparing here, the data, I will have to–I certainly don’t have any data whatsoever that supports what you’re trying to do because there hasn’t been a local election in November by Plymouth ever. But when you’re comparing elections in November, when you have candidates like Senator Warren and Presidents on the ballot and representatives and everything, naturally have a huge turnout. That excites people. Those are the people that are being advertised in November are the people that are then running for state and federal office.

But by definition, Plymouth election is going to occur all alone, all by itself. There won’t be any state or federal elections and you’re telling me that you’re going to have the same kind of numbers out there just voting for Candidates in Plymouth when you don’t have senators and representatives and presidents running for election? It just isn’t going to happen. But we don’t know whether it will happen or not because there’s no data. So, you’re comparing apples and oranges here. And to say because it’s 20,000 in November and 5,000 in May makes no sense. That’s 20,000 when you have illustrious candidates running for office. But when nobody’s there in November except the Plymouth, I challenge whether you even have as many voters in November as you had in May.

And there’s a reason why towns vote in May and the town representative, the town meeting statute. Not only is it traditional but May is reserved for the town type of government and the town meeting and the things that get voted on in May, not cities in May. You may be able to find one minor community and they had the smallest town meeting of all for a long time. Saugus apparently now votes in November. But the other 300 towns in the state, they don’t do it that way. I don’t think this will ever get through the General Court, but why cast a cloud over it at this point? I think we should just go forward with the charter we’ve drafted, hold your petition and then see what happens in May. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. You mean to tell me electing a Selectman isn’t illustrious? I must have missed something along the way.

William Abbott:

We’re not quite through yet.

Betty Cavacco:

No? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Pizer.

Laurence Pizer:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m Laurence Pizer. I serve as the Vice-chair of the Charter Commission. I’m a town meeting representative from Precinct 3, but I’m speaking now following my 28 years serving you as town clerk.

Let me start by commending the proponents of this measure for recognizing the value of expanding the electorate. I joined them after three decades of trying to reach that goal from signs and stickers to kids voting and multiple speaking engagements. I’ve worked to increase interest in town elections. I’m sorry to say that Article 21 is flawed in at least two major areas. Referring to representative town meeting towns Massachusetts General laws, Chapter 43A Section 4 states that, “At each annual town election, the registered voters of each precinct shall in like manner elect for the term of three years one third of the number of elected town meeting members to which such precinct is entitled.”

Given that statute, and I hope you will check with our delegation. I think that there’s a very small likelihood that the legislature will vote against state law. That’s not to say they don’t have the capacity to do that. It’s just very unlikely that they will.

[0:55:06]

Laurence Pizer:

I checked with the senior staff member of the State Elections Division and he said, he knew of no representative town meeting that voted in the fall. We have a representative town meeting. We need annual elections. I’ve heard that Plymouth should be the first to try new directions, an admirable sentiment, but not when it goes against state law.

The data presented to support November elections while accurate numbers does not apply to the reality of elections. It’s an unhappy fact and I agree with you, Madam Chair. It’s an unhappy fact that elections that include the presidency bring out the largest attendance. Those dealing with state office, particularly when the governorship is online, bring out the next largest numbers, state primaries follow, municipal elections bring up the rear.

In fact, cities which hold their elections in November and odd years constantly bemoan low turnout. State practice does not allow municipal elections to coincide with state elections. There is no evidence that moving Plymouth selections will move additional voters to participate. To clarify, it’s not just we don’t want to piggyback or we do want to piggyback, we cannot piggyback on even numbered years. State law does not allow it. Arguing that it’s the month that brings out the electorate is like saying that because 70,000 fans go to Gillette Stadium to watch the Patriots, if Foxboro High School play their games at Gillette, they would approach capacity. Reasonable research would reveal it’s not the day of the election that brings out crowds, it’s the subject of the election that brings out voters.

If you look at the town’s election history when we had the mayoral proposal on the ballot probably 20 years ago, 25 years ago, we had a 49% turnout for a municipal election in May. I ask you to reject Article 21 because its flaws of damaging town elections and changing the terms of all town officials are not healthy for our town. Instead, we should we should all proceed to encourage the education of our citizens to the excitement and importance of town government and therefore town elections. That, rather than gimmicks, can increase participation. Thank you.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Pizer, thank you. Maybe we should put the mayoral every May put them on the ballot and we’ll get a big turnout. And thank you for the encouragement about how bad our turnouts are. Anyway, that being said, I’d like to make a motion to withdraw this petition.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second that.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? Okay.

Charlie Bletzer:

For discussion, I would still like to continue. Everybody, continue trying to figure out how we can get this voter turnout better than it is. Let’s not give up. This was something that we brought up and we thought about it. Obviously, there’s a lot more to it than what we thought so, but I just want to still continue. We’re trying to get the voter turnout because I think it’s so important. So, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

And maybe, Kelly if you could–so, what I’m thinking of is that–well, Mr. Pizer or whoever wants to answer. So, a May election is necessary under our charter and state statute is what I’m hearing you say?

Laurence Pizer:

Well, it’s a spring. Between February and June and it’s that and it also has to be annual.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay, Okay. I don’t have a problem withdrawing the article. Like I said, we’ve been trying to kick this around for a couple of years.

Derek Brindisi:

I know you’re in discussion, but I just–the town of Saugus has representative town meeting, the town of Saugus votes in November.

[1:00:00]

Derek Brindisi:

Special acts are exactly to allow a town to do something that’s beyond the scope of the statute. So, I appreciate what Mr. Abbott and what Mr. Pizer have said, but I want it to be clear that the direction you were headed in is legal, that’s why town council drafted this. I didn’t draft a special legislation. It was drafted by town council. If it was illegal, I think town council would have told us that on day one. So, I just wanted to be clear about you weren’t doing anything inappropriate or anything that was conflicting with statute.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead, Harry.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. Given that I wasn’t going to comment on this and I’m not really going to comment on Mr. Pizer’s statement. But what influenced me to second this was Mr. Abbott’s statement about the charter revision that is coming up that will be voted on relatively shortly. It’s about to be codified. It’s about to be out there and I do think that he is correct about the complications that that would create. And what I’m thinking is less that I necessarily immediately disagree with having an election in November for local, and I think Saugus does present an interesting concept because admittedly a smaller town has a much bigger turnout than Plymouth does, which we should all be concerned about. And they do them in November or have done them in November.

So, I’m not off of that. I’m just deeply concerned with the impact and the confusion that doing this right now causes in the charter review framework and that is not something that Saugus had to deal with. So, that’s where I come from on this.

Betty Cavacco:

And I don’t have a problem supporting the withdrawal of it knowing that the charter will go through, whether the charter will go through, God willing. And then we can make these changes again after the charter, sometime in the spring or fall, it would be next fall. So, I don’t have an issue with that. Can we call for a vote? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. We’ll withdraw Article 21.

Next is Article 15: Establish Speed Limit. Anyone? Oh.

Jonathan Beder:

Can you hear me, Madam Chair?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, I can hear you. Can’t see you but we can hear you.

Jonathan Beder:              

Do you have a visual too?

Betty Cavacco:

We do not.

Jonathan Beder:

Okay, there you go. One second. How about now?

Betty Cavacco:

No, that’s okay. We know what you look like.

Jonathan Beder:

I’ll go ahead. I’ll get down. We have a couple things.

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, I think we lost him.

Harry Helm:

He muted himself.

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, there you are.

Jonathan Beder:

There we go. Thank you very much. So, what we’re recommending that the board votes this evening and town meeting adopt Mass General Law Chapter 19, Section 17C. And what this will do is we’ll give you the Select Board the authority to implement 25-mile an hour speed limits in thickly settled zones of the town and business districts. And a thickly settled zone is areas of town where homes are less than 200 ft apart for a quarter mile or more. So, it’s very straightforward language if you would and this came up in discussions a couple of months ago given some of the speed limit requests that we’ve put forward to Mass DOT over the past two years in terms of how cumbersome that process is and just the overall amount of work it takes to set speed limits. And as you know, typically to set a speed limit, we have to do an engineering study and then Mass DOT approves this, needs to approve that, which takes anywhere from a year to two years’ time frame. So, we’re recommending that town meeting approve this. This will really, you know, provide a safety measure for us in terms of really an effective and efficient way to set speed limits. So, I’m happy to answer any questions on that.

Bett Cavacco:

Great. Does the board have any questions? Okay. Is there a motion?

[1:05:09]

Harry Helm:

I motion that we recommend this Article 15 to town meeting.

Charlie Bletzer:

I second it.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Helm, seconded by Mr. Bletzer. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Jonathan Beder:

Thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

Article 4 is Capital Recommendations. Is that Mrs. Barrett? And do you want to do 4 and 3 together? Great. And this is Lynne Barrett, the Finance Director. And will you be doing 6 too, Lynne? No? Okay.

Lynne Barrett:

Let’s see. Okay. So, Article 4 actually includes any capital items plus it also includes any plans or studies or things that do not meet the threshold of our capital improvement bylaw. So, the article is set up in such a way that there are items sort of at the top of the list that we gave you in the memo that are not under the purview of the Capital Improvements Committee, but they are still in Article 4. Those include two projects for DMEA, a project for the Agricultural Commission and a project for the Center for Active Living. Each of those departments I believe are here tonight to answer any questions if you guys have any questions regarding those specific projects. And then the rest of the projects are projects that were reviewed by the Capital Improvements Committee. Again, those departments are here to answer any questions that you may have regarding those specific projects. The Capital Improvements Committee met on Tuesday of this week and ranked those projects. We provided the ranking spreadsheet to you as they ranked them in accordance with our bylaw. So, if you do have any questions–I mean, in the memo, we recommend, the Finance Director gives a recommendation on the funding of each of those projects, so that’s included in your summary memo also.

Betty Cavacco:

Does the board have any questions for the Finance Director? Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Well, I think some of these are worthy, if not all of them of at least mentioning to the public what’s going on here, Lynne. So, I know the DPW Director is still zoomed in up on the board. I think we should go. There should be a cursory review of the largest one is $9.5 million for the Manomet water interceptor. So, hoping the DPW Director can give a quick synopsis of that why that’s needed. Obviously, we continue to talk about water. We have to proactively invest in infrastructure. What is that going to do for us with restrict to building security in our system and the improvements there, JB and the investment? And then obviously, Lynne, you can talk about what buckets, the proverbial money is coming out of with respect to payment?

Jonathan Beder:

Yeah. Thank you, John. Again, Jonathan Beder, Director of Public Works. This Board, the Finance Committee, all the boards and commission in town meeting has been wonderful the past couple of years in funding our infrastructure projects on the waterside. This project is critical in nature where it really does two major things for us. It will remove hydraulic constraints in the Manomet pressure zone where we have a lot of undersized piping and a lot of those pipes will be increased to 12 and 16-inch water main which will really improve the hydraulics in that area. The other thing, it will really start to touch on the firm capacity issues we have in the eastern pressure zones. As I think a lot of people watching this evening, this Board, for the past several years we’ve been talking about firm capacity. We go into a deficit during peak demand in the summer. Manomet is one of those areas that experiences that deficit, especially the eastern pressure zones, Plymouth Center and West Plymouth. So, this project was really ranked number one. We did our water master plan several years ago. We received the appropriation from town meeting in 2021 in the fall town meeting. And since then, cost indices, you know, we went through COVID, there’s so many changes that have occurred that really increased the prices.

[1:10:03]

Jonathan Beder:

We did receive an economic development assistance grant for the closing of the power plant, which was 3.825 million, which was 80% of the 5.1 million. So, we do have those funds in place. We’ve been working pretty consistently with EDA for a couple of years now on the grant. We are in a position to bid this thing any week. Subject to a successful town meeting in October, we’re hoping to put shovels in the ground in the spring. But this is a really significant request. It’s an increase of $9.5 million but it’s a project that’s vital because again, we will address the hydraulic issues in Manomet, and that’s a necessity. This has to get done and it will start to address some of the firm capacity issues and other pressure zones and just the natural movement of water from south to north, if you would, in the water system. I really hope that answers a lot of questions but that’s pretty much it in a nutshell for the Manomet Pipe Project. So, thank you.

John Mahoney:

JB, I got a couple more. So, inflation is on everybody’s mind and costs are going through the roof. But we’re not cutting back on the quality of the pipe that we’re putting in the ground, correct?

Jonathan Beder:

This is the exact same project, everybody. The exact same size piping, the same streets, the same way. Nothing has changed as far as the scope. The only thing that has changed is the cost of materials. That’s why the price is increasing.

John Mahoney:

What’s the life expectancy of these pipes that are going on the ground?

Jonathan Beder:

We’re looking at these about 100 years.

Jonathan Mahoney:

Okay. We’ve talked in the past about the 2016 drought and how that affected not only the community, but specifically Manomet. This recent drought that we’re in the last few months here, is this worse than 2016 or not as bad?

Jonathan Beder:

For Plymouth, we haven’t seen the same type of issues and most of that is attributed to the restrictions being lifted at Darby. We don’t have the same constraints in the water system, especially in North Plymouth, with those pond levels being critical for us in terms of how we operate. If you don’t remember, Darby, we had to watch the pond level there. We have to cut, drastically reduce our run times, which would affect volume in terms of withdrawal, which really put a constraint on the system. We don’t have that. What we’ve seen this summer is more run times to fill the tanks, but that’s about it. Our well, in terms of what we have to do in terms of monitoring, we’ve been watching that really nothing crazy in terms of drops. The only thing really, in terms of the heavy lift for Plymouth was the water ban in terms of non-essential water use, which we really implemented early on. And that was helpful. But the town has been pretty good. The residents been pretty good in the water system to kind of watch what they’re doing in terms of water consumption. So, knock on wood, we’re okay right now.

John Mahoney:

All right, thank you. So, Lynne, the overall budget for this is 9.5 million?

Lynne Barrett:

Yes, this project in total as JB said is over $14 million. 3.8 million of it is going to be paid for through this E.DA grant with the federal government. The remaining amount will be borrowed under the water enterprise fund through the almost 15,000 users that we have. In this type of project, we can borrow for over a 30 to 40-year-period so it would be spread out over that period.

John Mahoney:

You can go up to 40 years on this?

Lynne Barrett:

Yes.

John  Mahoney:

Why is that because of the life expectancy of the pipes?

Lynne Barrett:

Life expectancy of the pipes and Mass General Laws. We’re dictated by Mass General laws as far as how far we can borrow for something. So, something like this, you can go up to 40. We may not do 40. We might do 30 or something like that.

John Mahoney:

And schools are 30 and roads are 15?

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah, buildings are 30 and roads are 15, yes.

John Mahoney:

Okay, thank you.

Lynne Barrett:

And as far as like the other projects. So, what we asked departments was overall, any projects to come forward to this town meeting really had to meet certain criteria, an emergency that we had, you know, a project that we had a grant for and we needed a match for it or anything that was really necessary and couldn’t wait until the spring. So, that’s what you see as a result of those request with the departments really looking at everything and what they submitted. Obviously, this project was something that’s already been approved by town meeting. We have a grant in the works that’s going to pay for a portion of it. So, we felt it necessary to come back at this time. And a lot of the other ones sort of meet that criteria. If the larger ones for example like the fire department is looking to replace a couple of their pieces of equipment.

[1:15:04]

Lynne Barrett:

And the Fire Chief will say that, I mean, right now with the ordering of these types of equipment, it could take 18-24 months. So, we might not see them for a couple of years, you know, so he wants to get them in the pipeline as soon as possible.

John Mahoney:

So, you order and when do you pay when you’re ordering a new fire truck?

Lynne Barrett:

When we receive it, when we pick it up.

John Mahoney:

When you pick it up? You put the money in play and then upon receiving, you get that?

Lynne Barrett:

Right, yeah,

John Mahoney:

And these two pieces of equipment that are proposed to replace what we currently have–I mean, I saw Chief Foley earlier, he’s not here now but obviously this is a continuation of proactively bits and pieces have gotten to the point of diminishing returns. It’s costing more to maintain and modernize them than it is to replace them.

Lynne Barrett:

Exactly, yeah.

John Mahoney:

And what’s the funding mechanism for these two?

John Mahoney:

So, one of them, we’re recommending free cash for and the other one we’re recommending for borrowing. And the reason for the borrowing one is it’s a ladder truck, it has a larger useful life. The life of that truck could last Up to 20 years. So, for equipment, you normally borrow up to five years for a piece of equipment like this. But Mass General Laws allows us to base on the useful life of a piece of equipment to go outside of that. So, sometimes we’ll do like 10 years for a piece of equipment like that that’s going to last 20 years.

John Mahoney:

What other big-ticket items do we have out there?

Harry Helm:

The boat ramp reconstruction.

Lynne Barrett:

In this article, right. The town boat ramp reconstruction, so that project actually there requesting through Seaport Council a million-dollar grant and hopes that we will get. We’ve been very successful in getting those grants on an annual basis. And then the remaining amount, the 651,000 we’d be borrowing ourselves. And then we’re going to put together a plan to the payback of that principal and interest will come out of the Waterways Fund similar to how we did the T Wharf project.

Harry Helm:

Could we have Mr. Gould possibly describe to the residents why this is needed?

David Gould:

Good evening. David Gould, Director of Marine and Environmental Affairs. For those of you who aren’t familiar, the town boat ramp is the ramp that’s located between the Maritime Building and Lobster Hut. That ramp has seen better days and I have some photographs if you’d like to see them, but there’s exposed rebar sprawling the concrete. The grade is very difficult and it’s a very narrow ramp and it’s in pretty poor condition. The proposed upgrade which the project right now is currently engineered and permitted. So, it’s ready to go. It will allow some dredging at the toad to extend and flatten the slope a little bit. It will replace the concrete ramp itself. It will also allow for some additional piles to go over near the Maritime Building. So, you’ll see in that in that cost is that it also has some additional piles and concrete floats as part of the project. So, it’s not just the boat ramp itself. We are scheduled to be on the Seaport Council Agenda in October. As Lynne mentioned, we’ve filed in the last 21 years, 15 seaport applications and received all 15. So, not to be presumptuous, but we do feel confident about this application. So, the maximum request is $1 million. That’s why we’re requesting that amount. We can’t ask for more than that, or we certainly would. And then as Lynne mentioned the 651,516 would come from the waterways account which is intended for that use. It has the support of the Economic Development Foundation as well as the Harbor Committee. Ideally and primarily, it will be used by the lobstermen, commercial fishermen and the aquaculture growers. It will give them an opportunity to avoid the busy boat ramp and be able to meet your requirements and other landing requirements by having a ramp that they can use without having to wait for recreational voters to launch or take their boats out of the water. So, we do think it’s valuable and I think it’s one more tool that we can use to support the growing aquaculture industry.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

David Gould:

You’re welcome.

John Mahoney:

The Seaport Council meeting, is that prior to town meeting or is that after?

David Gould:

We’ve heard it’s October and we don’t have a specific date. So, I’m not trying to evade the question, I just don’t know yet.

John Mahoney:

So, even if it was before town meeting, David, would they make a decision that day? Is that something you hear about later on or they tell you on that day?

[1:20:06] David Gould:

No, those hearings, they actually do, they take all the presentations and vote on it while you’re there.

John Mahoney:

So, the potential exists, you might know going into the town meeting.

David Gould:

Potentially. We just don’t know the date yet, yes.

John Mahoney:

You’re here for a couple of smaller items five-year inspections on two dams, Store Pond and Jenny Pond. Either of those two are candidates for removal and Store Pond is across from Cordage?

David Gould:

Store Pond is across from Cordage Park, yup. That dam is up for its inspection as required by the Office of Dam Safety. So, we want to get that one done. That will be a multi-phase project. So, you’ll hear about that again. What we’re looking to do is complete the inspection of it. We’ll probably be back in the spring and then take that inspection report and its findings and seek some funding from Environmental Affairs to take that report and develop plans and specs for the actual recommendations that are going to be in that inspection report that will tell us what kind of upgrades and repairs and maintenance that structure will need. So, then we’ll be back in the spring to ask for that funding from Environmental Affairs Fund to do that work. So, you’ll hear about that both in the fall and the spring.

The funding that we’re asking for here and the fall is also coming from Environmental Affairs funds. Jenny Pond dam inspection is also up. That’s also a subject of requests we have this fall, which is for the bypass project. The bypass and the dam repairs are all related into making sure that that dam can comply with dam safety regulations going forward.

John Mahoney:

And dredging of Jenny Pond is on hold for now?

David Gould:

No. Jenny Pond dredging, as you know, the Community Preservation Committee provided half the proposed funding for that project, which was 1.1 million. We were able to finally have the NOAH Solicitation come out a few months ago for funding and we submitted a $6 million application to NOAH to fund the repairs in the bypass project associated with Jenny Pond Mill. And also, the other half of that dredging funds is also included in that application. What we’re hearing is that those decisions should be made sometime in November. And we feel based upon all of our previous work in Town Brook and our long-standing partnership with NOAH that we have a very good chance of getting that funding.

John Mahoney:

So, if that funding would have come through, dredging would commence the following winter?

David Gould:

Correct.

John Mahoney:

Okay, last question. Still no communication from the state on the dam that they own on State Road?

David Gould:

Correct. We will need to reach out to them and put a request in for some information on that.

John Mahoney:

I mentioned it to Rep Muratore the last time he was here, so he knows.

Betty Cavacco:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

David, I got a question on the ramp to go back on the ramp. So, right now, they bring their skiffs up there, right?

David Gould:

Yeah.

Charlie Bletzer:

And they bring their product off sometimes. You’re going to dredge it so they can bring their boats right over there or?

David Gould:

There is some dredging proposed in part of the project, but it’s dredging right at the toe to allow a little bit more depth in that location. So, it’s a little bit more usable but it’s not so significant of a dredge that you’ll be able to use it.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, they’re not going to be able to pull their boats out and–

David Gould:

Yeah, no, unfortunately not.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, okay. That would be nice, because it’s so busy down there. But anyway, that’s good. Thank you. That needs it big time.

Betty Cavacco:

Super important area for our commercial folks. So, it’s been a long time coming. So, I know the Harbor Committee is excited that the process is moving forward and so our commercial guys and gals. Anybody else? Any more questions? Okay. Do we have a motion?

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Charlie Bletzer:

I second it.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. Article 3: Unpaid Bills.

Lynne Barrett:

Okay. So, the Unpaid Bill Article includes about seven invoices from various departments and for various reasons. This usually happens every year. We always have an Unpaid Bill Article on the warrant. So, the bills have been presented to our office, we put them on the unpaid bill warrant and then once town meeting approves them, then we can pay these vendors for the unpaid bills.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a motion?

Harry Helm:

Motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Lynne Barrett:

Thank you very much.

[1:25:03]

Betty Cavacco:

And Article 6: Elderly and Disabled Taxation Fund. Mr. Brothers, the Assistant Town Manager.

Brad Brothers:

Correct. So, this was brought forward by the board actually my first meeting. So, it’s been about just over four months now and we’ve come full circle on this to present it to you guys tonight. So, what this would allow for us to do is create an Elderly and Disabled Taxation Fund. The big piece on this that we don’t have a exact answer for yet, which is determined by a subcommittee that’s appointed and I’ll go over that in a second is all the logistics, that what is the criteria that you have to meet. That is all worked out by the committee. That’s not something that this board takes on. So, I did not get there last night but I know Lynne, thank you for pinch hitting for me with A&F last night to go over this article. But that was I think one of the big questions of who handles that. There’s a subcommittee comprised of five different people, the chairman of the board of assessors, the treasurer and three residents appointed by the Board of Selectmen, you guys. So, that board then creates the thresholds and determines who would be the recipients, the criteria you have to submit whatever that may be to look at expanding these funds as they come in.

Betty Cavacco:

So, one–I’m sorry, go ahead, Charlie.

Charlie Bletzer:

How many candidates? Last night, I know there was a question, Lynne, they asked you how many people can take advantage of this? I think that was a question last night.

Brad Brothers:

I don’t think there’s a cap on that.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. So, the question was, how many people would be eligible? And I wouldn’t know that until the committee actually sets the guidelines and there would be income requirements because it’s for low income. So, whatever those requirements are that they set. Sometimes they might use like a circuit breaker definition or, you know, different things like that.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. So, there’s no cap?

Lynne Barrett:

So, there’s no cap. It would obviously be capped by the amount of money that’s collected and the number of people that apply.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

So, when we brought this forward, it was the Town of Arlington that had this example. So, maybe there’s some information that we can get from them as well.

Brad Brothers:

We definitely talked about that. And I know I believe, Mr. Sencei, you noted that Weston has this as well and we could use them. There’s a bunch of references we could get to provide the committee to look at to determine what they feel fits best for Plymouth.

Betty Cavacco:

Excellent. Okay. Do we have a motion?

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Town Manager’s report.

Derek Brindisi:

All right. So, I just have a few updates. First, I want to just mention that we had a very successful primary on Tuesday. Thank you, Kelly. I know she’s only been here for a couple of months and 18 precincts is a lot. We had over 12,000 voters who attended just for the primaries alone. So, good voter turnout. Since the Chief is here, I just wanted to mention both the Chief and I, we received notice from Rep Muratore today that the special legislation to allow police officers new recruits to come to the Town of Plymouth up to the age of 40 has been passed. So, just received word of that and the chief is excited about that. We have a number of vacancies that need to be filled. And with this new age limit, we think that we can fill some of those quickly. So, we’re excited about that.

I just wanted to talk a little bit, but I keep talking about is graffiti removal. I mentioned one of our prior meetings that the Office of Community Development has been working to identify the properties that abut the rear of Scholl Street. So, on top of the burial ground, you look down and you see all this graffiti. So, we’ve identified a number of owners. They’re happy to work with the town. They want to see the graffiti removed as quickly as we do. The Office of Community Development is actually working with Park Plymouth to receive a grant so that we can help assist these property owners with the graffiti removal. So, I’m hopeful honestly, in the next 30 days we’ll see a major cleanup along Scholl Street.

Couple of other things. So, there’s a merchant’s association that’s starting to be created in the downtown waterfront area. Both Amy Naples, the Executive Director of the Chamber and Steve Cole, the Executive Director of the Foundation had been convening this conversation on a regular basis.

[1:30:05]

Derek Brindisi:

They just had a meeting here this past Tuesday. We’re talking about the bylaws, the rules of engagement in various other provisions that would be found in their charter. Now, that’s really going to set the stage for the town administration to work directly with our merchants in the area so that they can help determine what they need down there to be successful. And we have a forum in order to have those types of conversations. So, again, looking forward to working with this new merchants’ association.

I just wanted to provide an update that there was a walkthrough. Selectman Helm was in attendance with the town moderator yesterday over at North High School. More to come on that. There is right now the moderator has on the table up to five different rooms in which he plans to break out various town meeting members, staff and the public. So, more to come on that. I believe the moderator is going to ask to be on next week’s agenda to talk specifically about his plan.

I wanted to just bring up we received the responses from town counsel regarding the various questions we asked regarding the County Wood Lot. I forwarded to you all today, there was a slight amendment so I know that there’s a numerous people in the public that are interested in seeing those responses. So, once the board has the opportunity to review those, if you have any questions, I think it would be probably prudent to post those questions and answers on the town website whenever you feel it’s appropriate.

And the last thing I just wanted to bring up was we had a really, really good meeting this morning over at Cordage. Senator Moran convened a meeting with Maura Healey, candidate for governor and Kim Driscoll candidate for lieutenant governor. We had a great conversation with them. We talked a lot about what we can do in the Cordage area as far as bringing community back. We talked about potential shuttle operations from Cordage up to Boston as another commuting option. And it’s exciting because if the slate were to be elected, Kim Driscoll has been the Mayor of Salem for the last 16 years. So, she understands the challenges at the municipal level, but more importantly, she understands what it is to lead a coastal community. So, great conversation. I think that if they were to be elected, we’re going to have a strong partner at the corner office. So, that’s all I have for this evening. Thank you.

Harry Helm:

Derek, in terms of the answers to the questions about the racetrack from K. P. Law. I’ve had a chance to review them, so is Betty. I think that they should be put up on town, you know, on the possible. Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything in here that should not be available to the residents because we did ask for this.

Betty Cavacco:

I certainly see that we have much more authority than what our residents think we have.

Harry Helm:

Or we thought that we had.

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, yeah, that we thought that we have. So, I think it’s important that they have them out there and that they can look at the questions and answers. And I’m very pleased with the responses that we received.

Harry Helm:

Madam Chair, in a segue to new/old and other, would there be the opportunity to–I understand we have quite a packed agenda for next Tuesday, maybe put this on the agenda for the following meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Sure. I mean, we can do that. I mean, is it–

Harry Helm:

We did tell the residents that we would bring them to a future meeting once we did get the responses from our legal counsel.

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah. Are we meeting on the 20th?

Derek Brindisi:

We are. Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. So, just have it put on for the 20th so we can get through all these town meetings articles next week.

Harry Helm:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Betty Cavacco:

New business, letters, old business? Anyone? John?

[1:35:06]

John Mahoney:

Just a quick comment on the site visit in Cordage today. I get jealous sometimes because I have to go to work and I miss these things. I can’t get there. Having said that, obviously, the odds are better than even that the individuals you met today are probably going to get the corner office, if you know what I’m saying? I understand Ms. Driscoll has been in charge in Salem for 16 years, coastal community. They had a harbor that can facilitate small luxury liners that obviously our dredging has just allowed us to do that. And I know that she has experience with power plants, especially on the ocean that went offline. And I think that entire site was redeveloped and they put a modern gas plant on there. But because it was a smaller footprint than the prior plant, it opened up, I don’t know, 10, 30 or 50 acres for “economic development,” but certainly hopefully in the future, I look forward to meeting with those one or both of them when they come back. And I would ask Ms. Driscoll after the introduction is one of the questions is how did she deal with the challenges of 40B in her community? Because I can’t say it enough that that statute is inherently unfair and it’s going to continue to be a challenge.

The last thing I had, Mr. Brindisi was, what’s the status. I know a month or so ago, the board voted on getting a professional to do an evaluation of certain properties that we have. I was just wondering where that was in the timeline.

Derek Brindisi:

I defer that to Mr. Brothers.

Brad Brothers:

Yes. So, I actually am playing phone tag with a big vendor who I actually liked a lot because they had other same size properties that they have actually sold and had a listing of them. So, I have yet to actually make contact with them but I am playing phone tag back and forth with them.

John Mahoney:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else?

Steve Lydon:

Steve Lydon. Thank you very much for letting me speak. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Dan Garcia from Redbrook and I asked him about the status of the intersection of Halfway Pond and Long Pond Road and he told me that an agreement has been made with the town and the construction should start in the spring. So, I’d like to thank Mr. Garcia and JB for working all out all the problems. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I have one if there’s no other board members. I just have one, the old Stein building, the hole in the ground, that’s in North Plymouth, I still considered a public safety issue. I know that the owners of the business right beside it are wanting to do maintenance on their side of the building and they’ve had some police issues with the owner actually ripping down the scaffolding and we need to find out. We’ve heard it was sold, we heard it wasn’t sold but I don’t know how we can do something but we have to get these folks access to be able to repair that building before it starts damaging the structure. So, I don’t know if we’re going to need police presence there while it’s going on. But Mr. Connelly is the owner of that business and if you would be able to reach out to him and try to work something out because it looks terrible. I want to know what we’re going to do. I mean, we certainly didn’t go with knocking down the building to have this endless hole in the ground because it looks awful.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. We’re happy to follow up and we’ll come back to the board.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect, thank you. And next, a motion to adjourn.

Charlie Bletzer:

Motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Unanimous. Go home.