Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 9-13-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board Minutes 9-13-22

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, Tuesday, September 13th, 2022. If you’d all join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

All:

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

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, everyone. We’ll call this meeting to order. And the first item on the agenda will be the public hearing for Pillory Pub LLC d/b/a Pillory Pub.

• Extension of Hours to 1:00 a.m.
• Comprehensive Entertainment (Group 1- Radio, TV)
• Common Victualler

Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Massachusetts General Laws as amended, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held at the Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street on Tuesday, September 13th, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the application for a transfer of a Seasonal All Alcohol Restaurant License from Pillory Pub LLC d/b/a Pillory Pub 72 Water Street, Benjamin J. Parsons, manager, to Pillory Plymouth LLC d/b/a Pillory Pub 72 Water Street, John Sheehan, manager. Description of the premises is as follows: approximately 864 sq. feet, which includes a dining area, bar, kitchen, utility room and restrooms.

Ian Hedges:

My name is Attorney Ian Hedges here on behalf of the applicant. With me here tonight is Frederick and Daniel Casinelli in the back as well as John Sheehan, all three are the partners on this particular location. Mr. Sheehan is the proposed license manager. As was stated, this is a transfer of a Section 12 All Alcoholic Beverages Restaurant License for the bar and restaurant known as Pillory Pub here on Water Street in Plymouth. All three of the partners have significant experience owning and operating restaurants particularly in the Town of Plymouth. They’ve owned Leena’s Kitchen for about past six years and Salt for about past four.

In terms of the restaurant itself, there won’t be too many changes. There is an extension of hours until 1:00 a.m. but no physical or structural changes to the restaurant itself. And other than that, I am happy to answer any questions that the Board might have.

Betty Cavacco:

Any board members have any questions?

Charlie Bletzer:

I got a comment. I just have a comment of support. I know the Casinelli. They are great operators. They have two restaurants. Salt and Leena’s are very successful, very well ran. So, I’m in full support of this transfer to these guys. So, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Is there anyone in opposition of this article? Anyone in favor that would like to speak? Okay. Now, we’ll bring it back to the Board.

Charlie Bletzer:

I make a motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motioned by Mr. Bletzer, seconded by Mr. Mahoney. All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Congratulations. The next item on the agenda is the Plymouth County Cranberry Quilters. And just so folks know after that agenda item, we will be taking the Three Harts Farm agenda item.

Gail Butler:

Hello, I’m with the Plymouth County Cranberry Quilters and we have a presentation to a young lady who has come here and see how I do with this.

[speaking in foreign language]

This is a quilt for you and to welcome you here in Plymouth. Thank you. What I said, in case you didn’t understand was, “Hello! My name is Gail. We have a gift for you to welcome you and your family to Plymouth.”

[0:05:12]

Betty Cavacco:

Wonderful.

Gail Butler:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Male:

On behalf of the Gallup family that have come over from Ukraine during this time of war, we’d like to thank you for the quilt and the gift that was offered to them. I’d also like to thank the Town of Plymouth and the Selectmen who have also helped us out. Dickie Quintal, he opened up his local business for us and raised $1600 for the family, which got both Kate and Andrew into camp this summer and also chess class for Kate where she came in 3rd for the summer and her brother Andrew is now in soccer classes and so we appreciate not only as a selectman but as a local business operator for his generosity and help. And Betty Cavacco reached out to me personally as well, offering transportation possibly a car if we needed it. I did have one that we fixed up, so we appreciated everything. So, thank you to the town and thank you to the Selectmen for everything. We appreciate your help.

Kate Gallup:

Thank you for this beautiful present. And my family will always remember about the Plymouth citizens kindness.

Betty Cavacco:

Wonderful. And the town is very glad that they are safe.

The next item on the agenda will be Mr. Hart from Three Harts Farm. I know we have some exciting news from our veterans’ organization here.

Christopher Hart

Hello, I’m Christopher Hart, President and Founder of the Nathan Hale Veterans Foundation, Executive Director of Three Harts Veterans Farm in Plymouth, 232 Beaver Dam Road. And thank you for having me. I haven’t been here prior to Covid and all that stuff and I’ve never been in this office hall, it’s beautiful. So, I’m going to take you through a little slideshow that will probably get me to not talk as much as I usually do, so that would be good for you. So, that’s my wife and I on the far left. We actually got married on the property. Diane started volunteering with us at the Veteran’s Outreach Center 15 years ago. She was a schoolteacher here in Plymouth for 35 years. And on the right is our team, is myself in the right, my wife Diane, Barry, he’s a retired Plymouth firefighter and his wife Nicole and that’s our team inside the machine we have. On the top is our logo and it’s my grandfather and his two brothers that were World War II heroes and it’s a pretty cool logo. Long story behind it, but like I said, I know you have a busy night.

On the bottom are some baby radishes that we grew. They’re called French breakfast radishes. You can see on the far-right hand side what the walls look like inside our crate farm. And what I did was I put a one of the walls laying down flat so you can see what the whole wall looks like when it’s full. And there’s actually four walls like that. So, we can grow 3.5 acres of letters in one container and only use five gallons of water a week and it’s probably the most high-tech hydroponic equipment that we have in Plymouth right now. It’s never been around this area. We’re the first people to have it. So, we’ve invested about a little over a quarter of a million dollars this year into the equipment to set up new fence going around and done a lot of new stuff. It’s coming up pretty cool. It’s really exciting when you go by and see it in-person. I’m not doing it much justice. I don’t want to show you too much. I want you to be surprised when you go visit it.

That’s how back we were. We’re starting to do some of our wellness programs at the farm. So, on the left- hand side is a jacuzzi and there’s a pergola above it that was one of the six Eagle Scout projects that were done at the farm. And it’s on top of a beautiful deck and nice privacy. And then on the right-hand side is a new raised garden. It’s another Eagle Scout project and that’s 32 ft long by four ft wide. And we’ve built 18 of these so far at the farm. They’re some of the most well-built raised gardens in the town. They’re absolutely beautiful. This is an outdoor dining area for our veterans.

[0:10:16]

Christopher Hart

That’s what the farm looked like when we got it. We’ve all together probably close to a half a million dollars we put into the property as far as ripping up all the old junk that was there, putting in a two parking lots. We’ve done a lot of work, but I’d really like the Selectmen to come by. I know Harry’s come by once and checked it out, but I love you people to come by. And we’ve done all this without any state or federal funding. All the money that we put into the farm, including buying the property, restoring everything all came from basically within the community: Glynn Electric, Egan landscape and the list goes on, West End Drill and everyone’s helped us. It’s an unbelievable thing. So, anyone have any questions?

Betty Cavacco:

John?

John Mahoney:

Chris, good to see you. What do you do with the produce that you create or you grow? Where does that end up?

Christopher Hart:

A lot of it we’ve been using at our Veteran’s Outreach Center at our food pantry and then a lot of it we’re now selling to the consumer. In order to be self-sufficient at the farm, we needed a way to bring in some revenue and the grants are getting harder to get. A nonprofit every other block I started this, it’ll be 19 years November 23rd and there’s so many new nonprofits and it’s really hard to kind of compete with that. So, we wanted to teach veterans farming. We saw at the Farmers Market so we can teach them how to market it. And we’re having a lot of success. We’re growing, I think the best lettuce in the whole town. Everyone’s saying it’s the best they’ve ever eaten. So, if anyone hears, it’s right.

John Mahoney:

Thanks, Chris. You do a phenomenal job down there. I’ve been there, but it’s been a couple of years.

Christopher Hart:

I’ve been talking all day so my voice is almost gone. So, you caught me at a good time.

John Mahoney:

Diane trusted you to come here alone tonight?

Christopher Hart:

Yeah. No one else wants to speak anymore. I mean, I hate doing it, but no one else really wants to do it. So, here I am, you know. But it isn’t just vegetables we grow there. We grow love at that place. It’s a beautiful place and there’s water features and big water wheel and beautiful sound system, beautiful bar and pool table, pinball machine.

John Mahoney:

So, one more question. You’ve done all that on a footprint that is how big? Is it a quarter, half an acre? How big is it?

Christopher Hart:

It’s a little under three quarters of an acre. Yeah.

John Mahoney:

The point being that you’ve really maximized out your space, what you have there.

Christopher Hart:

We’ll be the largest mini leaf grower in Plymouth by far. We’re probably already are. We were only going to sell to a few restaurants. We really want to reach the consumer because I think the consumer deserves a great product and I don’t really want to sell it all to the restaurant. They could be selling it to Yankee fans for all I know, you know what I mean? I want my neighbors to eat it. Everyone that comes by says, “This is incredible.” So, that’s kind of what we’re doing now. And a lot of our veterans, they really enjoy it and people from especially the Pine Hills are very supportive and they communicate, they mingle with the veterans and especially the young veterans. It’s a great way for them to kind of reintegrate back into the system and there’s a lot more to it. I just don’t want to say too much. I’m one of those guys that talks a lot and I didn’t say anything. I mean, we fundraised for this for three years without telling anybody and that’s pretty hard to do. But I mean, for some strange reason a lot of doctors helped us. There’s a lot of generous people in Plymouth and we’ve had help from Pennsylvania, Florida, California, all kinds of people from everywhere have sent us donations and it’s wonderful.

Betty Cavacco:

That’s wonderful. I mean, you guys have done a phenomenal job. I remember growing up down there, there was nothing really to look at. But you can tell that there’s a certain serene about it now. So, congratulations. I think you guys have done a great job. I know Mr. Helm has something to say.

Harry Helm:

Yeah, I had the opportunity to stop by the other day and kind of tour the nearly three quarters of an acre and I encourage everybody when they’re open, you’ll see the sign and maybe Christopher can tell us when they’re open for lettuce and all that stuff, stop in, take a tour, have Diane give you the tour of the hydroponics because she knows all about it and I don’t think Christopher does.

[0:15:20]

Harry Helm:

But it is an incredible facility. The hydroponics, it was an amazing education. I had no idea how hydroponics worked and it’s pretty incredible what they’re doing down there and to see everything that they’ve managed to fit in on that land. We drive by it on Beaver Dam Road and we see the big fences and we know stuff is going on. It’s incredible what they’ve done in a short period of time there and I really recommend that everybody stop in. They’ll treat you like family and they’ll give you the tour. It’s well worth it to see not only the hydroponics and what creative thinking can do within the Town of Plymouth but also what the motivations of the Hart, pardon the pun, can do in creating a wonderful organization for our veterans. So, thank you very much and thanks for the invitation to come and take a visit.

Christopher Hart:

Have a wonderful night. Thank you everybody. Nice to see you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Now, we have Administrative Notes. Just to let the board know, number four of the Admin Note is being stricken because it’s actually captured under our fall town meeting articles. So, if anyone has an issue or how would we like to move the Admin Notes?

John Mahoney:

I’ll move approval on one and two.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone want to move on three? Oh, I’m sorry. All those in favor? Unanimous. Admin note 3?

Charlie Bletzer:

I make the motion.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? 4 to 1. Okay. I would take public comment ahead of Mr. Triffletti if it has something to do with other than town meeting. So, if there’s anyone in the audience that wants to discuss anything other than town meeting, we’ll take comments during that discussion. So, just in case, anybody? Anyone online? Nope. Okay. Now, we have Mr. Triffletti, Town Meeting Location Discussion.

Steve Triffletti:

Good evening. Thank you, Chair of the Select Board, members of the Select Board and those in attendance. I’m delighted to be here again to provide you with an update and I appreciate that I’m able to participate remotely at your meeting.

Once again, a little history, as you know, I requested that town meeting be granted the opportunity to have remote participation. And tonight, I renew that request to the board after further reviewing the in-person town meeting. It’s clear that with remote participation, we can eliminate risk and with the in-person town meeting, I would strive to reduce the risk. And I have had direct contact. I’m not relying on any surveys. I’m having direct contact now with town meeting members and I in particular have contacted all those who previously responded to a survey requesting that we continue with a virtual town meeting.

I did have an opportunity after last meeting to read the opinion letters from Special Town council. I agree with those opinions. They’re consistent with my opinion and they’re consistent with the further opinion I received from town council. And just to address that, once again, I refer you to General Laws Chapter 39, Section 10, which states in pertinent part that whenever the moderator determines that voters in attendance are being deprived of the opportunity to participate there in for any reason whatsoever, he shall recess. And it goes on this language but essentially, I want to comment that I agree that it would matter that one or more town meeting members signed in and then indicate that they’re unable to participate.

[0:20:07]

Steve Triffletti:

I’m aware of at least six or seven town meeting members who have said to me that they’re unable to participate and further some of them would be signing in and we would make arrangements for the sign-in to be outdoors in front of Plymouth North High School. And in view of the statute, which indicates that the moderator will consult with the Board of Selectmen, I’m requesting that I have the opportunity to consult with you. I know that normally you set a meeting at 7:30 a.m. Usually, I am at the podium being available to town meeting members to answer questions at that time. And if possible, I would request that you notice your meeting perhaps at 7:15 to give us a chance to have that conversation. I would note that the statute says consultant does not say agree. And so, I will certainly consult with the board. And finally, at the last meeting, the chair cited the charter which refers to points of order and town meeting having the opportunity to vote two-thirds to overturn a point of order and a point of order overturn the moderator. That is for procedural matters. This is statutory. It is not a procedural matter. And the statute is mandatory. It’s not directory.

Directory, it talks about the moderator shall act and so that is how I will proceed at town meeting if I determine that people are being deprived of the opportunity. I’ll certainly consult with the board and then make a determination as to how to move forward. Meanwhile, I have met multiple times with a group of people who are working with me to plan. We’ve met remotely by Zoom and we also took a tour of Plymouth North High School last week and I will report to the Select Board that certainly after talking with many town meeting members, there are many who do not want to come in-person. Others who will begrudgingly come in-person, but certainly want as many safety precautions taken, therefore we’ll have the sign-in outdoors. The Health Department will be providing masks to those people that might want it, they’ll be providing sanitizers. And then in order to reduce the risk, I’m scheduling town meeting members in the Center for Performing Arts and that will be limited to town meeting members, town clerk, town counsel and the assistant moderator. And the reason for that is that when I talk certainly the medical people, the obvious common-sense situation is that as you increase the number of people, you increase the risk. So, in order to reduce the risk, we’re going to limit the number of people. Town meeting is first for the town meeting members who are voters in attendance as defined in the statute.

And in addition to the Center for Performing Arts, we’ll have a separate classroom for those town meeting members who wish to be in a room where everyone is masked. It will be voluntary. It’ll be a mask only room that certainly does not prevent other town meeting members in the Center for Performing Arts to also wear masks. And as we move forward towards town meeting, I’ll be instructing town meeting members as to how I’ll be handling things such as recognizing speakers. Initially, I had hoped to continue with the Vvoter, but after receiving a number of recommendations from those with better technology expertise than I have, have determined that for this town meeting, it would be best to go back to the clickers. And so, we’ll be going back to the remote clickers for the voting. I’ll be asking town meeting members to notify me in advance if they want to speak, and if they don’t notify me in advance and they do want to speak, then we’re going to try to limit the number of people that get up at one time. I’ve also appointed past member of the Select Board and past assistant town moderator Brian Losi to be the second assistant town moderator to be in the second room with town meeting members in order that we’ll have the opportunity to have communication to me as to people in that room who may wish to speak on a motion, make a motion, make a point of order.

[0:25:12]

Steve Triffletti:

The school department can make lunch available in the cafeteria, but also, they will make it available outdoors. They’ll be outside, ability for people to be eating outdoors or in their cars if they don’t want to be in a room with many people. The Select Board staff, finance committee and the public are invited to join us at Plymouth North High School in the library, which is a fairly large room. Initially, that was going to be designated for town meeting members when we were considering the use of the Vvoter. But following this morning’s planning meeting, when it became clear that the need to balance the technology with the multiple rooms combined with possibly giving Chromebooks to everybody to use the Vvoter, I determined that for this town meeting we’ll use the clickers that freed up the library, which is a large space that would be available for other people who wish to participate at the town meeting. And I think that is an overview of the planning. The other parts of the planning, I won’t go into all the details as well as I won’t go into all of the feedback that I’m getting from the town meeting members with whom I spoke other than to say to the board that I’m working very hard to try to balance the needs of all town meeting members, which are those who want to be in-person combined with those that want to be remote and those who feel that under any circumstances they cannot appear. There was one town meeting member who said to me, and I’ll just quote what he said, he said, “If I get Covid, I’ll die. And therefore, under no circumstances will he or his daughter who’s the town meeting member participate in-person.”

One of the other interesting notes that I hadn’t thought about in the past is that in addition to people who are currently indicating they do not want to participate, there are going to be others potentially who have Covid who certainly should then not be in-person according to CDC guidelines. And in fact, yesterday, when I spoke to one town meeting members, she indicated to me that she had been fairly neutral, supported remote, supported in-person, but she now has Covid. And so now, because she has Covid, she supports the virtual remote because she appreciates what’s involved when you have Covid. So, that’s my initial presentation and I’m happy to answer any questions.

Betty Cavacco:

We’re going to just bring it to the board and then we’ll open it up to the public.

John Mahoney:

Steven, you had mentioned that initially there was approximately six, maybe a little bit more, individuals who said that they couldn’t participate. So, when you use that term that they said they couldn’t participate, they couldn’t participate in the auditorium, in the Performing Arts Center, but they’re willing to participate if you set them up in a separate room and they’re comfortable in that at the high school, correct?

Steve Triffletti:

No, that’s not correct. Those six or seven people are the ones that I’ve identified who are not comfortable coming into the building and being around a large gathering and their reasons vary. Some of them are immune compromised or immune suppressed. Others have family members who live in their household who are immune compromised or immune suppressed. So, I’m happy to provide you with the names of those people, but I don’t think it’s necessary for purposes hearing, but suffice to say that these people are not comfortable with that. There are other people that are only comfortable if there’s a mask only room. Beyond that, there are other people who don’t want to be in-person. But as they said, they will attend, but they have asked me to do whatever is possible to reduce the risk for them.

John Mahoney:

Okay. And currently, you’re continuing to move forward with planning for approximately reducing the risk for them using what? 3 to 6 rooms here, you said the library, the Performing Arts Center, three, and a classroom?

[0:30:11]

Steve Triffletti:

The plans have evolved. There have been a lot of recommendations that I received and I have accepted. So, certainly, the Vvoter was one recommendation and to go to the clickers. Another was that initially, we were looking at many more rooms, a separate room for FinCom, a separate room for the public. But as we’ve continued to discuss the planning and once we eliminated the voter which eliminated tech buddies, I was able to then further reduce the number of rooms from five or six down to three. So, the two rooms for the town meeting members and the library for everyone else.

John Mahoney:

All right, Steven, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

So, Steven, three rooms you’re talking about? We couldn’t do it in two rooms. You couldn’t social distance? Yeah, I don’t understand. Yeah, go ahead.

Steve Triffletti:

Okay. So, Charlie, I don’t want to repeat myself, but again, I disagree with your vote. I think that the only way to eliminate risk for the many people that are concerned about risk is to have a remote participation. Now, one of the proposals last week at the tour was that the board consider remote this fall with a promise if you will from me that in the spring, we would do in-person with just the two rooms for town meeting members and everybody else in the Center of Performing Arts. And I indicated that I would accept that compromise proposal insofar as I would then have an opportunity to give notice to town meeting members that that’s going to be the plan for the spring, absent a state emergency. And then town meeting members would have the opportunity to resign if they felt that they couldn’t continue as in-person town meeting members and give the precincts a chance to select replacements for them. But at this point with a month out, there’s not really time to do that. And so, for this fall, I’m requesting that we be remote with that compromise proposal in the spring. But if that’s not something that the board is willing to do, then we’re going to continue with this plan and I’ll have to re-evaluate in the spring to see where we are in terms of both Covid and town meeting members and the hybrid legislation. I mean, clearly everybody agrees that the hybrid model is something that we all embrace because it gives town meeting members the same opportunity that you provide tonight at your board meeting, you have a hybrid and I’m remote and you’re all there in-person. And certainly, that’s a goal to which we are striving.

But in the meantime, I’m trying to do whatever I can to reduce the risk. And one way to do it is to reduce the number of people that are together in one room. And I’m certainly focusing on the town meeting members to provide them with the least risk as possible, given that you voted to have the town meeting members meet in person.

Charlie Bletzer:

Steven, last town meeting, the same thing, the same issue came up and it was going to be the last virtual town meeting. And when we voted, I said I’ll vote but this is it for me. I said it’s got to be in-person. It’s much more effective in-person. So, Derek, have we heard from our council on the charter on what rights? I think it’s time that we test this because it’s going to happen again in the spring. So, if we don’t force this issue, it’s going to happen again. So, do we know under the charter? Is it a two-thirds vote to overrule the moderator?

Derek Brindisi:

So, as the moderator pointed out, there’s a section that he referenced a point of order that allows town meeting members to overrule a moderator’s decision that he would say is procedural.

[0:35:04]

Derek Brindisi:

Town council agrees with the moderator’s opinion on that, that that’s a procedural process. And under the statute in the section 10 of again what the moderator just pointed out, that section of the charter would not apply. I can say though there is a section in the Charter 2-4-5, which states that the representative town meeting may adopt rules and regulations relating to its procedures and its methods of operation. Certainly, it’s the opinion of town council that that could be applied here. But at the end of the day, I think if town meeting were to overrule say the methods of operation of town meeting, the moderator has been very clear on his intention to invoke chapter section of the General Laws or Chapter 10 of the General Laws that allow him to delay town meeting by 14 days.

Harry Helm:

May I just speak to that very quickly? Just for clarification, the statute is the moderator may in certain circumstances and in consultation with local public health officials and in coordination with the Select Board recess and continue. It is not with consultation of the Select Board, it’s in coordination, two very different concepts. Just a point of clarification.

Steve Triffletti:

Madam Chair, could I speak to that?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

Steve Triffletti:

First of all, the language in the third line is shall for the moderators not may, it’s shall and again, I’m seeing language in the fourth line that refers to consultation. I’m not saying the word coordination, but I can tell you that it’s my opinion and the opinion of town council that consultation does not mean agreement. It means that I will consult and then I’ll make my decision because under this statute as well as under other statutory authority, the moderator has responsibility for the location and the operation of town meeting. So, while certainly the Select Board can determine the date and the place and whether it’s going to be in-person or remote, once you’ve made that decision, the responsibility then shifts from your board to the moderator. And that’s what I intend to do is exercise my responsibility under the statutory authority.

Charlie Bletzer:

Steven, I understand that you want to have the town meeting in one room. Why isn’t the Select Board and FinCom, why aren’t we all in the same room? We’re all choosing to be here in-person. I’m not afraid of Covid at this point. I don’t want to wear a mask. I want to be in-person but I want to be with all the town meeting members. It’s much more effective. So, why are you telling us and these other boards that we can’t be in the same room? I mean Kevin Canty with FinCom presents all the articles. He should be in the same room with the town meeting members, looking at them as he’s presenting these articles. I understand you might want a separate room for the folks that are afraid of the Covid, I get that, I understand that, but we can take a room for maybe the 10% the town meeting. And I guarantee it’s not more than 10% of town meeting that’s afraid to come in-person and we can put them separated in a room. So, I don’t understand why all these multiple rooms.

Steve Triffletti:

So, I just wanted to say that I appreciate that you’re not afraid and you don’t want to wear a mask, but there are town meeting members that are afraid, there are town meeting members that want to wear a mask. And finally, and I’m just repeating myself, but there is risk involved in public gatherings indoors. And the risk increases when you increase the number of people. And unlike any other board or committee meeting in the Town of Plymouth, the town meeting is the largest governmental gathering of a group that’s going to be voting. We have 163 voters if you include all town meeting members plus the moderator who breaks the tie. And therefore, I’m not willing after consulting with many town meeting members who have asked me to represent their concerns and voice their concerns. I’m not willing to increase the risk any more than your board has already determined, which is the risk inherent in an in-person gathering. And I’m not going to increase it beyond what’s absolutely required, which is the town meeting members, a clerk, town council and assistant town moderator and moderator.

[0:40:03]

Steve Triffletti:

But you’ll be in the building and you’ll have a video feed and you’ll have audio feed and if you want to proceed with the in-person town meeting that’s the manner in which we’ll go forward.

Charlie Bletzer:                                                

Again, I think all the boards should be in the room with the town meeting members. And if they’re threatened by that, they can go to the other room and be social distance with mask on. That’s the CDC guidelines, the six ft and with a mask on. They can volunteer to go to that room. But I think we should have everybody in the same room except for the folks that choose to be social distance and wearing mask. Like in this room, we have 40 people, there are two people who have masks in this room out of 40. So, in the auditorium, if somebody’s uncomfortable, they can put a mask on there too. There’s nothing wrong with that. But I just think that we have these multiple rooms having the board separate, it makes it complicated. The last town meeting, there was a lot of confusion. It wasn’t a smooth town meeting and everybody can attest to that. So, let’s not make this too complicated.

Betty Cavacco:

If the board has nothing else to say, I have a couple of comments. First of all, this is like watching a bad episode of Game of Thrones, really is. And it’s it saddens me that we’re going toe-to-toe over trying to do what’s best for our community. First of all, there is no public health crisis. Covid is here. I mean, we have 8,000 kids in school. That library at Plymouth North will hold 130 people. So, to have more than one room–now, let’s not forget that it’s going to cost us. These rooms are going to be extra money. Originally, it was going to be an extra $10,000 but I’ll apologize now, Mr. Triffletti, you’re not going to tell me where I’m going to sit. I want to sit with the people that elected me. That is the most important thing for this board. I want to sit in town meeting with the people that elected this board to represent them. And I think it is fundamentally unfair that you try to restrict access to the people that we have that support our town meeting and our residents. I don’t want to sit in a room, not that I don’t mind sitting with my colleagues here. I want to be with the town meeting members. I want to be with the advisory and finance committee and I want to be engaged because that’s our job to be engaged. Now, I appreciate that you’re trying to not have the risk but as far as the CDC is concerned, there is no risk. So, I don’t understand why we can’t have the auditorium and then have the library that will fit 130 people. And have FinCom, the Selectmen and with the town meeting members where they belong and have everybody else that doesn’t feel comfortable. And I’m willing to make a bet that you’re not going to have that many people in that room that don’t feel comfortable. We’ve all started to live our lives and although I appreciate your concern for everyone, I just don’t think you have the authority to tell people where they can sit and where they can’t sit. And if I’m wrong then let legal counsel tell me that. But I’ll tell you right now, I am not sitting sequestered in a room away from town meeting. Just my opinion.

Now, we’ll take public comment. Oh, John, I’m sorry. Okay. I’ll just take them one at a time. Steve, Mr. Brewster, Pat McCarthy.

Steve Lydon:

Steve Lydon. I’m not a town meeting member. Was, but not now. The question I have is when the moderator puts in his 14 days, what happens to the end of 14 days? Does town meetings show up again? And can he say he can cancel it for another 14 days? Are we going to go on so long that we’re not going to have a fall town meeting, it will go into spring town meeting? I don’t know.

Betty Cavacco:

It’s the possibility that that can happen. And each time that happens, it’s another $20,000.

Steve Lydon:

No, I just understand how this can go on forever.

[0:45:02]

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Mr. Brewster?

Wrestling Brewster:

Thank you to the Select Board. Wrestling Brewster, Chair of Precinct 15. First, I’d like to mention how encouraged I am by the public being engaged in our form of government from the Bump Rock Road debacle on, there’s been people paying attention and standing up and taking our elected officials to a higher level. I don’t think a week has gone by where I haven’t heard Mr. Serkey and Mr. Bolton standing up and saying, “You’re spending how much for what?” So, I just want to say that how encouraged I am with that. And with that, as elected officials we’re not getting away with anything anymore. There’s people, the public is holding us to our oath of office. And as elected officials, our personal beliefs and biases have to take a back seat to the public. For democracy to survive, that needs to be paramount. Unless we’re a dictator, we are tasked with representing the public. With all due respect to the moderator, I feel he’s overstepping. I continually hear how by statute, Mr. Triffletti has the power. Mr. Triffletti, the people of Plymouth have the power. They have representatives duly elected to act on their behalf and I think it’s time that as some of the representatives said, it’s time that the public is heard. I continually hear that the public isn’t being heard and that they’re not being listened to.

First, I heard that that we’re going to have Mr. Triffletti said that he was going to delay 14 days until he gets what he wants. Now, it seems that Mr. Triffletti is trying to make the town meeting so convoluted and impossible that no one will ever want to be in person ever again. And I get that people feel compromised. People feel that they’re at risk. But we can do this. We don’t need five rooms. We don’t need three rooms. We need two rooms. The whole point of having an in-person town meeting is so I can look at my public officials and I can say, “How much is it going to cost for that new fire building?” And he has to get up and he has to answer me. That’s what’s been lost in our virtual town meetings. And every time we get up and we want to say something, we’re looking at the queue, we can see that Mr. Serkey is fifth in line and he wants to say something. That’s lost when we’re in virtual town meeting. We can do this. We just need to make it happen. We can do It in the auditorium and one other room. I have seen multiple town meeting members and the moderator at events with large numbers of people. We had 800 people at the opening ceremonies of school, it can be done. We can make it happen. Mr. Moderator, I’m pleading with you to tear those walls down. It can be done. I say, Mr. Triffletti, tear down the walls. If Mr. Triffletti persists in creating this chaos with multiple rooms, I implore the Select Board, FinCom and the department heads to join town meeting in the auditorium. We need to take our town meeting back.

I have three questions, where will Mr. Triffletti be on town meeting day? Why do we have more than two rooms? And the other one was the Chromebooks, but I’m happy to see that that’s been taken out. It’s time that we, the people, get back to our work of the government. It’s time that I don’t hear from my constituents, why aren’t our officials listening to the town? The town is speaking up. They’re paying attention. We can do this if we make it happen. We can do It with two rooms and we can create an atmosphere that’s safe for those people who feel compromise. I plead with our town to make this happen. Thank you.

Pat McCarthy:

I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Wrestling. He stole certainly a lot of my thunder and we certainly got rid of the Chromebook situation, thank God.

[0:50:06]

Pat McCarthy:

And Wrestling Brewster and I were back-to-back chairman of my former Precinct 5. Current, I’m Vice Chair of Precinct 18 and Wrestling is Chair of Precinct 15. So, I think we together have some experience in town meeting. I do want to say one thing though, before I get into some of these other issues. I just do want to appreciate all the work that Steve has done over the years as Town Moderator. And overall, over the years, he’s run a good town meeting. But I am so disturbed, saddened and concerned for him and for what is going on now and with all the events in this town that have been going on. Okay, they are public events, but people have been going to them. And I said this two weeks ago when I spoke, they’re taking the risk. There’s no state of emergency and we have to live with Covid.

I do want to go back to the history a little bit of our current town meeting makeup. We all were elected in 2022 to service town meeting members. We have about 50 new brand-new town meeting members. We all took on the obligation to represent our citizens, our constituents and to work for the good of the town. We all knew and still know that Covid is here to stay. When we chose in May to get elected, we chose to serve the people of the Town of Plymouth in-person, at in-person town meeting and to do the best job we could for the Town of Plymouth. For all of Plymouth, I represent all of Plymouth, just not my precinct. And we knew we had to take precautions if we want to stay healthy. We certainly knew that from guidelines from all over the country, etcetera. It’s our choice to whether or not we take that responsibility seriously and do the best we can to stay safe, to stay healthy and to protect others. That’s our job and our duty. Nobody can tell us in the town that we must. But other events that have occurred in this town could, and I know people have gone to weddings, could stipulate if they so chose that people wear masks, that they get vaccine, that they do a test that day, that they make sure that they’re feeling healthy and social distance. I’m on the board of the League of Women Voters at our annual meeting to go to annual meeting to be elected to the board. We were asked to test that day, to bring a mask and wear a mask and to be fully vaccinated. Nobody asked for our cards, but I can tell you all of us that went to the meeting and they were probably about 30 of us, we were inside and outside at a private home. We chose to spread apart. We chose to be safe but we did the duty of our annual meeting. That’s a private event. So, when we talk about private and public events, I chose not to go to a public event recently because it didn’t say to stay safe, make sure you’re fully vaccinated, etcetera. So, I chose not to go to that, but we have an obligation to the Town of Plymouth as town meeting members.

I did the numbers today. The best I could tell since we’ve had Covid here for so long, over half of our current town meeting members have not been able to participate with each other in an in-person town meeting. And just like Wrestling said, there’s a lot to be said of all the chaos that we’ve ensued over the last couple of years and that we will ensue if we don’t have a reasonable effective town meeting. It’s our obligation to our citizens to do the job we were elected to do. So, that’s the way I feel about that. And I totally agree with Wrestling and others.

Plymouth North High School can seat 800 people. There’s only 162 of us. I mean, for God’s sakes, we can spread out. We can use the mezzanine, so be it. And there’s so many other things I’d like to say, but I don’t want to belabor the point, but I do want to read the beginning. I’ve gone over Section 10 and 10A of Chapter 39 several times. And I’ve gone, you know, I’ve consulted with various lawyers. We have a lot of lawyers in town meeting, which is good. And they have varying views, but on some things we all agree.

[0:55:05]

Pat McCarthy:

This is from Section 10 of Chapter 39 because the leading wasn’t read. ‘Whenever the moderator determines the voters are being excluded from the town meeting because there is no room for them in the places provided 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, adjourned the same to another date no later than 14 days following the date of set meeting when places and facilities sufficient to accommodate all voters attending.’

Well, we all know we’re going to have sufficient facilities the day we go to town meeting on October 15th at 8:00 a.m. And I hope the meeting will be called to order. And there is no reason in my mind that we can’t do the business of town meeting. And if I were really sick, I wouldn’t go to town meeting. And if I felt that I was so at risk, I wouldn’t have run for town meeting. I would have after 30 years or so of being town meeting member, my day would have been done. But I chose and I choose to participate. I have my mask with me, but everybody here is spread apart. But I use my mask in the stores and whatever when I really feel I have to do that. But I chose to run for town meeting knowing what is out there. So, so be it. And that’s our obligation. Thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

Could you state your name for the record, please?

Alyse Bruneau

Hello. I’m Alyse Bruneau, Chair of Precinct 18. I just had a couple of comments I wanted to make on this. The first is I filled out the survey for how I wanted to do the format in town meeting, but I was never reached out to by the moderator. So, I’m just kind of curious who he’s reaching out to for these results. And on that note, I think if we’re going to use survey results as data, as supporting evidence for arguments that affect the whole format of open democratic process, those survey results should be as publicly available as they can. Otherwise, we’re really just going off the word of one individual who can have bias towards the situation. And I don’t think that’s really how this process should be presented. So, my question is I don’t know if there’s a way going forward that we can have some kind of clause that results for surveys that are used as evidence and data should be made publicly available at least to the Select Board and the town meeting members at the very least.

My second comment is that the moderator mentioned that he toured Plymouth North high to figure out how accessible it would be for everyone, but he didn’t invite at least not me, didn’t invite the town meeting members or the Select Board who I feel like if he’s going to consult and talk with us, we should all be involved in that meeting. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. We did do a survey. Hold on just a second. The town did do a survey and our results I think–did you post them, Derek? And it was 60–

Derek Brindisi:

We didn’t post them. We talked about them publicly. 62% were in favor, 38% were against. And that was I think 95 respondents. So, that was the town survey. I know the moderator had a separate survey earlier couple of months ago.

Alyse Bruneau:

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant, the moderator has said he’s done two surveys now. Those haven’t been presented. But I also didn’t know you guys posted yours. I’ll look at that too. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. Thank you. Mr. Moderator.

Steve Triffletti:

Yes, thank you. First to Mr. Brewster. Mr. Brewster, I intend to be in the Center for Performing Arts on the day of town meeting. But in response to the last speaker and thank you for your question, I’ve not conducted any surveys. The assistant moderator earlier this year after the June town meeting did conduct a survey and the results of that survey which made available to the Committee of Precinct Chairs with approximately 50% in favor of in-person and 50% opposed to in-person or supporting virtual. What I have been doing is since the last meeting with the Select Board when there was discussion about not using surveys anymore, I decided on my own to start calling town meeting members.

[1:00:09]

Steve Triffletti:

I have not called all town meeting members yet and I don’t know if I’ll get through the list, but I have focused initially on those who respond to the survey and wanted to be virtual because they were the ones that would not be in favor of this. And I want to understand what their concerns were and whether they still felt the same way. And so, I have called approximately 50 or more people and those people continue to want to be remote. Some of them, and I’m trying to give them a voice, some of them are here this evening remotely. I see both Mr. Nealey and Ms. Holmes and finally I would just say in the effort to try to give a voice, I have another town meeting member texting me saying there are still deaths in Plymouth or reminding me that 50% of town meetings said no to in-person. So, you know, I encourage these people to speak to the board now so that you hear the other side, which is what I’m hearing. And again, I’m trying to balance everyone’s concerns and trying to come up with a reasonable outcome.

Betty Cavacco:

Could you please state your name for the record?

Maureen Renaud:

Hi. Maureen Renaud, Precinct 6, town meeting member. I can’t speak for all the people that are compromised and have ill health. I’m one of them. I take a shot every day to suppress my immune system and I need to take a lot of precautions and I do. And I couldn’t appreciate Moderator Triffletti anymore than I could in the beginning because it really helped me. And we still have Covid, but it’s not the same as it was and it really is time to get back to normal as much as we can. And people like me, we have to navigate our lives and we don’t have to bring everybody with us into the closet. You know, we need to do this. And I feel very fine about the town meeting and going to the town meeting and I might be in the main room, I might be in a mask room, but I definitely feel safe going to it. I do feel very bad for somebody that can’t make it. And I’m hoping in the future that it would be possible if somebody was really sick and was really afraid of getting it or that perhaps a doctor’s note could say, ‘Hey, you’re the guy that can Zoom in.’ It would be a small amount of people that would be doing that. And in the future, I think it’s going to be treated long-term. I think we’re going to have it and we can’t go on like this forever. And I do appreciate Moderator Triffletti what you’ve done, but I don’t think that we need to do it at this level anymore. I think it’s a personal thing for somebody to do. Okay? Thank you so much.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Alyse Bruneau:

So, just one last quick question then. Mr. Moderator, where are those results posted then? If you said that they have been made available to the public?

Steve Triffletti:

I indicated they were available to the Committee of Precinct Chairs. We gave them the results. Nicole Manfredi is the Assistant Moderator. And if you send me an email, I’d be happy to have her provide you with the information. My email is FST@plymouthlaw.com. We’d be happy to provide that.

Alyse Bruneau:

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Virginia Davis:

Ginny Davis, Precinct 4. I speak today as a town meeting member with at least 18 years, as a registered nurse for almost 55 years. If I was sick, whether it was 20 years ago in 1988 or on the day of October 15th, I have a fever, I might be throwing up, whatever, I wouldn’t be doing town meeting anyway. So, if you’re really sick, doing town meeting takes a lot, right? You’re like you have your books over here, the clicker over here, you’re reading, you’re listening, you’re watching. If I was sick, I wouldn’t even attempt to do town meeting. And that’s just what life is handed to us forever. And I am so concerned that 50% of the people who got elected have never been at a town meeting. They have no idea what it’s like to be there to say hi to people, to meet people.

[1:05:03]

Virginia Davis:

I’ve lived here all my life. I don’t even know most of the new town meeting members. You get to know them when we meet it in-person. We have lunch. We take a break. We can go outside. It is a total experience. So, that’s all. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak? Do we have people online?

Anthony Senesi:

Madam Chair, we have Richard Nealey and then Kathryn Holmes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Mr. Nealey, welcome.

Richard Nealey:

Thank you. I am a town meeting member of Precinct 15. As far as Covid being, we are not out of the woods. Because of my physical condition and a number of health issues, I have had to go to three different doctor’s offices this past week. They are all wearing masks. Why? Because they still have a healthy respect for this virus despite the ad hoc version of the CDC judgments. The hybrid meeting is necessary for the functioning of this town. The hybrid meeting is a modern response to the practical problems that this town is now facing including Covid. I would like to sincerely appreciate the efforts of our Town Moderator who in his efforts to provide the safest possible environment so that all members can participate without any threats to their health.

I would mention one other item that has not received the appropriate attention during this conference and that is everybody, all town meeting members, all Select Board members, all Finance Committee members should all be vaccinated and that proof should be checked before the beginning of the meeting. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m fully vaccinated just so you know. Miss Holmes?

Kathryn Holmes:

Hi, everyone! Can you hear me?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Kathryn Holmes:

Okay. So, since the COPC was brought up a few times in this discussion, I wasn’t planning to speak on this but I’m going to jump in here and just provide a little bit of clarity for the things that I just think we need to just make sure we’re all singing from the same sheet of music. So, historically, the COPC has always done and has driven all of the surveys regarding town meeting format. Precincts have done their own surveying. And then when I took over as the chairwoman, I have a survey tool and so I started doing some formal surveys so that we can really get some real results and most importantly be able to share those results with the town. It’s very important for transparency. I didn’t want anyone to think that numbers were skewed or that there was any type of bias at play. So, I’ve done I think two surveys with the COPC and we’ve always gotten right around 50%. It’s like 49, 50. It waffles back and forth on what the town meeting members were interested in doing for either remote or virtual. And those were typically are our two questions. When we offered a hybrid in the surveys, most people said hybrid would be great. But if you can’t have hybrid then let’s do virtual. And then the people that were hardcore wanting face-to-face always voted the same. So, we would get like 51 to 48-52. And so, it was pretty split right down the middle. But the other piece of this is the number of people that we surveyed.

[1:10:05]

Kathryn Holmes:

So, in order to make sure that we were getting the voice of town meeting, the chairs took an initiative to reach out to the town meeting members to make sure that they were responding to the surveys. Now, some people didn’t want to and that’s totally fine but we really tried to drive the results and it’s very important because when you look at the current survey that’s been done and that was the first time that that was actually managed by the town, there was only I think 95 people that responded, but we have a lot more town meeting members. So, when we’ve done our surveys, we would typically get about 120, 119 people that would respond. Those are pretty good numbers for a survey. But it took a lot of effort because we really wanted to make sure that we were getting the voice of the people. So, I think that there are some definite flaws in the last survey that were done and one of them is that it just doesn’t have enough people that our town meeting members to give a good number. When I’ve looked for results that are coming in, oftentimes when we had lower numbers, it would start to skew a certain way and then it would start to skew another way. But the more people that responded, we started to get that kind of 50/50 split. So, I think that the bottom line though is that the there is a huge group of people rightfully so that want to get back face-to-face and I completely support that. I am a person that has compromised immune system. For those that know me, I have a pretty major asthma and I also have compromised family members. However, we are fully vaccinated. I just got my booster a couple of days ago and all of my family is now doing the same thing as well. So, we had a graduation at Manomet Elementary School for my son and there must have been 200 people in the room. Nobody was masked. So, there is a way that we can do this successfully. So, I wanted to just say that regarding the surveys.

And then I am questioning the locations. I like the idea. I know that we cannot have a face-to-face meeting without putting some type of conditions in place for these people that are immune compromised or that are just not comfortable. We need to be able to do that. I’m questioning the location though and this is what I’m going to put on my technology hat. And so, if we have these locations split up where we have a majority of people at the Center for the Arts and we have other people that are in high school and other people, I’m concerned about delay and packet loss and delay and connection and quality of connection just because it’s all piecemeal and it’s never been done before. When we’ve had virtual meetings before, It’s in one central medium, it’s a controlled medium, it’s at PACTV. Everybody knows what that’s like. We’ve tested it, we certainly have had issues in the past with fall town meeting. I think it was fall town meeting, the first one that we did where it was a debacle. We’ve also had a presentation forum that was run that we couldn’t actually go forward with it. So, I think that if we’re going to do this, I definitely like the idea of putting a room for compromised people and I like the idea of having town meeting members in one room.

I would like to recommend that we put them back at the high school, because that’s a forum that we know, we understand. And I think that if we don’t do that, if the moderator decides that for all the reasons he cited that, that is not what he is amenable to, I think that we absolutely need to have some test calls to make sure that this is actually technically possible because I’m deeply concerned about the technology, the way that it’s set up, knowing how many different connections we’re going to have in a Zoom platform which is not an executive platform that we’re using. We’re still using from what I understand a pretty basic Zoom platform. So, those are some of my points.

And then also, I just wanted to talk about some precautions. I think that there’s a new booster out that covers Omicron. I’d like to see if the Select Board would talk possibly to the Board of Health to see if maybe it would make sense that before we do town meeting, maybe we could have some booster clinics here in town so that people that want to can just go. I think they’ve done this in the past where they can go and get their booster shots so they don’t have to actually go to the tool and schedule with CBS. Maybe we can have a format where they can just come and have the Board of Health work that out for us.

And then also there was a question about the cost of doing the virtual and it was like $20,000 and I may have missed this, but I would love for someone to explain that dollar amount because I think we need to understand the cost of that.

[1:15:16]

Kathryn Holmes:

That’s a lot of money. When Larry Pizer has done town meetings in the past, I think it was like under $5,000 for the total town meeting face-to-face. So, if someone could provide some insight to town meeting on where we’re getting the 20,000, that would be helpful.

And then the last thing I’m going to say is that I think that we have to get through fall town meeting. I really want to see us back in a room but I want to make sure that we’re safe. And the focus has got to be the legislation to ensure that we have a hybrid option for this spring. And I know that Kathy LaNatra and Matt Muratore, our representatives have been working on that, but I think it’s really important to try to get some type of an update from them maybe in the next 30 days or 60 days so that we can talk about where they’re at with it. And I know it’s going to take quite a while but that absolutely has to be a number one priority. Thank you so much. Thanks for your time. I know I went long.

Steve Triffletti:

Madam Chair, can I respond to them?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure, after I do. Kathryn, just so you know that the Center of Performing Arts is in Plymouth North High School. That’s the auditorium. It’s always been at Plymouth North. And as far as–

Kathryn Holmes:

Well, thank you for clarifying that. I thought that he was talking about downtown at Memorial Hall. But okay, that’s excellent news. I was like, what the heck.

Betty Cavacco:

And then as far as the cost. I think that it’s always been around the $20,000 mark. That’s just the cost of doing business for town meeting. And Mr. Brindisi, if you could elaborate.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, sure. So, we’ve been working with PACTV and OTI on the costs if the town meeting were to be delayed. So, you are probably aware that in the PACTV agreement, we have both annual town meetings both in April and October is covered in the already existing payment to PACTV. But if the meeting were to be delayed, it would cost an additional $20,000 to have a follow up town meeting because of the 14-day delay. So, that would be PACTV and the OTI costs. And since I have the floor, if I could just answer the question Ms. Holmes asked about our state delegation, I had reported at the last meeting that I had talked to Rep Muratore. He had said that the bill needs to be re-filed in January and he would anticipate it would take the full formal session in order for that bill to hopefully be approved. So, we don’t anticipate the annual town meeting in April to be a hybrid model. We would expect that we’ll be having a very similar conversation in April that we’re having this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Yeah, I’d just like to make a couple points given the recent discussions. Something about these surveys has bothered me for a number of weeks and I’ve just kept my mouth shut. I know that our Select Board, the one that the town manager performed asked participants if they would prefer in-person or virtual. In terms of all of them CPC or COPC or Moderator Triffletti’s, I’ve not seen or heard any results of the follow up aspect of a survey like this. Why would you prefer it to be virtual? It’s assumed that the people who want virtual are doing it because of Covid concerns. That’s an assumption that creates a flaw in the survey. So, I would just like to point out the surveys that we are all talking about are plain old flawed and we should no longer pay attention to them unless follow up questions in those surveys to determine why. And I think possibly in the future that will be valuable when we have hybrid. Secondly, in terms of technology, I thought that Ms. Holmes made a really good case for two rooms and only two rooms, technology and the flaws and the delays by having the people who are going to be answering the questions that are asked by town meeting members in another room. Technology problems can occur.

[1:20:05]

Harry Helm:

I’m not saying they will, but they likely will because they usually do. And it is inefficient and it’s ineffective to have that group in another room. This group is probably 30 people maybe. Okay. We’re talking about an auditorium of 800 seats. Most of us have been in there. Most of us know how big and cavernous that space is. I would just like to ask the moderator to please consider two rooms and not separating out the boards, the town employees, the finance and advisory committee into a separate room. Thank you.

Steve Triffletti:

Madam Chair, may I respond?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes, please, sir.

Steve Triffletti:

Yes. Thank you, Kathryn Holmes for your comments. And I had the same explanation that Betty Cavacco provided you except I’d also add when I referred to the library, it was the library at the high school. So, it’s all three rooms are at the high school. Your suggestion about shots is a good one, but I just want to say that unlike a private event or other public events, we cannot require testing. These people are elected and they can come to town meeting regardless of whether they take a test that morning. In fact, I asked about offering to take people’s temperature, but that’d be voluntary. We can’t require the people to be vaccinated. In fact, we can’t require that people wear masks, but we can provide a room where we say that you don’t enter the room without wearing a mask. And finally, Harry Helm, I agree with you about surveys and they can be flawed and I agree with follow up, which is exactly why I took it upon myself to call town meeting members who answered the survey requesting a virtual because I want to make sure for myself that in fact it was accurate and those are my findings is that the people that I called were in fact overwhelmingly in support of the remote participation. Those people that I called, I haven’t called all town meeting members. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Are there any more folks? Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Steven, Ms. Holmes, I think she wrapped up her comments by saying that we needed to get through town meeting and I couldn’t agree with her more. I think it’s imperative that we get through town meeting. I know that what happens is the Select Board, the Finance and Advisory board, they weigh in on articles and then after they weigh in on the warrant and all those articles, it becomes the relationship between the moderator and the 162 elected members of town meeting who make up our congress. So, I think the focus point should be on them and their safety in this process. I have no problem taking a back seat. I can count on one hand all the times that I was requested to get up and speak on town meeting flow to a specific issue. Typically, I think that if town meeting wants somebody from the Select Board to weigh in, I think the majority of the time, it’ll fall to the Chair but at the specific issues that maybe the other four Select Board members are passionate about, maybe they will get up and speak or knowledgeable about. But I have no problem taking a back seat. When we look at the six articles tonight and this is reinforcing what Ms. Holmes said and I agree with you talk about, we have to get through October town meeting. Some of these have to do with the U.S. Constitution and I’m talking about public versus private property rights. Chief Foley is in the second row today. Article 8, he’s going to acquire something off the state road. Some of these people, whether it’s by eminent domain or you’re just engaging in a regular straight up real estate purchase, that gets delayed for months, they might pull out. That might compromise this town’s ability to provide public safety, water resources, recreational value, etcetera. So, it is imperative that we get through this fall town meeting. I would fully expect that you would get together Mr. Triffletti continue to work on what you need to do, whether it’s one, two or three rooms, I’m comfortable with any number of those and work with Mr. Brindisi and the rest of town staff and let’s get into that room, let’s get into that building on October 15th doing what we need to do.

[1:25:06]

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Perhaps Selectman Mahoney has misunderstood the concept that I am proposing about having everyone in the auditorium. That being the FinCom, the Select Board and the town employees that will be speaking on these articles. While Mr. Mahoney may have only personally been called on a couple of times, I would say that it is common that Lynne Barrett is called on at least a couple of times every single meeting. It’s common that Mr. Beder is called on at least a couple of times every single meeting. It is common that the police chief, that the fire chief are called on often during meetings. Mr. Gould will probably be called on several times during this meeting. So, I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to take a backseat and for if you want company, I’ll take it with you just as long as everybody else is in with the town meeting members. You and I can sit in a room together because I know no one’s going to be asking me a question. So, while I appreciate your willingness to take a back seat, I do not think that people such as Mr. Beder, Ms. Barrett, Mr. Gould, the chiefs should be taking that same backseat as you are.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

John and Harry, this board voted unanimously for a in-person town meeting. Our moderator is going around us to try and get to spread this out. It’s really going to affect having us and it’s not going to be the same having all the department heads and the boards in a separate room. It’s not what we wanted. So, I think it’s time that we have to test the power of the moderator. Because if not, it’s going to be virtual next time and we’re going to have the same fight in the spring. So, I ask our Town Manager, can we try and exhaust every avenue to try and make this happen in-person? And I don’t mind having the one room, one room is fine, but having the multiple rooms is I think it’s just too much. I won’t be for this unless I’m sitting with the town meeting members in the auditorium. You’re going to be in there, Steve. We want to be in there too. So, I don’t know what we can do, Derek.

Derek Brindisi:

I mean, we have the ability. I think so I mentioned the library seats 160. The individuals that feel like they’re at risk, there’s plenty of space to socially distance, to wear masks, to have hand sanitizer and anything else that our Board of Health and the Health director recommend as protective measures for those individuals. So, we can make anything happen.

Charlie Bletzer:

I mean, if Steve’s not going to back down from the three rooms, I don’t want to back down from the two rooms. So, we’re at a standstill there. And I’m going to tell you, we’re going to have the same fight. It’s going to be the same thing in the spring. Two meetings ago, it was going to be our last virtual meeting and here we are, again, two meetings later, so.

Betty Cavacco:

If the board is finished, and I’ll certainly go back to the public. I mean, I hope Mr. Moderator, you realize how divisive this is to our form of government and there is really no reason why we can’t have two rooms, have in-person, people that are uncomfortable. I’m not much of a backseat person, so you enjoy that. But honestly, I guess it’s really right now, Mr. Triffletti, with all due respect is where the rubber hits the road. And are we going to have an in-person town meeting with two rooms? Are we going to continue to rip apart this form of government with, ‘I have the authority. You don’t. It’s my rules. It’s not.’ I mean, we’re all doing this for the best of what’s good for Plymouth. We need to work together. We need to stop this. So, let’s move forward together. Let’s do two rooms and, you know what, if for some reason, it doesn’t work, we’ll deal with it as it comes up. But technology wise, everybody knows it’s no surprise, we’ve had issues with technology. Right. Yes, I can.

[1:30:05]

Betty Cavacco:

So, I think it really is. I think we need to show that we want what’s best and we want our folks to know that we are listening to them. And I think it’s honestly if we’re not going to do, if we’re not going to be the voice of these people, what are we doing here? Because I could be home watching 90 Day Fiancé right now. So, yeah, or a good episode of Games of Throne. I mean, I think it’s important that like we put all of this aside, do what’s best. Let’s go for two rooms. I mean, you’re an intelligent man. You know how to work it. You’ve done a great job in the years that you’ve been a moderator. This is not a hill that any of us want to die on. Let’s work together and get there. Let’s do two rooms. Let’s do the auditorium and the library and just kind of move on and stop like tearing everything apart here because that’s exactly what this is doing. I mean, my phone’s blowing up saying, you know? We shouldn’t be fighting with each other. We should be working together for what’s best for the town. And right now, this town, no matter who you’ve talk to because I can tell you, I’ve talked to probably double the people that you’ve talked to. But it doesn’t matter because I can’t quantify that. So, let’s just do it. Let’s agree to do it and do in-person and then move forward and we’re going to have a happy town meeting and we’re going to have happy people and we’re going to have people that feel threatened in another room and let’s just get the town business done. So, I implore you to move forward with this two-room meeting. It could be three rooms for John. He might want his own room.

Charlie Bletzer:

Steven, you do a great job as a moderator, okay? But in this situation, you’re not listening to the people, okay? And that should be part of you. You have to listen to the people and what the people want. They want an in-person meeting. We wanted it last time and you’re going to have to give in a little bit and you just go to the two rooms. It’s a compromise. A little compromise, but the department heads all should be in the same room as town meeting and the boards. And you can put the challenged people, people that have some health issues, they can put masks on in the other room, two rooms. So, you got to compromise and give in, Steven. So, we can make this thing happen. All right? Let’s not fight over this anymore. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

If there aren’t any more comments, this will be–

Steve Lydon:

Steve Lydon. One room, two rooms. To me, it doesn’t make a difference. What makes the difference is what goes into this town meeting. And a lot of people don’t understand, I sat through five hours at a meeting and listening to our fire chief telling us how important it is with his articles he’s putting forward. Not only are they important, the prices on the new fire equipment is unbelievable. He’s managed 18 months out, two years out and he’s managed to freeze the prices until delivery. You had a lot of department heads come in and tell you how important their articles are and, you know, delay it 14 days, there’s a lot that goes into it. David Gould was there, the police chief, all the department heads that have articles before town meeting. They put a lot of work into this and it’s not frivolous work. It’s very important. It’s going to cost the town money if town meeting gets delayed. And I think it’s not good for the chiefs and the department heads to see this going on, all this work and oh well it might go because we don’t meet at town meeting. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see you back there.

Martha Vautrain:

Martha Vautrain, Precinct 4. I’ve been to many of these meetings and it seems to me that the two spaces is the way to go and using the library that seats 130 or accommodates that many would easily accommodated the people that our town meeting members that would like to be in a setting where they’re very socially distanced, etc.

[1:35:15]

Martha Vautrain:

And as I understand from what Steve said, there are 6 to 7 people that are the only ones that don’t want to come to a building. But if they were accommodated in the large space that would be for them half the library, I would think that that would be the way we can accommodate those people. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Steve Triffletti:

Madam Chair, can I respond to that?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

Steve Triffletti:

I just want to clarify. Thank you, Martha. Those 6 or 7 people are people that won’t even come to the library or in the building. Those are people that will check in outdoors but will not stay, but there are many other people that will come but will want to be in a separate room mask only. Thank you.

David Golden:

Thank you, folks. My name is David Golden, Precinct 7. We spent a lot of time tonight talking about one room, two-room, three-room. I’m not really seeing how there’s a difference between sticking us in multiple different rooms in a hybrid town meeting. But more importantly, I’m deeply concerned about a comment that I heard prior to departing the room for another meeting. I believe I heard Mr. Triffletti say that every town meeting member would need to preregister in order to speak at an in-person town meeting. And I certainly would happily receive clarification from Mr. Triffletti but I’m concerned that every effort that he’s made to control town meeting has been to really stunt our ability to debate the issues before the town. That’s what I believe these conversations are about. It’s about control. It’s about making sure that we have an expedited and very rushed town meeting where members aren’t able to fully debate the issues that are before us. And so, I would like clarification from that. And specifically, I would like to know if someone makes a comment under an article that I haven’t preregistered for, am I able to respond to that? Thank you.

Steve Triffletti:

Madam Chair, for you if I might respond. And Mr. Golden, thank you for your question. I apologize if my comments were misunderstood but I’ve always maintained a speaker’s list with people who contact me in advance and I endeavor to call on them first if they haven’t already spoken on another article. And what I was hoping to telegraph to people is that at this town meeting more than ever, if we’re not going to have Vvoter, which provides me with a list of people that wants to speak and the time in which they are indicating their interest in speaking that it would be helpful if you let me know in advance on articles in which you want to speak because I’m going to be trying to navigate the recognition of town meeting members in two different rooms. And so, if you’re in one room and Mr. Brewster is in another room, it’ll be helpful to know in advance if you want to speak. But certainly, if you haven’t notified me in advance, you’ll certainly be called on if I’m aware that you want to speak and if town meeting hasn’t closed debate. But there will be new protocols in place. We won’t be having long lines in front of a microphone. And as we get closer to town meeting, I’ll explain, but we’re only going to want one person at a microphone. Although we’ll have, I believe, at least three microphones for town meeting members in the one room and at least one in the other room. Thank you.

David Golden:

Sorry to come back up. I’m not sure that that’s at all acceptable, Mr. Triffletti. If you’re not going to allow people to get up in line to stand up before their constituents and speak their mind, what is the point of having a town meeting?

Steve Triffletti:

And again, Mr. Golden, I apologize. You certainly will have the opportunity to get up and speak at a microphone. What I’m suggesting is that at some prior town meetings, we’ve had long queues at the microphone and we’re going to avoid that and we’re going to have only a few people up at a time, but everybody will get a chance to speak until such time as you as the town meeting members move to close debate.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead, sir.

[1:39:57]

Bill Arienti:

Bill Arienti, I’m Chairman of Precinct 6. Mr. Triffletti, with all due respect, first we had the Chromebooks and we had the three rooms, we have this with no lines at the microphone. Can you read off the list of restrictions that you have so we can address them all right now and just get this all over with and just make it work? Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Canty?

Kevin Canty:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m Kevin Canty, Chair of the Advisory and Finance Committee. So, we’ve had a lot of discussion tonight about the format of town meeting, whether it’s going to be three rooms, two rooms, things like that. To me, I understand people’s passion about that. I think that there is a significant benefit to as many people being in-person in one room as possible. And I don’t fully understand why if you have a room where it’s you’re in there because you’re comfortable being in the general room and then there’s another room where you have to be in there with the mask and can be safely distanced. Why that wouldn’t be sufficient if the library isn’t big enough to be the catch all for everybody else? I mean, there’s a gym at the high school, you could put them in there. There’s got to be more room in there because there’s not a lot of bookcases and other obstructions. So, there’s other physical spaces that you could do it to have it in the two rooms, that’s just my two cents as to that. That’s a discussion that is above my specific pay grade, which I would point out is continues to be $0. But what I would most importantly want to point out is that during this back and forth about when of town meeting and the how of town meeting, there’s been a lot of confusion created in the what of town meeting because I for example, the Advisor and Finance Committee has been meeting for the last month, tomorrow, we have our last meeting before our print deadline to hear these articles and issue recommendations to town meeting members. I have also reached out to the precinct chairs to get their caucus information so I can send my members there. Often, precinct chairs will start little impromptu surveys of when their membership is available, and I’ve seen more than one member in those little chains that I’m cc’d on saying, “Well, isn’t the moderator just going to continue it for 14 days? So, why are we having a caucus? What’s that going to look like? What’s even the point of this? You’re disincentivizing this brinksmanship that people are engaging in is irresponsible. And it is dis incentivizing the people that need to be informed, paying attention now from doing so because they don’t think that it’s going to actually happen, and that’s really no matter whether it happens on the 15th or not, which it should, because there’s no reason it shouldn’t and it needs to, it’s tremendously unfortunate that this is happening in this way and that this can’t be resolved in a way that every other community seems to have figured out. But we, for some reason, can’t. We have more schools than most communities, more big spaces that we could spread out in. I don’t understand why this is such an insurmountable task. It’s really discouraging. Town meeting has its benefits and its drawbacks. But frankly, there have always been these pressure points and straining points in town meeting. We don’t need an additional one being created by how is it even going to happen? Who’s going to do what when? Do I need to show up? Am I just going to be driving right back home? All of this stuff isn’t truly significant and an unnecessary distraction that I hope we can all move past because this town meeting is coming up. People need to be prepared for it and people need to have faith that their government is going to meet when it’s going to meet. This isn’t the federal government shutting down in ways that is a disaster when that happens, particularly when it’s all controlled by one party, but that’s a different story that I won’t get into. But we really need to get this done. We need to settle these issues. We need to move forward. It’s three years now that we’ve been dealing with this. We know the rules, we know the risks. There’s always been a risk in any public gathering even before Covid that you would get an infectious disease from somebody else that was there.

[1:45:05]

Kevin Canty:

Certain people have always had to take that into account. They can continue to do that. Everybody involved is an adult that either signed up for a job or an elected or appointed position that would involve something like this, and they need to be able to make those determinations and considerations for themselves. I trust they can do that. I trust that we can put in place reasonable guidelines to get this done, get past these distractions, move forward and have this town meeting as scheduled at Plymouth North, which is where it has been historically for many, many years, and is the default setting for town meeting absent a state of emergency, which has now passed. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Triffletti, do you have any final thoughts?

Steve Triffletti:

Madam Chair, another Precinct Chair Pompey Delafield has joined remotely, and I’d asked the chair to recognize him if he wishes to speak.

Betty Cavacco:

Of course.

Lawrence Delafield:

Hello?

Betty Cavacco:

This is the last speaker. Okay, go ahead.

Lawrence Delafield:

Yeah. Can you hear me?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Lawrence Delafield:

Okay. I just want to very briefly say that I think that I’ve heard the side, one side totally dominate this conversation. I do represent the other side. I am Chair of Precinct 16 here in town and I want to express the fact that I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Triffletti. I think he runs a very good meeting. I think it’s very open. We cannot blame him when other people call to order the conversations to stop and until that happens, he always lets everyone talk. But in this issue, we all have a right to vote him out of office if we don’t like what his decisions are. But while he’s there, I think we should respect it. And I am surprised that the Select Board is saying that he’s the one who has to give in. I think it would be good if we could just let him run the meeting and then if we don’t like it, then we can vote him out of office and get somebody else in who will run it differently. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Hutchinson? I’m sorry, Mr. Hutchison is the last speaker.

Joe Hutchinson:

I got to plead my apologies.

Betty Cavacco:

No problem.

Joe Hutchinson:

Joe Hutchinson, Precinct 17. I would like to underscore Pompey’s point and agree with Kevin entirely that this has to happen, that this is an important meeting. I also agree with Kevin that we’re doing a little brinksmanship here between the executive branch of the government and the legislative branch of the government. And in the legislature, the moderator is actually the boss and he’s had the job. And as Pompey says, you don’t like it, vote him out. In the meantime, he’s done what he can to try to come up with a negotiation. He’s gotten the work done. He’s calling the people and let him do his job.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson. And with that being said, folks, we’re going to take a five-minute recess.

[RECESS]

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, everyone. Just so you know that we had to take a recess because our video feed was down. So, yeah, he’s in the other room. So, all right. As we continue on–

Harry Helm:

Madam Secretary, before we continue on, I’d like–

Betty Cavacco:

Secretary? Did I get a promotion?

Harry Helm:

Chairman, Madam Chair. Sorry. That’s a television program also since we’re talking about those sorts of things tonight. I’d like to make a motion to reaffirm our vote from last week for the setting of the time and the place as we did and an in-person town meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second? I’ll second. Discussion? Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

I am going to support this but in all government issues, debates, if you will, three rooms, one room, of all compromise, two rooms and let’s move on, please. Before you know it, it’s going to be town meeting, we’re still all going to be sitting here.

[1:50:04]

Dick Quintal:

So, that’s all I have to really say compromise, let’s get through it and move on.

Betty Cavacco:

I second that. All those in favor? Unanimous. All right. As we move on, fall town meeting articles.

Dick Quintal:

That only took two hours.

Betty Cavacco:

That’s why you get paid the big bucks. Fall town meeting articles, were going to vote to approve and execute the warrant. Are we going to do that after these articles or now? Okay. All right.

Article 8 (Property Acquisition Off State Road), and I believe that is Chief Foley.

Neil Foley:

It is. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the board for having me tonight. I’m here to discuss Article 8, which is the article on town meeting to authorize the Select Board to taking possession a plot of land that is located adjacent to the Manomet Fire Station A27 State Road. And I’ll just give a brief synopsis as to why we need that land. This rendering right here, the red is the building, that’s the existing fire station. You see the left, there is a driveway that accesses the rear of the building. That’s where the employee parking is and is also a response bay that is currently there and we’ll be expanding it to three response bays to come out the rear of the building.

The new addition that is part of the article that was voted on at the last spring town meeting to do a major renovation of this station will encompass that existing driveway. And I can show you on these slides here, if I can get my clicker to work, got it. All set. So, the addition on the left side of the building, if you’re looking at that left slide, that’s the substantial addition that’s going to be added to the building, taking up that existing driveway. That’s going to require the driveway to be moved to the right side of the building so that we can access the back as you can see the trucks rolling around the back. And also the fuel depot will be located in the rear of the building as well.

The middle portion of that particular slide, you can see the existing lot lines which is even more highlighted in red on the last picture. So, as you can see with the existing lot lines that we do have, we’re very constrained on that site. We knew this going into the last town meeting, we did mention it as part of our presentation that we were going to have to acquire some land from our abutter to be able to complete this project. We did have a preliminary conversation with our abutter to the north of us and they did indicate that they would be amenable to providing that parcel of land that we would require.

Through the negotiations process, which is really kind of ramped up recently due to the engineering and design moving along and the requirements that we were going to need because we’re going to have to incorporate some drainage and other structures, we went back to the abutter and asked to finalize or bring about a better understanding of what our needs and what they would be willing to do. Through that process, we have this proposal which if you see the prop lot proposal up the top there, lot D is the existing lot with the fire station on it, the proposed lot above it. And you can see that that is the drainage catch basin located within that particular area. That’s the plot of land that we are negotiating with the abutter. We do have some preliminary numbers. We’re going to be asking town meeting to appropriate $90,000 to acquire this land. But as I said, we’re still negotiating and we’ll go through the complete appraisal process with this as well before we actually purchase it. We’re hoping to have a purchase and sale as soon as possible so that we can get this project out to bid by the first of the year.

[1:55:14]

Betty Cavacco:

Do board members have any questions for Chief Foley?

Brad Brothers:

Can I add on one thing real quick, Madam Chair to that? The transfer of funds, there’s no new appropriation needed. The $90,000 is currently was appropriated at the last town meeting, so it’s really just kind of a transfer of funds. It’s not a new appropriation, so it’s not a request for new money.

Neil Foley:

Yeah. Thanks, Brad. Just like I said, this was anticipated and it was budgeted in as part of that project.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

So, Chief, that I’m seeing over 16,000 square foot so it’s about 4/10 of an acre and that’s going to be everything that you need to facilitate new construction down there?

Neil Foley:

Yes, yup. So, that plot of land is actually a little bit larger than we had first started with. And it does give us plenty of flexibility throughout this whole project and also into the future as well. What we found with our other remodels, especially right now in West Plymouth, the lot constraints do make it very difficult. So, having that extra space or additional space will be very beneficial to the project overall.

John Mahoney:

And the existing site is only a little under an acre, 41,000 or 42,000 square foot?

Neil Foley:

Yeah, about an acre. Yeah.

John Mahoney:

Okay. And so, that’s sufficient room only because it’s not station one, it’s a satellite?

Neil Foley:

It’s a satellite station, correct.

John Mahoney:

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Neil Foley:

You’re welcome.

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. Neil, also, after looking at that, it’s going to be a lot more efficient too because now you can drive the trucks in, they turn around and drive straight in so they’re ready to go before you had to back them in. Am I right about that? You had it on State Road, a busy road, you’d have to get the guys out in the street and have to back in. Now, you’re going to drive all the way to the back of the building, you’re going to drive, turn around and drive straight through. So, that’s very important.

Neil Foley:

It’ll give us that flexibility to do that. It depends on what kind of equipment we have running out of there. So, adding the two additional bays, we might be able to have one of those bays to be a complete drive through, which I would imagine being the most busy piece that we have there, which would be the engine. But future looking, it’s just going to give us that flexibility to be able to run out of both sides of it should, in the future we need to incorporate some additional apparatus.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Do I have a motion?

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make the motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thanks, Neil.

Neil Foley:

Thank you very much. Next is a Citizen’s Petition Article 22 regarding horse racing.

Kathryn Holmes:

Okay. Hi, everyone again. Can you hear me okay?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Kathryn Holmes:

Okay, great. So, thank you for taking your time out of your meeting to talk with me about this Citizen’s Petition. I decided that it was really important to put this forward. I know that there’s been a lot of work and a lot of meetings and a lot of conversations around the wood lot and what the group is going to do, whether or not there’s horse racing that’s involved in it or whether it’s going to be something else. However, based on the non-binding vote that we had, an 88% of the residents of Plymouth saying that they didn’t want horse racing, I felt that it was in our best interest to put something in place or at least to be moving toward some further protections to ensure that horse racing doesn’t come to Plymouth, even if it’s not at the wood lot, but maybe some other location. So, I’m just going to read a couple of things here. Have you all had a chance to look through the warrant?

Betty Cavacco:

Yes.

Kathryn Holmes:

I’m going to talk through this with you. So, essentially this warrant article is designed to direct our legislators. So, Matt Muratore and Sue Moran to file legislation that in this warrant article which proposes to give citizens of Plymouth local control over the question of whether commercial horce racing can come to the town or not. So, it’s pretty straightforward. And in addition to the requirement, it also it requires that the Select Board be involved in that decision, which I think is really important and that local control would be voted on at an annual town meeting and it also would require a citizen’s ballot, which would be a binding ballot. It’s a home rule petition. And so, for those that don’t know really what that is, I just thought I’d give a little bit more clarity on this.

[2:00:06]

Kathryn Holmes:

So, in Massachusetts, towns have limited powers under state law on something like this. So, home rule petitions are the process by which a town or a city can request that state legislation give it certain powers that it does not otherwise have. So, in the town of like Plymouth, that request must come from a vote from town meeting, which is pretty important. So, the state legislation and the Gaming Commission dictates where and how horse racing can be conducted in Massachusetts. We don’t have a whole lot of say on that and I think a lot of us kind of got that education.

But the state law specifies what local control is possible. So, essentially what I’m asking for here is that the legislation would ensure that the citizens of Plymouth have the opportunity to decide whether horse racing shall be licensed or not. So, a vote on the ballot, which would be a binding vote. And then for the purposes of this act, horse racing shall mean every meeting where horses are raised and where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or the ability of horses shall be permitted. And then most importantly, I think this is really what gives this, If we can get this passed, it gives us the meat is that there shall be no license granted by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission or any other state or local commissioner agency for horse racing within the Town of Plymouth unless or until the select board shall approve such location after published notice and public hearings and a majority of the registered voters of the Town of Plymouth voting on the described location relative to granting such licenses have voted in the affirmative within the same calendar year as such approval by the Select Board. And further, that the location of such horse racing be approved at town meeting. So, if we can move forward with this, I think it’s pretty critical because it would allow us to have control over potentially what happens at the Wood Lot, but even if the Wood Lot doesn’t go through with horse racing that if another entity comes forward and wants to have horse racing, we already know that the citizens pretty clearly don’t want it. So, this will allow us some protection. And I’m just going to stop there. I didn’t do a formal presentation tonight because I thought it was pretty straightforward, but I’ll just open it up to questions.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Ms. Holmes, by binding, would you please define who is bound and what you mean by binding?

Kathryn Holmes:

Well, Matt Muratore, our representatives and Sue Moran would then file that legislation with the state and so if they’re able to file it and get it approved, then that would become binding. It would become something that we would have control over.

Harry Helm:

No. I mean, the vote of the residents of Plymouth, what or who is bound by that vote?

Kathryn Holmes:

Well, so, what we had put forward on the ballot was a nonbinding vote, which meant that the vote didn’t actually give us any authority to do anything. Right?

Harry Helm:

Yes, I’m aware of that. In your conception, in this article, what do you mean by a binding vote? I understand that the previous one was nonbinding, which the board then took and did basically what we’re supposed to do. But who’s bound? Is the State Gaming commission bound? Are you suggesting that or are you suggesting that the Board of Selectmen would be bound to issue a letter or notice of opposition? Who is bound?

Kathryn Holmes:

Sure. So, what my understanding of this would be is that all three of these components would have to happen. Town meeting would have to approve it, they would also have to be approval from the residents of Plymouth and then the Select Board would also have to be in agreement. So, those three things would have to happen before we could agree that horse racing would happen in Plymouth. And if you want Harry, Mr. Helm, if that doesn’t answer your question, I can consult my attorney and get you more definition on really what the definition of bound would be.

Harry Helm:

I think it would be good, not necessarily for me, but for town meeting for your discussion of this article, because when you begin to use words like binding or bound, it’s good to know who is bound, particularly since we do have a State Gaming Commission that is involved in this and this in a couple of ways, as far as I could tell could possibly be dependent on who is being bound in this against the in opposition to the procedures of the State Gaming Commission, which is fine with me.

[2:05:14]

Harry Helm:

But I think it’s good to know who is bound.

Kathryn Holmes:

Sure. That’s a fair point and a good question. And so, I’ll certainly get clarity before caucuses in town meeting on that. So, there’s more definition around it.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? Do we have a motion? Mr. Vautrain?

Charlie Vautrain:

Charlie Vautrain, Precinct 4 town meeting member. My question is to Kathryn, I don’t think I heard you mention the word gambling. All I heard you say was horse racing.

Kathryn Holmes:

Right. Gambling is not included in this. It’s only horse racing.

Charlie Vautrain:

I think you should add it, but that’s my own opinion. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, one of the things that we have come to the realization that it’s quite clear in the laws, especially with the research from K.P. Law that it is under the Select Board’s jurisdiction whether to approve horse racing or not. Not that I have any problem with this article, but just to clarify that that it is under our jurisdiction to do that now without this.

Charlie Bletzer:

Betty, can I say something?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

Charlie Bletzer:

Mr. Vautrain, the problem with if she had a gambling is the citizens of Plymouth voted twice to legalize gambling in Plymouth. So, they voted twice for it. So, it would be kind of tough to put that together.

Kathryn Holmes:

And the goal for me is to support what the voice of the Plymouth residents were and it was simply around horse racing. Ms. Cavacco, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that that ballot question had anything to do with gambling in it, right? It was just simply horse racing, right?

Betty Cavacco:

The ballot question, the nonbinding ballot question was horse racing, but our letters to the Gaming Commission and the Attorney General did in fact discuss gaming and casinos, racinos, whatever.

Kathryn Holmes:

Right, but I’m only representing the voice–in my effort here, I’m representing the voice of Plymouth residents who only spoke on horse racing. So, that’s what this article is to address at this time.

Betty Cavacco:

Mrs. Adelmann?

Patricia Adelmann:

Thank you. I understand that this article is only for horse racing and like Mr. Bletzer said that town people twice voted in favor of gambling, but how many years ago was that? And I would like to know how the board stands on gambling. Are you in favor of a casino or some kind of gaming facility anywhere in Plymouth? And that’s what I find very disappointing that you’ll say no horse racing, but we don’t know how you stand on gambling facilities. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Go ahead, Harry.

Harry Helm:

Ms. Adelmann, just in answer to your question, we’ve never been asked. Okay. We were asked in specific about the Wood Lot and we acted per state statutes and unanimously voted against not only a horse racing track, but a casino facility. So, in that one case where we were asked, we voted unanimously in opposition to a race track and a casino. If people would like to bring up another ballot initiative or rather a warrant article sometime around on gambling, you’re perfectly welcome to do that. And at that point, we’ll be telling you about it.

Patricia Adelmann:

Well, I would appreciate that. I’m just speaking for myself. I don’t know if others would, but I think it’s coming right down the track. It’s obviously looks like the Wood Lot is what the Boston South people are participating for a gambling facility and I just want the town to be protected. Thank you.

[2:10:24]

Harry Helm:

Well, in reference specifically to that specific thing, the town is currently protected because our letter specifies not only a racetrack but gambling. And whatever Boston South is up to, we’ll find out on down the road. But that’s where we stand today and our determination was specific to the Wood Lot.

Patricia Adelmann:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Derek, has this been run through town counsel yet on the legality of this?

Derek Brindisi:

Town counsel has reviewed the entire warrant? Yes. So, they take a look at this.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Do we have a motion or do you want to speak?

John Mahoney:

No, no. I’m sorry, I thought it was already in motion. No.

Harry Helm:

I motion.

John Mahoney:

I move approval.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Motion by Mr. Mahoney and second by Mr. Helm. All those in favor?

Dick Quintal:

Should we have discussion?

Betty Cavacco:

Oh, yeah, discussion, I’m sorry. It’s getting late.

Dick Quintal:

I talked under discussion. I think John–

Harry Helm:

No, I don’t. Just proper procedure.

Dick Quintal:

No, I think we had a motion before this. I think I spoke on the discussion, but–

Betty Cavacco:

I could be wrong, I’m sorry.

Dick Quintal:

Anthony?

Betty Cavacco:

We didn’t have a motion before on this, right?

Dick Quintal:

No? Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

We’re going to put you in another room, Mr. Mahoney. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Kathryn Holmes:

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate your time tonight. Have a good night.

Betty Cavacco:

You too. Next is Article 9A (Purchase Open Space – Off Carver Road).

Bill Keohan:

Good evening, Bill Keohan from the Community Preservation Committee. And tonight, we’ll be presenting fall town meeting articles for 2022 starting with Article 9A, B, C and D. I do have something that came in just a few minutes ago from Lynn Barrett. She had revised the budget that she provided me that I provided you in your book. So, if you would like, I can have this. So, the numbers that we’re working on for tonight are different from what your book is. What Lynne has spread out over is that each of these recommendations that we’re making to town meeting will utilizing available funds on hand except the Spire Theater. There will be a component of borrowing. There is approximately $2,231,705 that is available for the Spire. But the remaining balance would be borrowed, but it would be short-term borrowing. The way that we’ll be doing that is through a process of allocating certain money at a certain point in time based on a grain agreement and different performances of work. So, we’ve done this before where we can operate from available funds as long as possible and then do short-term borrowing to accommodate that expenditure. But the others 9A, B and D are from available funds.

So, we can start on article 9A. Article 9A is an Open Space Acquisition. I think over the last seven years, we’ve been in conversations with the was at the time, the Narragansett Council that has now the owners of the Rhode Island Council, but the Boy Scout Council, we’ve been talking to them over seven years, had different conversations about acquiring the property. We renewed these conversations this year.

[2:15:06]

Bill Keohan:

We had the property appraised. The appraisal came in at $900,000 for 99 acres. The Community Preservation Committee has determined that. In your packet, you’ll see a memo with a article language in the action of the committee. The land is located off of Carver Road-Route 80 as you best way to describe it. If you were to go out on Carver Road and you would get on Route 80 and head out past towards Sacred Heart before you come to Parting Ways Cemetery on the right, on your left, you’ll see some town owned land behind that is Camp Norse. The entrance to Camp Norse is a little past going into Kingston past Sacred Heart on your left. So, this land is in West Plymouth and this land directly abuts the town well, and it’s out by Darby Pond. And again, it’s 99.5 acres.

The rationale for this article is really about water protection, drinking water protection. We have a well in this area, we need to protect it. This area is also a community ground well which is servicing the residents of Plymouth. It has been identified from numerous state agencies, state and federal agencies as a groundwater and surface area of protection because we have Darby Pond next to our well. Town well is there, but this land that we’re talking about abuts both properties, the Darby Pond and Darby Well.

There are two zones in this area that we need to pay a great deal of attention to where the cone of influence is, where we do activities that might hamper a well’s productivity and its water quality. And that’s the Zone I and the Zone II. This acquisition would protect both Zone II and both Zone II. Those are the highest zones of protection that we want to pay attention to. it’s been identified by the Commonwealth Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Affairs as a high yield aquifer area. So, anything we can do in this area is critical to that.

As I mentioned, the priority that motivated us around this area was protecting the town well. Obviously, the town well, if it wasn’t working, we’d have to establish a new town well and we’d have to build millions and millions of dollars of infrastructure to redirect water services to different residents. So, I think we’re seeing all across the country where communities struggle with clean water. Plymouth is very lucky to be situated on top of one of the largest sole source water aquifers in New England. So, anything we can do to protect what’s under Plymouth is in our best interest in terms of economic development. But there is a unique opportunity out there where we can create trailheads and parking areas for passive recreational activity out on Route 80 as you’re heading towards Sacred Heart on your left. There’s been an area that we’ve identified that if town meeting does go forward and buy this property, we would build a trailhead with parking.

I think if you’ve been to any CPA acquired land, you’ll see that we build trailheads and there’s parking and there’s signage and there’s trails and this would be for passive recreational areas. This would be for hiking around this parcel of land. We will not be promoting any active recreational, there won’t be any baseball field or soccer fields. This is all about water protection, but we want to allow residents to access the property and hike around the property.

We are going to establish a buffer which we will not build any passive recreational trails near the campgrounds because the Camp Norse will continue to be a campground that’s about close to 40 to 50 acres left of the campground where the Boy Scouts will camp. That being the case, we wanted to make sure that we didn’t promote any hiking too close to their activities. We’ve offered to do this in exchange for a first right of refusal on the remaining acreage. So, they’ve agreed that if we do buy this property, the remaining acreage that they control, if they do go to sell it in the future, we would get a first right of refusal on it. So, we had an interesting discussion. I’m pleased to report back to the board and the community, the Narragansett Council, Boy Scout Council was a pleasure to work with. They were a great partner and now the owners are another council and we’re happy to report to the committee, the town that those negotiations went well.

You can see right here. I don’t have a pointer, but you can see down on the bottom that orange area, the highlighted orange area are the parcels we’re buying.

[2:20:03]                                                                                                                                                               

Bill Keohan:

Some of the acreage is continuous and some of it is pieces that are broken off. Those broken off pieces are directly on Darby Pond and they’re adjacent to currently on town land. They look like they’re kind of out there on their own but there is a town land there. To the far-left corner, you can see the remnants of a bog that was dismantled that the town acquired a few years ago with David Gould out of Darby Pond.

To the north, you’ll see a large purple area, that large purple area in that pond there was Lake Providence. But now, this area was owned by Sacred Heart. The Sisters of Divine Providence owned this land. It was close to over 300 acres of land. Our friends to the North Kingston in negotiations with the Shah family Foundation. They were able to acquire and preserve all of that land that’s in purple. So, that’s our neighbor to the north, an area of a cone of influence. So, whatever they can do in Kingston to protect this area is going to protect that well, because you can see down by the orange, the round area is the well where the town is and directly below that, that dark mass with the two little islands, that is Darby Pond.

So, you can see the massive preservation efforts going on to our north with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the conservation efforts there. And you can see um some town owned land directly north of that orange patch, that would be the town owned land next to Route 80. Then you see that dark line going through it, that’s Route 80 and the light purple area is Parting Ways Cemetery land all owned by the town. So, you can see, we have a nice swath of land in West Plymouth that will make for a very interesting hiking because you’ll be able to hike from former Camp Norse land over to Parting Ways into this other conservation land in the Town of Kingston, up to Lake Providence. I don’t know what the name is now. I think they changed the name, but that is the strategy on this acquisition. So, if you have any questions, I can take them on Article 9A.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

Bill, where’s the 40 acres that the Scouts are going to continue to camp on and that we have the right of first refusal?

Bill Keohan:

I wish I had my pointer.

John Mahoney:

Is there a pointer in the room?

Bill Keohan:

Is there a pointer in the room? No, I don’t have a pointer and this doesn’t seem to be working. It seemed to be pointing but it doesn’t work on that wall. Do you the round well? There’s some additional land next to it that comes down from camp, part of Camp Norse is in Kingston, because you can see the Kingston Plymouth Line and some of the land around there is in the town. So, that 30 acres over there is in the Town of Plymouth. 30, 40 acres remains in Plymouth that is part of Camp Norse. So, that would be the area in which we would not be buying. It’s the outlined orange parcel, not that other orange parcel. You see, maybe I can go up and touch it, maybe that’ll help.

Where Anthony is, is the piece that we’re buying. Now, if Anthony goes to the gray circle into the west and south of that circle, you can see another orange piece and another dark piece, John, those are the pieces that we’re not buying that are still part of the campground.

John Mahoney:

So, why are you highlighting the Plymouth side in yellow?

Bill Keohan:

That was submitted by the applicant. They identified that. But the orange, the outlined orange is what we’re buying. The un-outlined orange is what remains of Camp Norse in Plymouth.

John Mahoney:

All right. I thought those were identifying the purchases over the last few years of taking a couple of cranberry growers out of business. They had land that was in proximity to Darby Pond and the well and that’s not delineated there?

Bill Keohan:

That’s not delineated there in this map. I can provide a more–I think I’ll probably have a better color map for town meeting.

John Mahoney:

So, by doing this, especially with the two cranberry growers in this. I know the restrictions were lifted on that well where we were only allowed 400 gallons a day and I think that was lifted once the second cranberry owner came out of business and now, we can take 800,000 gallons a day out of that well. If I remember that correctly.

[2:25:15]

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have just one question, the land that you want to conserve, is it suitable for well on that land?

Bill Keohan:

Pardon me?

Charlie Bletzer:

Would you be able to put a well on that land?

Bill Keohan:

Well, the idea is that we want to utilize this land to protect the area around the existing well. See that gray circle? That Darby Pond well. So, we have a well there. Now, I don’t think we could add another well.

Charlie Bletzer:

No, no. My concern was if we conserve this land and something happens to the Darby Well, we can’t put a shovel on the ground there. And then I figured because Darby Well is right there, that land must be suitable for wells.

Bill Keohan:

So, if Darby well was to fail, you’d have to find a dramatic location for your new well. You couldn’t just move it a few feet away or 100 feet away. If Darby Well failed, this area would not qualify for desirable location. If the well failed, it would have failed for reasons that we would have to look at another location far away.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. Well, that was my question. So, it wouldn’t be suitable. Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone?

Steve Lydon:

Steve Lydon. Was the town ever notified that this land was up for sale? And did the town have a chance to buy this maybe for a new cemetery? With the first right of refusal on the extra 40 acres, will the town have the opportunity to buy that land since we’re so short in cemetery space or maybe another town use rather than putting everything into conservation and going to the CPC. If the town needed the land, I think the town should have the chance to do that. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. I don’t think we ever had the opportunity or were notified, do you?

John Mahoney:

May I?

Betty Cavacco:

Sure.

John Mahoney:

This started years ago. There was no formal communication. This started years ago, when The Scout Council announced that they were going to level 30 to 40 acres of trees on their property to put up solar farms to generate revenue. And I think some of us reached out to that counselor who established a line of communication, telling them that there were other ways of generating revenue. And the significance of this is the proximity of the land obviously to the well. Mr. Beder stood where Bill was a month or so ago and said, “We’re down two wells right now. We need to wells.” So, this acquisition is the third over the course of the last 5 to 8 years, strategically designed to get as much open space around this well. And I understand the concern with respect to conservation restrictions moving forward, but the primary importance with respect to the community is protecting that well. There were restrictions on that. I wish Mr. Beder and Mr. Gould were here. For years, you could only take 400,000 gallons a day out of that well because of the influence of the water being taken out of the well by the local cranberry growers and the impact they had on it. And once those two growers, their surrounding lands were taken out of play, I believe that the restriction was lifted and we went from 4 to 800,000 gallons a day. And that’s by buying land and putting it into conservation. And that map should delineate that, Bill. If you can get that for town meeting, that is a significant variable that has to be communicated.

Betty Cavacco:

I’m sorry, is that a private road?

Bill Keohan:

What was that?

Betty Cavacco:

Is that a private road?

Bill Keohan:

Into this location?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah.

Bill Keohan:

Currently, it is the entrance to Camp Norse. It’s a private road and a private campground.

Betty Cavacco:

So, we really don’t have the right to use a private road to access town property, correct?

[2:29:58]

Bill Keohan:

We can access this property from the north on Route 80 where we already own land and then there is areas down on the lower level where there are roads that come in from subdivisions that are accessible.

Betty Cavacco:

I mean, on the Plymouth side because I think that we’ve had residents here in front of us that have issues with the whole access to different properties around Darby Pond. So, I want to be sure that we’re not–

Bill Keohan:

That’s why we’re advocating that we have a cap that we build a trailhead on Route 80 to the north away from residential areas. So, not only would we would design walking trails in this area that would stay away from the campground, but it would be staying away from the residential units too. So, we don’t want to attract people into a residential area to park, to climb over someone’s backyard to get to a public land. We think it’s much better to be out on Route 80, safer because emergency vehicles traveling through this area can look over into the parking area and see who’s there after dawn or dusk. And so, it’s much better to have a trail head in a very visible location where they can be better managed. We’re not promoting any type of access down into these areas that would bring people into neighborhoods where there’s not suitable parking or access. But just going back to what has been touched on by John and Steve that the town has to balance the events of land use around economic development. This is a form of that. We’re protecting our wells, a form of economic development. So, we try to use the Community Preservation Act in a strategic way that protects the town against uncontrollable cost. So, if this well was to fail, we would be faced with an enormous cost trying to find a new location and trying to tie the town into that location. So, I’m sensitive to what Steve has brought up. We’re not trying to put all the land and Plymouth into conservation. We’re trying to balance growth and development and protect our resources.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Bill, I’m just going to ask my famous question. In the future, if the town needs to move water, would they be able to do it with this restriction if they had to say go through the property after we’re gone or something happened and they had to move water to another part of town? Would the restriction restrict that?

Bill Keohan:

So, in the past, I’d worked with the engineering department. So, after town meeting, we’re drafting our conservation restriction. We’re putting in allowable usages. Sid [?] would always want to see what we were doing so that if he could buffer an area out for drainage or water movement or something of that nature that was allowable would run that by the EOEA to see if they were okay with that. But we have been doing this in recent years by working with the engineering department to make sure that our CRS are accommodating these drainage water issues that might come up as the town grows.

Dick Quintal:

I wasn’t referring to drainage, but I’m glad you touched on that. I’m actually talking about piping. Say they have to move water to another part of town, can they do it underground there?

Bill Keohan:

You could you could theoretically pipe through this area and then replant it, yeah.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. That’s all. Okay, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

All right. Do we have–

John Mahoney:

So, Bill, I don’t like this map. Okay? So, I would shift that map up, the yellow and the orange would be shifted up into the center and I think you have to delineate those two cranberry bog purchases because this is the third purchase. It’s all about protecting that well. And I would delineate one of the cranberry bog purchases where that is on the map and maybe up in the upper left-hand corner the date, the purchase price and what you did there and then the second one and that this has been a series of proactively investing in land around the well to protect it. Just so the town meeting knows the history there. Just a suggestion.

Harry Helm:

I move approval.

Betty Cavacco:

Is there a second? All those–discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

Anthony Senesi:

Madam Chair, who seconded the motion?

Betty Cavacco:

Harry–oh, Charlie, I’m sorry.

Anthony Senesi:

Charlie, thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Article 9B.

Bill Keohan:

9B. Before we go into 9B, I forgot we had actually a better map. There you go, John. It’s a little bit better, but I will work on a better map. Okay. Article 9B.

Dick Quintal:

You do have to do that. There we go.

John Mahoney:

So, just go back to the map. What was in red?

[2:35:03]

Bill Keohan:

That’s what we’re acquiring.

John Mahoney:

And we’re acquiring all that. Oh, okay.

Bill Keohan:

And so, I’ll work on that.

John Mahoney:

Well, you can see where the well is, the rounded area up there, that’s the northern on the map, that’s the upper head to the well. And then these cranberry bog areas and then down that bottom left below the pond there. You want to add those in.

Bill Keohan:

I will work on that. Article 9B, Spire Theatre. It’s a historical recommendation for the rehabilitation, restoration of an 1884 former Methodist Church, former Beth Jacob Synagogue Community Center. It was acquired with CPA funding by town meeting in the year 2012. Since 2012, there was also money at that time, not only to buy the property, but there was money set aside for retrofitting the building with some updated safety features, fire suppression systems, ADA compliance. It was then leased to the Greater Plymouth Performing Arts for 100 years beginning in the year 2012. They took over the building. They worked on these improvements to bathrooms, ADA compliant bathrooms. They did structural analyses, they wrote grants, they received grants, they did a great deal of improvement to this building. Its lighting, Its sound, its heating, its cooling. They actually did a series of engineering reports to analyze the structural integrity of the building. It had some movement that was going on in some of the walls and that had to be arrested. And they worked over the last several years raising money dealing with these issues. So, I do have Bob Hollis here tonight. He’s going to get up and talk about some of the things that they’ve worked on and what they’re working on. The recommendation is for $3.6 million. The committee recommended $3.6 million. The packet that you received has an analysis done by Sullivan Vogel. They’re a building conservation specialist. They spent several years working with GPAC analyzing the historical integrity of the building and the site doing estimates. We felt that we needed to go on the higher end at 3.6 because we are concerned about the bidding process. We wanted to make sure that they had the money to put this out to bid to do what they wanted to do. There was different numbers that was presented in their application. Those numbers were a concern to us due to the fact that we needed to be sensitive to the current economic conditions in terms of when you send out a request for a bid and how much it’s coming in. So, we want to make sure that we were covering what they wanted to do because the work that they’re planning to do is not only restoring the facade back to its 1884 appearance. They’ve done a pain analysis of the building. They’re going to bring it back to its original monochromatic colors of green and brown that were very popular at that time. This is going to be a great compliment to our Courthouse Square and the building that we’re in today. The 1820 Courthouse is of the same era, 1884.

Some of the colors that we found in the walls on the painting in the 1820 Courthouse, we found in the style of the building. Just like today when you drive around, you see a lot of colors on houses and buildings that look like HDTV, all kind of subway tiles and creams and silvers and grays. Back in 1884, they had a different palette and it will be brought back to that palette.

The community benefit has been significant with Spire. They’ve been there since 2012. The updates they’ve done to the building, the shows that they’re having, a track of demographic that come to Plymouth. They spend time here in our hotels, they spend time in our restaurants and they spend time in our shops. The benefit of the arts in your community is quite significant. We’ve seen that with the Center for the Arts on North Street. That was a CPA acquisition. We came back a second time on the Center for the Arts looking for additional funding to reconfigure their foyer and their interests and their elevator. These two buildings complement each other only a block and a half apart. They are kind of our art renaissance in downtown Plymouth. They’re diversifying the economic development opportunities in our downtown. You can see here, this is what the building looked like at around the time that it was built in 1884. You really can’t see because it’s kind of a black and white but you can see the features of the building. We’re starting to see these features right now because we are working. Right now, the Spire Theater has been putting up staging. They’re putting a new roof on at their cost. They were able to have a capital program and grant writing and they were able to put their roof on.

[2:40:11]

Bill Keohan:

And they’re taking off pieces of the aluminum siding and that is leading to an investigation of what’s under the aluminum siding. What we’re finding is that we have a significant amount of historical integrity in downtown Plymouth. This Victorian, Queen Anne style gingerbread shingle style building is very unique. The integrity of its facade is quite remarkable because after 60 years of covered with metal siding behind it is something that hasn’t been touched or seen in generations. So, we have a lot to work with. And the building conservation specialists who are working with GPAC have done a great deal of analysis on the exterior facade. This expenditure will not only cover the exterior facade, but it’s going to be doing some structural work, not only in the steeple, because after over 100 years, the steeple is going to need some structural integrity dealt with it. There’s some gable ends that currently, you can see some structural uh, reinforcement on some of the gable ends. If you have looked at the building, you would have seen this. This is something that’s been going on for some time where they modify it to arrest the movement in those gables and once they stabilize them, that will be part of this restoration, the final stage of stabilizing of the building.

Here are some of the drawings where they’re depicting the areas of restoration on the exterior. And you can see here that it’s the entire envelope of the exterior of the building, front, back, side. And as you can see, the building is of significant architectural value. The request again is for 3.6. We looked at the application, we looked at the different requests that were being made, the grants that they were going after, their funding. We looked at the estimates that we’re doing and we felt we needed to error on the side of caution at $3.6 million. The process will be that this will not go through the procurement process. Derek, the Town Manager, is here to speak on that if you have any questions. We’ve had an opinion rendered on the fact that when we bought this building, we conveyed it to the Spire Theater for nearly 100 years and that would modify how we can utilize that funding. So, if Derek wanted to elaborate on that.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, I’m happy to elaborate if the board has questions. Would you like me to? Okay. So, yeah. So, again, this is town owned property, as Bill pointed out, it has a 99-year lease agreement. And because it has a 99-year lease agreement, Town Council has a pine that we will not have to follow the public procurement process. And the reason being is because when they look at a 99-year lease, they recognize that the 99-year lease will outlive the renovations of this facility. And so, because it outlives the renovations of this facility, in essence, it becomes solely for private use, the renovations enough for public use. So, for those reasons, Town Council believes that we wouldn’t have to follow the public bidding process.

Bill Keohan:

The GPAC would be required to put it out to bid on their own. And that bidding process is something that will be overseen by the building conservation specialist. And the way that the grant will be awarded will be under an agreement at different phases, different amounts of work is completed and were notified at that point. Usually, we tie it to the permitting process that if they go out and do their electrical there for their framing or whatever they might be doing, they have to go through different stages on inspectional services, which will be triggering the grant release. That’s kind of how we did the Center for the Arts in Downtown Plymouth. So, it was a grant agreement. The money was put in play. The same thing with the National Memorial Meeting House in our town square. The money was a grant agreement. We set it up where we were able to short-term borrow and release the money in a manner in which we could control the verification of work getting done to the standard in which we need to see it done. So, it would be done in a similar way that we dealt with the Center for the Arts on North Street and the Meeting House.

[2:45:01]

Bill Keohan:

Both of those projects though, we allocated money for those projects and the budgets came in, they put them out to bid themselves. And they did not draw down those accounts with the money that they spent was less than what we had recommended the town meeting. So, at the Meeting House and the Center for the Arts, there was money left over that reverted back into the CPA. So, this is the way of, yes, we’re allocating $3.6 million but we’re going to be very diligent on that process of keeping track of what money is going out, what it’s being utilized for and it only be drawn down as much as the work is done. So, I have Bob Hollis here tonight. Bob Hollis can kind of walk you through about the Spire Theater, who they are and what they do and how they do it.

Betty Cavacco:

I have a couple of questions. This isn’t going to circumvent the prevailing wage, is it? This bid process? And does this take–

Derek Brindisi:

It would, yes.

Betty Cavacco:

It does?

Derek Brindisi:

It would, yes.

Bill Keohan:

But we would welcome prevailing wage to bid on it. We have funded projects. When we renovated the Simes House, it was done by a union shop. So, we have put things out to bid at different times and it was done. I think there’ve been other projects that we have given CPA funding for that was not town owned. And they did end up using union contractors. So, everybody is welcome to apply for these and put their bids in. But it’s not an attempt to get around that process. We hope that union shop supply put in bids for this project.

John Mahoney:

The problem with that is that through the bidding process, there is not a level playing field. Okay? And it’s highly unlikely that they will. With that prevailing wage isn’t the baseline, then those individuals, those companies that pay that, it’s going to non-competitive for them.

Bill Keohan:

Right. But it was like that at the Center for the Arts on North Street in the Meeting House and there are examples where we were able to competitively accepted bids from union shops.

John Mahoney:

If you look at the baseline at the state level, if you look at the model school program at the state level, they have that baseline. So, when we executed North High School and South High School, after those workers, in each of those jobs were half a non-union, half of them were union because it was a base level that everybody was bidding off of, if you will. There was a minimum required for the fiscal package that you were going to give to your employee. And with this, it goes right out the window here and I will turn it back over to the Chair.

Bob Hollis:

I think the Spire Center has been a real point of pride for the last 8 to 10 years for the Town of Plymouth. Here, we’re taking a building that really was not going to have any use at all, was in disrepair and becoming worse and worse. Now, we had the opportunity to bring it back to what it looked like in 1886. We found taken off a lot of that siding that they had to remove a lot of the decorative molding and special architecture in order to put up the aluminum siding. And a good part of this will be put going towards that as well. But in doing this, we’re not only preserving a building, we’re bringing some culture into town. And at the same time, it’s been a really, really great economic stimulator for the downtown. I know there’s real estate people right now that will say many people move downtown because they can come to a place to go see a show, go to the restaurant. Just the Greater Plymouth Performing Arts Center is the group that runs it. We are a volunteer board but since that point, we’ve grown so much. Our budget is up to about $700,000 a year. Now. We have two full-time employees. We have an economic director. We have a marketing director. When we have shows on, we have probably seven people were hired to put those shows on and many volunteers too. So, it’s not only done that, but we’ve sell over 20,000 tickets a year now. And 70% of those people come from outside of Plymouth. We can tell because we have all of their ZIP codes when they do that. So, it’s been a tremendous boom to the downtown area and to Plymouth itself culturally, economically. Now, we’re looking to do something from the preservation standpoint too.

[2:50:05]

Bob Hollis:

I was asked to give you guys an accounting and I don’t know if you got this from the CPC but I can make copies available to you. Since the time that we were allocated the funds, we’ve raised $1,356,000 in addition to what the town did. What we got from Mass Cultural Council so far is $360,000. We’ve gotten from the Mass Office of Travel and Tourism, $200,000 to go towards the building. We have 75,000 that was granted to us to do all the preservation planning that we’ve been spending the money on. Now, we’re getting $100,000 to its marketing. The Mass Historic Commission granted us 85,000 to do a lot of those emergency structural repairs. The Plymouth Charitable Foundation gave us $100,000 to the building just recently. And since that time, because we are a non-profit, since we’ve been opened, we pay our expenses out of our operating income, which is unheard of for a non-profit. Most of the time, they rely on donations to do that. Since that time, any money that we’re making over and above and any donations have totaled up to $436,000. So, in total, we’ve raised $1,356,000. Where’s the money going? 362,000 to the structural reinforcement that Bill talked about. We put in $250,000 for an elevator. We had to do it and it’s become much more feasible in how everything works there. We did an interior renovation of $175,000. If anyone’s ever been inside, the Spire doesn’t look like much from the outside right now, which is what we want to rectify. But if you go in the inside, it looks beautiful. Even during Covid, we’re out of business for 16 months, we still did work because luckily, we also applied and received 450,000 from the Shuttered Venues Grant, which we can’t use for the building, but it could be used for operational expenses, which allowed our income to go back into the building. We’ve put, you see the roof going up now, it’s 175,000 we’re doing right now. Sound and lighting systems of 145,000, air conditioning, electrical, 39,000. And the preservation planning. We spent $1,221,000 since you’ve granted us the building. We made something of it and it’s something that’s going on more and more now. And as we go along in the future, this can become a jewel in downtown, just opposite what we have here, you’d be looking up and seeing that. And with that, it’s something becomes even more viable for what we can do. And I think it’s a tremendous asset for the Town of Plymouth. I hope you really support the article and I can certainly make this available too. In fact, I have enough copies for you now probably. And I’m available for questions as well.

Betty Cavacco:

Any comments?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a comment.

Betty Cavacco:

Any comments from the board?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah. I have some comments. We talked about revitalizing the downtown and this is the start right here, the Spire Center. It’s a gem and right now, it’s in complete disrepair from the outside and it’s an eyesore, but I can’t wait because there’s people right now that take pictures of it. They still love it. Even in the condition it is, but I can’t wait for this to get done, get it revitalized. Number one industry in Plymouth is tourism and the Spire Center is an important component for our tourism. What Bob said is true, people that go there, they don’t just go there, they go to a restaurant first or a restaurant afterwards and you can see it, you can see them coming and going. It’s very important. We have the Memorial Hall that has concerts. They have the Philharmonic. We have the Spire Center that has plays, not just concerts but they have plays and the concerts they have are not wild crazy. It’s real classical. I mean, some real famous artists that are a little older that come and play and the demographics, it’s a good demographic that comes to the shows. So, I just think whatever we can do to fix that building up, we have to do it.

We put 4.5 million into the Simes House. The difference is this is an operating venue that is making money and that has become an asset for the Town of Plymouth. Simes House unfortunately just sits empty. And I don’t mean to compare it, but I hate to say it, but this is very important. So, I support this 100%. I know it’s a lot of money and after the Simes House, I would be probably against it if I didn’t know how well this was run and what an asset it is for the downtown and waterfront too.

[2:55:13]

Bill Keohan:

The CPC took up that issue. They were concerned about the recent events around this project as we sort out what the next steps are. So, we were sensitive to that, but we felt that there was quite a bit of community resolve around this building in downtown Plymouth anchoring our village center with this magnificent building and we felt it was a good reason. By the way–

Charlie Bletzer:

People are taking pictures of it now. Well, before the scaffolding. I can see people taking pictures of the building. Imagine when you finish it, what it’s going to look like, it’s going to be a gem.

Bill Keohan:

I’ve stopped people taking pictures of it. And I’m saying, “What are you doing?” And they’ll say, “Well, I’m a tourist. I’m from Texas and we have nothing like this down there. This is a stunning example of New England Little Church.”

Charlie Bletzer:

And if you talk to the business people in that area, they’re all for this.

Bill Keohan:

My only one correction is the Simes House cost $3.8 million. Not 4.5.

Charlie Bletzer:

I stand corrected.

Betty Cavacco:

All right. Mr. Quintal?

Dick Quintal:

Bill, we heard what they’ve raised. How much is CPC actually invested in this building?

Bill Keohan:

So, the original article was for we purchased the building in 2012 for $350,000. And then we put another $275,000 into renovations at that time. So, that is the initial investment of $625,000.

Dick Quintal:

So, I’m just going to echo Charlie. I think it’s a great asset to the downtown and I see it all over Facebook. I haven’t been in personally yet because of Covid, but I’d like to definitely stop by and see a show or something but hats off to you and your staff, all the work that you’ve put into that. So, I’m going to support it for sure.

Betty Cavacco:

John?

John Mahoney:

Bob, you come back up to the mic. I agree with my colleagues and I’ve been there. I’ve seen you there, sell out shows and it’s a phenomenal little venue. And I remember it before the town meeting article for 625 were the purchase in the initial investment for stabilization how passionate you have been for years with respect to the acoustics and we got to do what we can to land this. And coming out of a pandemic, we’re sitting in earlier tonight talking about town meeting, but you’re going to push 20,000 people through that venue this year, correct?

Bob Hollis:

Yes.

John Mahoney:

And you’ve probably pushed a 100,000 in the last decade.

Bob Hollis:

No, more than that because we’re up to again closer to 20,000 a year. So, we’ve been open eight years. So, it’s probably 150,000 people or so.

John Mahoney:

So, what is the contingency plan? In the 3.6, what is the percentage that is in there as a buffer?

Bob Hollis:

Right now, we put this out to bid. We haven’t put out to bid, we put it out to a person who did us the analysis, how much it would be. They put in about $400,000 for contingency. That was done about a year ago when costs are even higher and they’ve come down somewhat. So, that’s in there already. Since then, the roof project was part of that original. Since then, we’ve done it. Since then, we’ve got the Cultural Facilities Grant and plus some money we’ve put aside. We’ve got another 300,000 ourselves that we can put towards it as well as a contingency. So, there’s a good amount that was written into it and there’s a good amount that we have with it as a result of the work on the roof and what we have saved up to.

So, our goal is like Bill said is not to use it off if we don’t have to.

John Mahoney:

You’re telling me that number is built off a figure that a year old right now?

Bob Hollis:

Yes. It was done last fall.

John Mahoney:

Right. And you had a couple of figures that this firm did. One was with prevailing wage and the other one was with not.

Bob Hollis:

Right.

John Mahoney:

And the difference was about three quarters of a million dollars?

Bob Hollis:

Somewhere along that line, yeah.

John Mahoney:

All right. So, this was just brought to my attention and I mean, Charlie and Bill were just talking about the price tag on the Simes House and there was an insistence for that project that it would be done by prevailing wage. And the stock market went down today as a result of the August inflation report and CPI and we’re sitting here talking about the price of gas and the cost of groceries and we’re heading into a winter where people are going to have to buy oil.

[3:00:13]

John Mahoney:

I wasn’t aware of this variable that was brought to my attention a couple of days ago. So, as we move forward, I hope that we can have some conversations here. I don’t know if that gap can be closed, but I don’t want to circumvent the prevailing wage.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Do we have any more discussion?

Ed Russell:

Ed Russell, Precinct 16, and I had a lot to say but you all have said it very well. So, I’m not going to go into all of that. The one thing I might say about the price is I’m proud of this building and I want to be proud of that building. I am proud of it now, but it’s going to be gorgeous. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Do we have a motion from the board?

Dick Quintal:

Motion to approve.

Betty Cavacco:

Second. Discussion? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Mr. Keohan, I’m going to vote yes on this but I would be remiss if I did not express my concern and annoyance that we were given 300 pages of backup for these four articles yesterday. I did not have a chance to read the backup on this particular article. It’s unacceptable to be giving us this quantity of information with one day. So that’s all I have to say.

Bill Keohan:

I forwarded that information–okay. All right. I understand. Well taken. I will make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

One of the things that and I can reiterate with Anthony if we don’t have information seven days in advance for the agenda item, then pull it off the agenda. We can’t have these amazing amounts of backup and only have a day or even two days, I think that’s why we wanted the seven days. So, if you get some kind of a backup, we know it’s going to be an agenda item, at least we get it beforehand because I don’t want anyone holding up a manila folder saying they got nothing. So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Okay, three positives, one no and one abstention, Mr. Mahoney. All right. Article passes.

Bill Keohan:

Again, Article 9C Stephen’s Lane Estuary Protection Project. Article 9C is about acquiring some acreage, 0.64 acres at the cost of $30,000. The land was appraised, its unbuildable. It is a saltwater marsh. It’s located on the northern end of Stephens Field at the foot of Stephen’s Lane. This saltwater estuary is taking on fresh water from as far away as behind Mount Pleasant in the hollow, making its way down under Sandwich Street behind the fire station. There’s quite a bit of wetlands back there. The water makes its way to the basketball court and then enters this estuary. This is the remnants of actually Stephens Field, the northern part of Stephens Field. Stephens Field was entirely once an estuary and it was land filled and this area is the area that’s untouched.

Now, the importance of water moving through this area is important for the town to manage that event. Also having an estuary that’s under the control of the town, it’d be simple control of the town. We can better manage it for storm surges. As I said before, it’s zoned waterfront. It’s unbuildable. It was appraised for $30,000 and that’s what we’re requesting.

[3:05:06]

Bill Keohan:

This area that has been identified by Mass Natural Heritage and Endangered Species is an important environmental habitat and it’s one of the most productive habitats that you can possibly have for making the ocean viable. Yes, it’s not a massive saltwater estuary, but it is adding to the health of Plymouth Harbor. Plymouth Harbor relies on a form of economic development in the tourist industry. People coming in boating and using our harbor. Anything that we can do to prepare the water to enter our harbor is a good thing. So, this saltwater marsh because of its habitat and its ability to strengthen the harbor and its water quality and its habitat is something that we should pay a great deal of attention to.

It’s in a critical area of environmental concerns, identified under a Bio 2 Map and it is an area where you do have quite a few migrating birds coming through this area and nesting and using this area. Again, the property is currently privately owned. We entered into agreement with the owners to have it appraised and the idea of buying this property and owning it fee simple, we’ll have better management of the resource.

And here, you can see the harbor there, you can see to the right Stephens Field, you can see behind that residential unit, right on Stephen’s Lane behind it, the estuary between those two houses, one up on Union Street and one down on Stephen’s Lane. The estuary itself, you can kind of see the current configuration of the lot line. It’s hard to see there because we are re-engineering the lot where we’re taking some of the backyard, but in terms of the estuary side of the property, but relinquishing some of the uplands to the property. So, the map shows what is currently existing there.

Harry Helm:

Please point out where this is.

Bill Keohan:

So, you can see the land that we’re acquiring is down on here. So, it’s all the way to the mouth of the harbor across and down and it falls the courage or the defense back on to Stephen’s Lane and up to this corner here. I have another map that I can show you that probably better illustrates that. You can actually see the new engineering plan where we show you what the configuration would look like. And this is what was appraised. We went ahead and you can see now the area in which we’re acquiring. You can see this area here, the line here.

John Mahoney:

Where is the ocean? To the left?

Bill Keohan:

The ocean is to the top page. That’s the harbor. That’s Union Street, that’s Fremont-Union going down to Stephens Field, the basketball court would be right here. So, this is the property we’re acquiring along this line.

John Mahoney:

So, are we getting into oceanfront?

Bill Keohan:

We’re not adding to the oceanfront. We are getting oceanfront, but it’s a narrow ocean front about 20, 30 feet wide to allow the water to come in and out of the estuary. So, there’s been a reconfiguration of the lot. It went from about more or less .5 acres to about .64 acres. So, I’m showing you what it is now and what we’re acquiring is that new engineered plan.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, Bill, I have a question. What are we going to do with that land?

Bill Keohan:

So, I’ve been talking to the Office of Marine Environmental Affairs. They would be looking at this as an opportunity to better manage this resource.

[3:10:05]

Bill Keohan:

That entrance is getting clogged and the owners don’t live in this area, the entrance is clogged. So, the fresh water coming into the estuary can’t get out. It becomes stagnant, it becomes problematic. And if the town owned it, the Office of Marine Environmental Affairs could better manage this estuary to allow the freshwater to go out like it should be going out. And with the entrance better managed and open when we have a tidal storm, these estuaries act like absorption areas. So, when the sea level rises when we have a storm and we have a surge, if the resource is better managed, it can better function as a surge area. We’re putting a lot of money into Stephens Field just to the south. And we have done a lot of effort to move infrastructure back away from the water because we’re expecting sea level rises there. We’re actually using the baseball field and other components of Stephens Field as kind of a surge area or absorption area for storms. And if we control this property, we can better manage it. It will help us during storms and it will help us better manage the freshwater movement out of this resource and into the harbor. So, if we control it, we can do that.

Betty Cavacco:

I think I remember when I was the CPC liaison, we had these conversations about this and you know what, anything on the ocean, I don’t care where it is, we need to grab it. I mean, this is a good piece of land. It’s part of Stephens Field. Stephens Field is going to undergo a $5 million project, so I fully support this. Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

So, building on that, Mr. Town manager, the Chair just mentioned the $5 million dollar investment down there. Is there a timeline with respect to going out to bid and potential construction?

Derek Brindisi:

Yes, that’s a great question. It’s actually a timely question. We had a meeting on Friday, September 2nd with DPW staff, park staff, recreation staff and the engineering firm who’s been designing this. I believe we’re about 75% design right now. We had a great conversation. There’s a couple of modifications that may need to be made. We’re hoping that once those modifications are brought to the committee for Bill’s review and the committee’s review, we can go to final design. And if things track correctly, we hope to go to bid in January time period, break ground sometime in early spring.

John Mahoney:

So, if that happens then pretty much Stephens Field will be off access to the public for the summer of ‘23, correct? Off limits.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, that’s correct. I believe it’s about a year and a half of construction period.

John Mahoney:

Oh, really? It’ll go into ‘24?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah.

Bill Keohan:

No, that’s correct. It’s ‘24.

John Mahoney:

Okay. So, I agree with the Chair. I can’t believe it was I think in 2006 with the DPW annex at 2.91 acres was determined by town meeting to go into conservation and take Stephens Field from 6 to 9 acres. And I know there was a purchase of what Bill on Sandwich Street a half an acre a year or two ago.

Bill Keohan:

Acre and a half.

John Mahoney:

Acre and a half up on Sandwich Street, that was an acre and a half?

Bill Keohan:

So, now, you’re taking Stephens Field overall up to 10 to 12 acres and it’s a great purchase.

Dick Quintal:

Motion to approve.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. And finally, 9D.

Bill Keohan:

9D is a Community Preservation Committee recommendation. Now, I want to walk you through a process that we became aware of earlier this year. For the last six months, the Community Preservation Committee was aware of that Brewers Marine on the corner of Water Street and Union Street was purchased by Safe Harbors. So, it had been owned by one company. Last year, it sold. The owners of the property did approach the town to begin a permitting process of taking down the 1857 Plymouth Foundry.  There, what you’re looking at is the 1857 Foundry and probably about 75% of what you’re looking at in terms of facade is still intact at this location on Water Street and Union Street. They had to go through a permitting process with the town. That was the demolition delay bylaw with the Historical Commission.

[3:15:00]

Bill Keohan:

The Historical Commission invoked that and did a one year stay of execution on the building from being demolished. Safe Harbors has to wait that year to give the town an opportunity to have a discussion about what we could possibly do to entertain the owners to a level of protection. Now, there is a neighborhood group that formed, the Bradford Street Area Commission and they have been advocating for a level of preservation that they have suggested. During this period of dialogue, the two entities, Safe Harbors and the neighborhood group entered into a conversation about possible preservation options. That’s when the Community Preservation Committee was contacted by both parties to look at a possible preservation of this location. We begin that process early this year. The Community Preservation Committee authorized the use of CPA funds to hire a building conservation specialist to examine the building’s condition.

Later on, the Community Preservation Committee authorized expenditure of funds to hire an independent cost estimator to see how much the preservation efforts that are being suggested by the different parties would cost.

This here is a picture of what we know as this would be zebra signs, I think at the corner of Water Street and Union Street. You can see there, that is Shire Town Motors. This building was renovated in 1940 as a car dealership and it received a coupler and a weather vane and it acted as Shire Town ford until about 1970 when Shire Town Ford moved up to Samoset Street. This building has been left really untouched and utilized by Brewers Marine as office space and now is controlled by Safe Harbor. So, it kind of gives you an idea of what it looked like around 1940. As you can see, it looks pretty much like it does today. But the most important integrity of this site here is that brickwork. As you can see, that brickwork on the facade of the building facing Brewster Gardens is the original brickwork of that building. So, the Plymouth Foundry is encapsulated in this 1940’s car dealership that has become a part of waterfront. It is the oldest building on Plymouth waterfront at 1857.

Now, the Community Preservation Committee in August 18th had to make a decision and they moved an article to town meeting for consideration knowing that we would hire the cost estimator and that cost estimator was going to come back with estimates on what the level of preservation would take place. I have those estimates. They’ve been made available to this board. I forwarded it to the estimates that came in today. We can talk about that a little later, but I just want to recap on some of the elements that are going on here. The application, this is kind of the blow-by-blow time frame of what happened at this site where Safe Harbors controls the property. There’s a permit, the demolition bylaw is enacted in February of this year. So, it runs out in February of ‘23. So, we in February ’23, the delay is over and the building could be taken down.

The neighborhood discussions came up with some ideas. Those ideas were taken up by Safe Harbors. They did some modifications to those ideas. The application is currently on file with the CPC and Safe Harbors continues to work with the CPC and cooperating on this research. And again, this is what Safe Harbors initially proposed for the location. They would tear it down, go up 35 ft with this boat storage facility. This is what kind of struck a chord with the residents of Plymouth, worried about our waterfront taking on a very large building that kind of looks like it belongs in the shopping center. Some people have called it Walmart on our waterfront. It is quite startling in terms of its design. And you can see here that the neighborhood group had entertained this idea of how about if we scale, not encroach on the square footage of the storage facility, but maybe save the front building and change the materials. So, Safe Harbors and Plymouth, the Bradford Street Neighborhood Group went into this conversation. This was kind of an idea that the Bradford Street Neighborhood Group came up with.

[3:20:01]

Bill Keohan:

They took it under consideration and Safe Harbors came back with this and they have proposed saving the front section of the building. And here’s some existing conditions. What Safe Harbor is now proposing is they would build their facility in the back of the location and they would save the front of the location. Now, this is something they’re cooperating with us on the research of it. In the end, right now, Safe Harbors is going through a permitting process to take the building down and build their facility. They have to go through that permitting process because that’s the permitting process that’s out there in front of them. They have indicated to us and the CPC is aware of it and I think the neighborhood group is aware of it that if they were to save a portion of this building, they would be required to go through a more complicated permitting process, a special permitting process.

Now, the town has looked into that permitting process and has outlined the different things that they would have to do. That complicated permitting process is something that they will decide whether or not to move forward based on how town meeting response to this. If town meeting moves forward and takes up this article and decides to move forward with it, Safe Harbors would come to the table and start talking about how we preserve the front of the building. But they would not move forward if they felt as if they didn’t have community support because now, they would be going through the Zoning Board of Appeals and they need to make sure that people are confident that this is something that everybody wants to see.

Now, the current plan of the building is that when we sent it out to a cost estimator or the cost estimator started looking at what it would cost to stabilize the facade of the building, the exterior of the building. That cost was concluded to be approximately $488,000 to stabilize the facade of the building, the roof, the cupola. That was the estimate that we received today. There was a second estimate that was provided for the interior of the building. And that would be at $244,000 bringing the total cost of the project to $733,000 approximately. And the interior renovations would create one section would be business office suites that they could rent out. But the section on the building on the far left that entrance, that’s currently I think a graphics company, that entrance would be an entrance to a public bathroom that would service Brewster Garden’s waterfront, the hatch shell. On that side of town, thousands of people are coming to this location to watch concerts and there is no bathroom. And so, this section over the building would have a small foyer where a family can come in and get oriented, pick up some information about where to go and a bathroom and that would be accessible by the residents of Plymouth during functional hours that we would work with Safe harbors to utilize. If that was the wish of Safe Harbors, if we do move forward.

Again, the exteriors I think I outlined at 488,000. The interior around 244 leading to about 231, I think my math is 233 actually. And I thought I had something else. No, I guess I don’t. I guess I just click through it. I thought I had another photograph. So, it’s important to note that right now the CPC has moved an article to town meeting for consideration. At that time, we did not have a dollar amount. The decision of the committee was that we would wait for these estimates to come in and we would take up that dollar amount. The committee will meet on Thursday at 7:00 to look at those estimates to see if they want to move forward. It will be at the pleasure of that board whether or not it moves forward. But for the logistical purposes of when our warrant opens and when we put articles on our warrant and deadlines that we must adhere to, if we did not move the article on the 18th of August, the article would not have gone to fall town meeting and Safe Harbors has indicated that then if we were not going to entertain it at fall town meeting and the demolition ran out in February, they would move forward, take down the building and build that storage facility as planned. So, we reserved and we recommended, we forwarded an article to the warrant and now, we’re going to consider that number. I would entertain how you’d like to move forward because typically when we move an article to town meeting, the article language may not have a number in it. And we modify the number in the motion prior to town meeting. But this is a significant amount of money. And we have a cost estimate around $733,000.

[3:25:01]

Bill Keohan:

So, we know what the motion might look like and entertain what direction you want to go in. Whether you want to entertain this tonight or you want to wait for the CPC to meet on Thursday, it’s up to you. But–

Betty Cavacco:

My feeling, I don’t know if–

Bill Keohan:

My remaining sentences there is that your thoughts at this time uniquely would be helpful to the CPC. As it deliberates on Thursday. This is an opportunity to weigh in on what they may do with that number. I do have someone here and I’d just like to recognize Kate Sekerak. She is with the neighborhood group that is in support of the efforts that are going on with Safe Harbors. Kate, could you just introduce yourself for a moment?

Kate Sekerak:

I’m feeling fuzzy. So, I can’t say how pleased we are to be at this point because last year at holiday time, it was looking pretty grim. Um, so we just want to um, say, you know, that we’re grateful to safe harbor for coming to the table. We’re grateful for everybody listening to us all this time. For the demolition delay, we’re grateful. As I listen to Bill, I think it does sound like a really great idea. I mean, not just the facade, the look, the fitting into the village, the waterfront, but even the use of it is really I think smart. And it is the last remaining historical building on our waterfront, and we have an opportunity now to do the right thing and save part of this building and save some of our history and stop the hemorrhaging that’s happening with the new building and the cookie cutter development. So, we’re so grateful to Bill for all the work that he’s done. And like I said, we’re just happy to be at this point because we’ve worked so hard because we believe in it and we just think like with the Spire Center, it’s our gem, it’s the waterfront gem. It’s another place where people will look at Plymouth and say, “This is special. This is old. It’s history.” Somebody cares about it. So, thank you. I won’t say anymore because I have to get to bed.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’m struggling a little bit with this, Bill. I’m usually in favor of. $700,000 for a bathroom, that’s what I see. And it’s a lot of money. I know I agree with you. The waterfront is being destroyed. The integrity, the buildings. But we don’t own that building. They own the building. Why can’t our boards, historic committee and our board, Planning Board make them conform to what we want. Isn’t that what the job of the Planning Board?

Bill Keohan:

That’s a very good question.

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s their job to make sure.

Bill Keohan:

But you got to understand, that building is not in a historical district and Safe harbors is pursuing as of right permitting process.

Charlie Bletzer:

But doesn’t the Planning Board have to okay?

Bill Keohan:

No. The only oversight the town has is the demolition delay by law that’s opened up this conversation. It’s not just about the little miniature visitor center and bathroom. It’s about preserving the integrity of the facade, leaving the streetscape intact.

Charlie Bletzer:

I mean, we have to answer to the taxpayers. The difference between the Spire and this is we own the Spire. We own the Spire. We don’t own this building. It’s a private company that’s worth millions, believe me, they’re worth a lot of money, that Safe Harbor. I’m scratching my head that we’re going to give them 733,000 to improve their building.

Bill Keohan:

It would be nice if the Plymouth expanded its historical district into this neighborhood because not only this building, but that neighborhood is one of the oldest neighborhoods in downtown Plymouth. We have buildings from the 1750s that are unprotected. So, it’s something that we should think about.

Charlie Bletzer:

That’s another issue. We got to fix that issue.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

I’ll make a motion to table this to a future date, and I’ll explain if I can get a second under discussion.

[3:30:10]

Betty Cavacco:

I know you’re going to make a motion, John and I’ll second it. But I actually think I already have an amendment to what you’re going to motion.

John Mahoney:

No. My motion was just to table this article until a future date.

Betty Cavacco:

I’ll give you a second for discussion. So, Charlie, you’re dead on. The significant differential here is who owns the building. But the most important thing is what Harry Helm had mentioned earlier with respect to getting a document today of hundreds of pages of data. So, we have time. It’s on the warrant. The CPC has not seen that just received the data today, just like everyone else. They’re going to discuss that 48 hours from now. It’s just my opinion. I believe the Preservation Committee should take 48 hours to digest that data, come to some sort of affirmative vote and then return to this board. The article is already on the warrant. It’s going to town meeting. Worst case scenario, I mean, God willing if that town meeting happens, that the moderator, the worst thing you can say is Article 9D no motion, no action and we move on to Article 10, 11 or 12. So, that’s it. I haven’t had a chance to look at this report. Okay? Mr. Helm earlier was spot on. You can’t get that volume of information and not have the proper opportunity to sit down and look at it. So, that’s why I’m doing this. There’s no problem with CPC winging on Thursday night and next Tuesday or the following Tuesday, William coming back and presenting again. So, I don’t know what you’re thinking, Madam Chair but–

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I’m going to let Mr. Quintal have a conversation because my opinion is–

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. I commend the CPC committee again. I think in my two years here, this is probably one of the most important things that I’ve seen come before the boards I’ve sat on. It’s a chance to save a piece of the waterfront that we’re never going to get back. And if you want to question it, look at Nelson Park, the house that sits right next to it and Bill agrees, that one slipped through our hands. That was a big, big mistake. We listened to the citizens. I understand that you’re looking at the documents we got, but sometimes that’s the way it goes. And those numbers aren’t in concrete and we don’t even know if they’re going to support those, but what I’m going to support this evening, I hope is to show the community that I support this project. And I in no way or even want to shadow for being in the way of this project. I was at the first meeting with Mr. Keohan upstairs in the Shallot room with the people of Safe Harbors. I get it mixed up with Clean Harbors, Safe Harbors. And they brought their attorney in and Bill and some others had to educate the developers or the owners, if you will all about the CPC and how it works. Quite basically, in layman’s terms, they don’t need to come before the town for any permit. That’s coming down and they’re on their way. They don’t need one. Right? They don’t need one special permit to do what they want to do. And I’m going to use the word a high building. I won’t say a skyscraper. But I’ve seen it happen down where Revere Copper is and I’ll tell you, I’m still not used to that yet. I’m really not. And one of the reasons I ran for this board, there was several, three: Water Street was one of them. It really was and the condonation that we’re building and we can’t control because we really have to start looking at the bylaws. And in doing that, expanding the historic district, that maybe this building would have been in it and we wouldn’t be where we are today with not a lot of trips. But I have to say hats off to Safe Harbors because they’ve been gentlemen and they’ve been watching. But again, if it goes to town meeting and it fails then they’re going to continue on their way and that’s it. There’s not another bite at the apple. So, I fully support it. I’d like to hear what the Chairman is. I’ve been hearing the same things you have, John for the last couple of days and I’ve done my homework and I really don’t want to get into that, as we used to call it years ago, dirty laundry. Keep it for what it’s worth. And if they’re going to vote on it Thursday and we can always at the moment to let you speak to that. But I support it 100%.

[3:35:17]

Dick Quintal:

I was at the table in the beginning because it was that important. I said, “This cannot happen,” and that’s what good negotiation does. And Bill hats off, you’ve done a great job.

Betty Cavacco:

Do you want to go?

Harry Helm:

I’ve got to leave right now and I just need to say what I’m thinking here. Whatever you decide, but we have to do this. Okay? This is too important to our waterfront and to our town. I got to run. But I have a question for you really quickly, Bill. Okay. Are you telling me that it is easier for somebody to destroy a building, a historic building even though it’s not in a historic district, destroy a building than it is to try to preserve it?

Bill Keohan:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, that is the case in our town right now?

Bill Keohan:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Besides expanding the historic district, I’d say Houston, Plymouth, we have a problem, a huge problem. That’s totally ridiculous. Bye.

Dick Quintal:

Well, we’re going to vote.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, can you give me two seconds? All right. So, this is what I’m thinking. I also support this project. I always support CPC projects but we don’t need Bill to come back in front of us. We can make a motion, approve the article, hindering on CPC vote on Thursday and just move forward. I mean, I love you, Bill but I don’t want to listen to you anymore this week or next week or before town meeting. So, I think having that, it’s the same thing is that you said, John except he doesn’t have to come back. As long as there’s an affirmative vote, we just move it forward.

John Mahoney:

So, you want me to withdraw my motion?

Betty Cavacco:

Or amend it.

John Mahoney:

I’ll withdraw my motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Did I second it?

John Mahoney:

I think you did.

Betty Cavacco:

All right. I’ll withdraw my second. And then I’ll make a motion to support Article 9D and as long as CPC passes on Thursday.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second that because I’ve never seen Mr. Quintal so passionate.

Betty Cavacco:

All right. We got to vote. All those in favor? Okay. Unanimous. Okay. All right. Now, Town manager’s report.

Derek Brindisi:

Before we do that, I will need the board to take a motion to execute the warrant.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. A motion to execute the warrant, the fall 2022 warrant.

Dick Quintal:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. And now, the Town Manager’s Report.

Derek Brindisi:

Okay. So, I know it’s late so I’ll make this quick but I guess the theme of my update tonight is just to provide a couple updates on some of the goals and priorities that the board had approved back in late August. So, as you know, we have a big goal to try to create more economic development in the community. And one way of doing that is being more business friendly. Right now, the Inspectional Service Department and the fire department, they’re working together to relocate fire prevention on the third floor and at the Inspectional Services Department. So, we’re hoping that we’re going to create this one-stop shop so when contractors come to Town Hall, they can file all their applications all at once and they don’t have to go to multiple buildings throughout town. So, we’re expecting the Fire Prevention Division to move to here in Town Hall within about 30 days.

A second goal that the board has designated is for the town to become a green community designation. Last night, the school committee had approved the town’s energy reduction plan and this approval is the final step for the town to submit for the green community designation. Once approved, we’re going to formalize a committee and that committee will start looking at green community projects.

A third goal we’re working towards and I wish Harry was here but we were notified by Beth Israel, the hospital here in town that they’re willing to provide a $10,000 grant to the CAL towards the age and dementia friendly assessment. So, again, we were going to town meeting for that. So, this will be a nice offset.

[3:40:14]

Derek Brindisi:

So, those are three goals that we’re making progress and we’ll continue to provide updates on the various goals throughout the remaining part of this fiscal year.

And then just a couple of quick updates. The roofing project at Pine Hills Fire station is underway. The phase two of the West Plymouth fire station is underway that consists of asbestos abatement and the demolition in the front living quarters. And then last, I see our town clerk is here, we’re going to start the promotion early and often, early voting will begin October 22nd and extend through November 4th.

Pending any questions, that’s all I have.

Betty Cavacco:

Any questions for the Town Manager or Town Clerk or anybody? All right. Select Board Open Discussion – New business/ Letters/ Old Business? Go ahead.

Dick Quintal:

I noticed in our packet, I downloaded quite a few letters from the new church. Whatever it is right here, all these, New Hope Chapel. Is there any reason why we have all these in our packet?

Derek Brindisi:

Did you want to take that, Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

There’s been a lot of publicity about the church they’re building on Long Pond Road. And I know you’re going to find this hard to believe, but there’s a lot of misinformation going out there about the size of the church and what the church is going to be used for. And I went up there just because one of the meetings, I talked to some people outside, they were talking about it. I said, “What are you talking about?” They said, the church and it’s been a tall timbers neighborhood. And so, I went up there and it happened that it was a good time. And when I went there and they had an environmental landscaper plus the pastor, Pastor Neil Eaton from New Hope Church and they just happened to be there. So, we were going to Drew Road. So, I said, “Pastor, I only get about 10 minutes, can you just go over what you’re doing here?” And I asked him some questions: service times, things that I won’t get into right now, but I have to listen to him. I said, “Why would anybody be against this project?” And apparently, he’s got a neighbor that says he’s going to hurt the aquifer and the landscaper was saying to me, his environmental landscaper and he’s pretty good at what he does, he was talking about how sustainable plantings and everything was going to do. And I said, “Hold your thoughts.” I said, “I want to bring a couple of people up here to meet.” So, we ended up having a meeting. Derek went up there, myself. Who was up there too? Who was it, Derek? You, myself?

Derek Brindisi:

Steve Bulletin.

Charlie Bletzer:

Steve Bulletin, I invited him up there too because I wanted somebody from the Planning Board and they just went over it. And I will tell you, it was fascinating what they’re going to do there. And so, one of the persons, she’s not here right now, that’s against it, I tried to tell her, “You got to go and visit the sites. Call Pastor Neil. Talk about what they’re doing. Ask your questions. You’re going to change your tune.” They’re going to have services there, basically. I said, “What time?” On Sunday, on Long Pond Road, Sunday from 8:30. They have an 8:30 and they have a 10:30. And they’re going to have police details out there on Long Pond Road doing traffic control. I mean, who’s on Long Pond Road on Sunday at 8:30? So, they got that covered.

And the rest of the time, he told me they’re going to have just small bible studies and things like that. And there’s 365 parking spaces, not 800 parking spaces. They’re going to do a little outdoor venue, but I have one next to me in the Methodist Church next to me and I hear them at 9 0’clock in the morning. It’s not a big deal. What you’re going to hear, what they’ll tell you is they’re going to put walk-in trails on that property and they’re going to try and work with the Wild Lands Preservation because they abuts, trying and hook up with them. And what they’ll offer to them is you can use our parking lot because there’s no parking at the Wild Lands Preservations.

[3:45:02]

Charlie Bletzer:

So, they can let them use the parking lot and walk the trails. And also, they’re going to put a soccer. The only grass they’re going to have that’s going to need irrigation or fertilizer or whatever would be the soccer. They’re going to build a soccer field and it’s going to be for the community. The community can use it.

Once you listen and ask all the questions, it’s a pretty good project. So, they’ve gotten a lot of opposition. There are signs out there. They’re making signs against it. So, all these people, those who are in favor that was sent, that’s why we have sent those. I don’t think they’ve gotten before the Planning Board. They haven’t gone before the Planning Board yet but this thing hasn’t even started and there’s already opposition and it’s because of misinformation. And all I can say out there, anybody that’s against the project, get a hold of Pastor Neil, set up an appointment, go up there and listen to what they’re going to do. You’ll change your tune. So, anything else, Derek? You were up there.

Derek Brindisi:

No, that was perfect. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

I’ll just say one thing for the community. I sat with Mr. Hayward today and it’s the family that lost their house and we all came together and their little son there, Carter got a little motorcycle in. So, we had that tragedy and we called out on the locals to help us. And Mr. Bletzer, he was the collector and Betty helped me also. And I’m just going to name a little bit. I’m not going to get into amounts. The Plymouth Fire Fighters Local, 1768, the Plymouth DPW Department, I was contacted by Barbie Hackett for the Johnnie Hacket Memorial. He lost his son several years ago. Plymouth Education Association of the School Teachers, Plymouth Police Relief Association, Anna’s Harborside, Shire Town Glass, Breach Property, the Cabby Shack and of course, we did Monday Night Pizza’s at Squinny’s. We had a boatload of cash donations from the citizens in this community and we also filled a Yukon twice with clothing and food to the point where they said, we don’t need anymore clothes. We’re all set.

I talked to them today. Their mobile home has been delivered on site. It’s a four-bedroom temporary. They started demolition in the house and they’ve been in it for about three weeks. And the oldest daughter was Cristina, she’s 12, Carter, that little motorcycle is 6 and Aubrey is the youngest daughter, she’s 5. And both the parents, Stephanie and Bruce are very grateful as am I to this whole community. Once again, Plymouth comes to the rescue and I’ll tell you what, being in the community, that’s an awesome thing. And I hope we have some more stories where community people help each other because that’s what makes it. So, that’s all I have and thank you all. I did promise to have adult beverages once a year so maybe I’ll bring you some peaches. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

I just have one thing. One of the residents contacted me today. All of our Covid tests expire in October. And they’re wondering if we’re going to be purchasing more Covid test as we move forward. I don’t know if we have funds for it.

Derek Brindisi:

That’s a great question. I just spoke to Chief Foley about this. I want to say it was yesterday. We have the opportunity to have kits donated to the town through the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. So, he’s working through Emergency Management and through the Health Department to procure us some kits as well. The ones that we have in place, they’re also working with the State on a shelf-life extension program so that those existing ones will be relabeled and the expiration will be extended. So, yeah, more to come on those kits. We want to be prepared in case there’s another variant or a wave this coming winter.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. And the other one more thing and I know I’ve been asking for almost a month now, the porta potties that are abutting the new comfort station down. One of them is actually on private property.

[3:50:03]

Betty Cavacco:

I’ve asked for them to be removed. They’re still there when I came here tonight. So, I’m not sure what’s taking so long but you know how I have so much patience.

Derek Brindisi:

Well, I can tell you that I was assured by the DPW Director yesterday that those will be removed. I don’t know the exact date but I want to say by the end of this week. I can get the exact date though, it’s in my email.

Betty Cavacco:

Perfect. Anybody else? Motion to adjourn.

John Mahoney:

So move.

Dick Quintal:

Good night.

Betty Cavacco:

Second. All those in favor?