Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 2-21-23 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board Minutes 2-21-23

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

Betty Cavacco:

Tuesday, February 21st Plymouth Select Board meeting. Would you please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

All:

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

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you everyone. We’ll call this meeting to order. The first order of business is the Pump Station Flood Barrier Wall – an ARPA Award–

Harry Helm:

That thing, do you want me to read it?

Betty Cavacco:

Yeah, read the thing.

Harry Helm:

It’s when I wish Dick were here.

In accordance with State Law 2475, and pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means and in-person. Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting may do so in the following manner: tune into PACTV government cable access channels Comcast Channel 15 or Verizon Channel 47 and watch the meeting as it is aired live or watch the meeting live on the PACTV website at pactv.org. Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting may do so in the following manner:

In-person, at the Great Hall located at the 2nd Floor at Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street, Plymouth; or remote, go to the Town website under the Select Board page and click on the Zoom webinar link or type in the PACTV Zoom link.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Okay. The first order of business is the ARPA Award Presentation – Plymouth County Delegation and Members for the Pump Station Flood Barrier Wall. Thank you.

Jared Valanzola:

Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the Board. For those who don’t know me, I’m Jared Valanzola, Plymouth County Commissioner and Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be here. I’m joined by Representatives Matt Muratore and Rep. Kathy LaNatra. Senator Moran sends her regrets. She couldn’t join us this evening as does my colleagues, Commissioner Sandra Wright, Commissioner Greg Hanley and Treasurer Tom O’Brien.

We’re really excited to be here to present the Town of Plymouth with $2.5 million in ARPA funds as you alluded to. This is going towards constructing a flood barrier system to protect the sewer pump station from extreme flooding and storm surge events that can be anticipated in this coastal location due to sea level rise.

Before we get to that, I just wanted to quickly offer an opportunity to Representatives LaNatra and Muratore, if they just want to quickly say a couple of words.

Rep. Kathleen LaNatra:

Thank you. This is wonderful. The ARPA funds have really come in handy to all the communities especially Plymouth. You’ve done very well to Plymouth. So, thank you to all the Commissioners and Tom O’Brien and we really appreciate it. And thank you.

Rep. Matt Muratore:

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. The Commissioners went on a limb years ago to get this money. I congratulate you for your coverage to do that. It wasn’t easy. I know the state was not happy about the county getting money but we as a delegation supported it, bipartisan support to do that because we had confidence in the County Treasurer and the County Commissioners. And also, that we knew the money would get out faster and more money would come to the cities and towns. And I don’t know how much the town of Plymouth has received over the last few years but it’s over 10 million, I think.

Betty Cavacco:

I think it was all together with ARPA and CARES, I think it was over 21 million.

Rep. Matt Muratore:

20 million, so we really appreciate all your efforts.

Jared Valanzola:

Thank you, Representatives. So, as Matt alluded to, just a quick back story. We’ve had the pleasure in the last couple of years of being able to go out and present amongst our 27 communities. This is my first time at a Plymouth Selectmen meeting so I appreciate some time to just quickly go over a little bit of that history.

In 2020, Congress passed a CARES Act which allocated funds to states, county governments, tribal governments, etc. Plymouth County being one of the few counties left in Massachusetts was allocated $90 million. And as Representative Muratore alluded to, the Commonwealth deemed that they would be better at administering those funds than the County of Plymouth. Plymouth County was the only county in the state that administered those funds. And what does that mean? What did that mean for the Town of Plymouth?

One of the things I did early on in my term was run a quick comparison of what towns like size to Plymouth County towns received when dealing with the state versus towns in Plymouth County. One of the things I realized was that discrepancy wasn’t just a few dollars here or a few dollars there.

[0:05:03]

Jared Valanzola:

It was to the tune of two and a half times more money was awarded to Plymouth County communities than what was awarded to communities outside of Plymouth County. What did that mean for the Town of Plymouth? Plymouth was awarded $9,538,693 from the Plymouth County CARES Act. The Town of Waltham, similar sized community, because it was all based on population nothing more, nothing less. Just your population. Their cap was $5,551,000. So, Plymouth did receive 4 million more dollars.

And that was a strong tribute to Lynne Barrett and her team as well for the hard work that they did in the applications, staying on us and advocating for us. I won’t steal Treasurer O’Brien’s line but I know that she’s made multiple calls to make sure that those funds got there.

When we got to the end of the CARES Act, the County was faced with having to get the money out the door. One of the things that we were able to do was purchase Covid-19 rapid test kits. As some may recall, there were certain communities that got test kits from the states and certain communities that didn’t. I live in Rockland. Rockland got test kits, but a town like Abington did not. Why? We’re not sure. Plymouth County was able to buy those test kits and distribute them to the tune of 42,196 tests, individual tests to the Town of Plymouth.

And last but not least, when we still had some funds left over approximately $3 million, we were able to award a million dollars each to the three non-profit hospitals in Plymouth County. So, Tobey in Wareham, Brockton Hospital in Brockton and of course, Beth Israel Plymouth. So, Plymouth County was pleased to be able to stand on the forefront of bringing some good news and hopefully helping your budgets, which I believe we did through what was a really down time and an unfortunate time. And we were able to do that with a lot of support from Representative LaNatra, Representative Muratore, Senator Moran, Congressman Keating, Senators Markey and Warren. And we’re very grateful for that support and for that partnership. And of course, the partnership at the Town level. That moves us to ARPA.

As we stated, our success with ARPA, I’m sorry the success that we have with CARES was so profound that we went from towns yelling at us not to do CARES. So, towns begging us to do ARPA. So, we’ve undertaken ARPA. And what does that mean for the Town of Plymouth overall?

We were the only county that did the CARES Act. So, we incurred 100% of the expenditure. And it should be noted that with the CARES Act, we spent 0.93% of our money on administrating. The national average is 3 to 5%. That meant more money for Plymouth and that meant more money for the other 26 communities. We got that money out far more quicker. Waltham did not receive their money nearly as quickly as Plymouth did. So, communities outside of the county got less money slower and it cost more money for them to get it. Usually, you can get two of the three right good quick and cheap. Somehow Plymouth County was able to do all three.

We’ve pivoted to ARPA. Thankfully the other three counties that are doing ARPA with us would include Bristol, Norfolk and Barnstable, which means we’re able to share that administrative cost, which again, will mean more money coming in to the Town of Plymouth through this ARPA Program. We are excited again to be back here with $2.5 million to date. The Town of Plymouth has utilized 4,750,000 from the Plymouth County ARPA Program, and the total allocation for the Town of Plymouth is $11,055,423.89. That’s just Plymouth County share of course. There are other funds that have come from other Federal sources for this as well.

So, that is all I have to say. Usually, it’s good to be the one standing in between money. So, I’m happy to take questions though but usually there are none when monies in the way, so.

Betty Cavacco:

I don’t have any questions, but a comment for folks at home that through the action of the Board of Selectmen or the Select Board, I’m sorry and working with the Town Manager, we were able to use ARPA and CARES Acts funds to offset some of our major projects would actually took the burden off our taxpayer. So, all of our monies that we’ve had for those were projects that would have eventually been on the taxpayer back but we are able to offset that with those ARPA and CARES Act funds.

Jared Valanzola:

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s interesting you mentioned that. A lot of communities now or a lot of counties and you may read that perhaps some of the other counties, Bristol and Norfolk in particular are getting the money out maybe a little faster than Plymouth but to that point, those counties and those towns did not benefit from the CARES Act, which means they have more immediate needs that they need to address especially in their budgets that Plymouth County communities we’ve found have not. I mean, Plymouth has been advocating. You’ve been the most checks we’ve gotten out the door so far. Again, that is a testament to Derek, to Lynne, to your entire team here in Town Hall getting these funds out and advocating as strongly as they do as well as the legislative delegation.

Betty Cavacco:

And we certainly can’t forget the two people standing behind because they are part of our delegation along with Sue Moran.

[0:10:05]

Jared Valanzola:

Never, never.

Betty Cavacco:

We can’t forget you. You’re everywhere.

Jared Valanzola:

Exactly. And we’re grateful for them. I don’t want to enough how well we all work together. And I think it’s a nice testament for what local government can mean from town level to a county level to a state level. We’re your neighbors. One of our commissioners lives in Plymouth. I live in Rockland. I went to high school in Kingston in Sacred Heart. So, we’re your neighbors, we’re your friends, we’re your local leaders. If you have a problem with us, you can call us and we’re going to be there with some far more immediacy than the state. And that’s not a put down of the state, it’s a big state but that’s the importance I think of local government and being able to work together as well as we do at all levels.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I think I can speak for the Board to say that we wouldn’t be nearly as far as we are with any of our undertakings without our state delegation. So, thank you.

Jared Valanzola:

For sure. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else? You’re good? You have nothing to say?

John Mahoney:

There’s going to be a photo op. I can’t believe Tom O’Brien was not here.

Jared Valanzola:

Picture time. Let me make note of that so I when I tell him tomorrow this went, no. He does sends his regrets as to my colleagues. It is a big county and sometimes we have to divide and conquer.

John Mahoney:

Also, a Plymouth resident?

Jared Valanzola:

He is. He is indeed, yes. Plymouth is well represented at the county level.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Well, like I said, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. And we want more so keep coming.

Jared Valanzola:

Yes. Well, I can tell you, you do have at a level three, I wrote this down so I didn’t screw it up but you currently have your application from January 19th, it’s currently at level three. So, it’s gone through the first two levels. It’s in the final step and we should be back here with some more money. You may have seen some of the reports. We had a flood at our office unfortunately and a huge testament to our team, we were not out of office for too long. I mean, it was about a day or two and we’re back up and running thankfully but maneuvering folks around certainly has caused a small delay but I know Lynne will be talking to Tom and making sure we get that money out as soon as possible, but it’s in process and it will be there.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. Thank you so much.

Jared Valanzola:

You’re welcome. So, I have the check. I don’t know if you want me to–

Derek Brindisi:

I think it’s picture time, right? It’s picture time.

Jared Valanzola:

Yes, for sure. I can give the packet to Derek that has to be kept for seven years unless the treasury tells you otherwise.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Well, it’s always a good day when the town gets $2.5 million. So, what could possibly go wrong today now? Give it time. Now, we’ll go into Public Hearings. We have a Public Hearing: Liquor License (Transfer) Sodexo Operations LLC d/b/a Creative Gourmet. There you go.

Ryan Shanley:

Hello. Ryan Shanley, manager on the record for Sodexo.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. And I see that you have three different hearings here.

Anthony Senesi:

Can you please turn on your microphone? Thank you. Can you please turn on your microphone?

Brian Shanley:

There we are.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Do you want to give a quick explanation of what’s going on?

[0:15:02]

Brian Shanley:

So, Sodexo Corporation, which is a large national and international organization has been the food service provider over at what is now Plimoth Patuxet Museums for the past coming up on 40 years. Recently, we have absorbed another corporation, Boston Culinary Group, which is doing business as Sodexo Live! In order to keep a current license, we are here for a transfer from Sodexo Operations to Boston Culinary Group.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Do the Board have any questions? And is there anyone that would like to speak in favor? Anyone that would like to speak in opposition? None? With that being said, I look for a motion.

John Mahoney:

I’ll move approval on all three.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second.

Betty Cavacco:

Great. We have a motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Helm. Any discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Thank you.

Brian Shanley:

Thank you to the Board.

Betty Cavacco:

The next public hearing is an Aquaculture License Requests for Connor Doyle for a new license, Connor Doyle for a new upweller and James Carpenter. And we have Mr. Dawley.

Michael Dawley:

Good evening. Mike Dawley, Assistant Harbormaster of Town of Plymouth. These requests really highlights some great work by the aquaculturists. Growing oysters is no easy task. They’re out there almost every day of the year. They were out there this morning in the freezing rain. It requires a large amount of money up front and you likely don’t make money for the first few years. So, the fact that we have these two requests who have grown their businesses, done the hard work, identified additional sites that oysters could be grown and they’re moving to those is a great thing. So, the Harbormaster Department recommends all three so for the new site for Connor Doyle, the upweller for Connor Doyle and the new site for Mr. Carpenter. We think it’s a great thing that they’ve done the work to permit, which is no easy task and they found additional sites so we’re very enthusiastic about them moving to the new sites.

Betty Cavacco:

Correct, great. Any questions from the Board? No questions. I look for a motion–or actually, is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this? And anyone in opposition? With that being said–

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Harry Helm:

Do we need to move approval individually or can we do the–are you moving approval of all three of them?

John Mahoney:

Yes, I’m sorry. Yes, I’ll move all three license requests simultaneously.

Harry Helm:

And I’ll second all three simultaneously.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Helm. Discussion? All those in favor? Great. Congratulations.

Michael Dawley:

Thank you very much.

Betty Cavacco:

Next is Public Comment. I believe Mr. Lynch will be first. Oh, no. I guess, she’ll be first.

Anthony Senesi:

Can you please turn on your microphone? If possible. Thank you.

Meg Sheehan:

My name is Meg Sheehan. I’m here as a member of the Boot Pond and Great South Pond Coalition and the South Ponds Preserve Coalition. And I’d like to address the January 25th, 2023 letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife regarding the conservation restriction on the Town Forest.

I am also a landowner on Great South Pond where the Town Forest is adjacent and in the area. The letter from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife requests that the Town take five actions in response to violations of stewardship duties that the Town has underneath the conservation restriction that the Town was paid for by the state. And this is a personal concern to me. I have spoken before with the Board about it. I’ve taken them out on a tour last summer.

For the last several years, there have been multiple violations of the conservation restriction. People have actually called and asked me to get involved to see what I could do to help. This involved trash swimming, human waste on the shore of the pond. This impacts the globally rare Pine Barrens and coastal plain pond ecosystem that is on the pond that the Town has a duty to steward and preserve for future generations.

[0:20:08]

Meg Sheehan:

This is a backup water supply for the Town of Plymouth and we’re very concerned about the state’s letter, which stems from the fact that the Town has decided to withdraw the power of the Division of Marine and Fisheries to issue citations for parking along Drew Road. So, we know that there has been vandalism several weeks ago, trees were cut along Great South Pond. And it was reported by a local resident to the police department who refused to take any enforcement action or response in regard to that and said that any violations of the conservation restriction or vandalism in the Town Forest has to be reported by the landowner in which case that would be the Town.

So, we are asking the town to respond to the public about how they are going to maintain compliance with the conservation restriction this summer. Thank you. Any questions?

John Mahoney:

I don’t have any questions. Through the Chair, I was going to say something under Old/New Business but Derek, if you look at the meeting minutes, I think we’re on the verge of discussing momentarily. They go back to July of last year. The first set includes a site visit or a discussion on a potential site visit that some `of us took. So, we were invited out there. We went with Ms. Sheehan, Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Bletzer, myself, department head and probably 5 to 10 other members of the public. So, I just want to make sure that we circle back and get the stakeholders together in a meeting hopefully before the end of March and discuss. Let’s make sure that we have a plan before we get into the Summer of ‘23.

Meg Sheehan:

Thank you. I believe there are other people who would like to speak on this as well.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, I have something to say. Mr. Brindisi, some of the information that Ms. Sheehan did state is incorrect and I would like our attorneys to follow up with that.

Meg Sheehan:

May I ask, Ms. Chair, what that might be?

Betty Cavacco:

It’s the issue of us withdrawing authority. That was not factual.

Meg Sheehan:

So, what the state said is not accurate in the letter?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Betty Cavacco:

That’s right. That’s correct. We just met with the state.

Derek Brindisi:

We just met with the state last week to discuss the inaccuracies of that letter, and they’re fully aware of what transpired with the Natural Resource Offices during those discussions.

Meg Sheehan:

All right. So, can you clarify for us then who will be in charge of enforcing the conservation restriction?

Betty Cavacco:

As soon as we finish discussing this with our attorneys, they’ll know.

Meg Sheehan:

Okay. Thank you. Well, I was simply quoting from a public letter. Good evening.

Lori Downs:

Hi. I am Lori Downs, Town Meeting member for Precinct 17. I wish to thank my neighbors of the Wareham Road area for being here tonight. Thank you. Did you know that a bus driver, Kristen Hiltz who delivers students to Plymouth Public Schools has been abruptly cut off several times on the Wareham Road-River Runway intersection.

Kristen writes, “I have been abruptly cut off at that intersection of Wareham Road and River Runway several times. More recently, this happened on two separate occasions with students on board. I was forced to hard brake abruptly to avoid collision. It was shocking and upsetting for the students. And thankfully, no one was injured. Both times I was traveling on Wareham Road and vehicles were stopped at the stop sign on River Runway at Wareham Road. As I approached the area where it would seem there should be a stop sign on my side, the car suddenly pulled right out in front of the bus. Both times the driver seemed completely shocked and confused as to why I hadn’t stopped.”

Elaine Williams in another letter emphasized, “The two-way stop at the intersection of River Runway and Wareham Road has added much confusion to our area. Drivers approaching the Greens area via River Run mistake the intersection for a four-way stop.”

[0:25:01]

Lori Downs:

My other letters describe drivers being nearly T-boned, witnessing rear-end collisions, witnessing drivers come to a full stop on Wareham Road, which is the right-of-way and they do this for fear of being hit by drivers running the stop sign. Also, pedestrians are almost getting hit while crossing this intersection including a three-year-old child.

Many of my constituents argue that this intersection should be an always stop since drivers treat it that way. If it were an always stop, it would eliminate confusion. Unfortunately, driver confusion at an intersection is not among the MUTCD warranted prescriptions for an always stop.

A recent traffic volume study done at that intersection sponsored by A.D. Makepeace indicates that traffic volume and crash data prescriptions are not met. An always stop has been denied on this basis. However, there is a prescription in section 2B07 line 5B, which states the need to control vehicle and pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes. There are many recreational and commercial amenities surrounding that intersection. These are pedestrian generators including an adjacent public playground and a YMCA daycare. I have letters from pedestrians complaining of nearly getting hit while using the crosswalks in that intersection. That area is designed to attract high pedestrian activity. I propose that an always stop would be warranted under Section 2B07 line 5B. Regardless, a solution to make this intersection safe and a solution to stop this intersection confusion needs to be established. Thank you. Should I give–he left. These are some letters but I also emailed you the letters as well.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Brindisi, could you make sure that we follow up with Ms. Downs’ concern. And I see the Chief of Police is in the back room so and all our engineering staff is here as well, so.

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. I know we don’t normally respond in the public comment but we have our acting DPW Director here this evening and our acting Town Engineer who had spent countless hours in this neighborhood trying to address this four-way stop. In conjunction with A.D. Makepeace as well. There are limitations for our ability to provide a four-way stop and that’s been communicated to the public at large, but we’re more than happy to continue to meet with them. But as you all know, there are standards that have to be met in order to in this case put a four-way stop and those standings have not been met at this time.

Lori Downs:

Thank you.

Joe Hutchinson:

Good evening. Joe Hutchinson, Precinct 17 Town Meeting member and I’m here also to talk about that four-way stop. First, I’d like to thank all my neighbors who showed up. We appreciate it. As a Town Meeting Representative, I believe my first job is safety. I think that should be the Select Board’s first priority as well. In my role, I feel responsibility to my neighbors and community and I’m here to request that you direct the DPW to install a four-way stop at the intersection of Greenside Way and Wareham Road. I believe there is significant risk of injury and/or error and/or accident at the intersection at that intersection and feel that a four-way stop would make the intersection safer.

Our community has pursued a multi-year conversation with the Town in pursuit of safety. We’ve talked to Town boards, committees and agents. I’ve spoken with Representatives Muratore and LaNatra’s offices, as well as Senator Moran’s office.

[0:30:07]

Joe Hutchinson:

And in that continuing pursuit, we’re now here to ask you for relief. Anthony sent us a note saying that we were going to be directed to talk to the Old Colony Planning Council. And the problem with that of course is well we would welcome a project with them, but we need a stop sign now. A Planning Council would take a year or two to complete that work. And the ongoing advice that we got in all those conversations was go ask the Select Board.

The Select Board is actually responsible for the roads and should have, as I said before, a priority of safety. Also, in Anthony’s note to us, the problem that the DPW cited was a potential loss of Federal Aid and torts liability. So, with respect to Federal Aid, I had thought that MassDOT allocated Chapter 90 funds. And I don’t know how the Feds get into that. And if you have any information on that, that would be useful.

As far as torts go, will there be torts liability when the accidents increase? I mean, torts is torts. So, anyway, I just welcome this time to ask you for a four-way stop at that intersection. Thank you very much.

Derek Brindisi:

Just if I could, I’m looking at some history on this conversation. The Parking and Traffic Task Force actually had taken us up back in 2021. And again, as I pointed out, there are standards. And the standards in which the case the Engineering Department uses. It’s the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Standards, and that’s the standard in which all of these requests are held up against.

And as I pointed out earlier, A.D. Makepeace is a part of this conversation. The intersection in question did not warrant a four-way stop, but I can tell you with certainty that I’m working with the professionals to my left. They are actively looking at other ways that they can make that intersection safer, other calming measures. So, maybe it’s not a four-way stop but there’s possible other strategies that we can use to try to help mitigate the risk that the community is concerned about.

Joe Hutchinson:

And we welcome any mitigations that the DPW might find appropriate. By the way, we have every confidence in the DPW. We think that they’re doing a great job and that in fact, they’re going by the numbers. The numbers are what they are and MUTCD is what it is, but we live there. This is personal for us. We see the danger. We see the risks every day. On the one hand, there are numbers that dictate against this. We see the folks who are taking the risks when they cross the street or enter that intersection. So, I’m not sure where the feds come in, where they–anyway. So, I respect the stance of the town and would just look for any relief that you folks can give us.

Betty Cavacco:

Derek, I’m sorry, is there any immediate action that Select Board could take because we are the Roads Commissioners.

Derek Brindisi:

I would say the best advice would be to direct the town to continue to work with the community on addressing that issue. And we are actively working on that. There’s no easy answer to this. But again, like all of our engineering, we have standards in building and wiring and plumbing. We have codes that we have to adhere to, and this is the standard that’s been set forth in this area of town. So, we’ll continue to try to find other ways that we can try to make this area more safe.

Betty Cavacco:

Can we direct the town to do it quickly?

Derek Brindisi:

We work as quickly as possible.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Is there anything that we could do maybe having a police presence or something on some busier times at that location so we can add some kind of safety measure right now?

[0:35:10]

Derek Brindisi:

I can certainly work with the Chief on that to see if that’s possible. We’d never say no, but we’ll do the best that we can.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay, thank you.

Anthony Senesi:

Madam Chair, we have J.R Frey and Al DiNardo that would like to speak via Zoom.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Lynch, do you want to go first? Because he’s been standing there.

Kevin Lynch:

Kevin Lynch, Precinct 5 town meeting member. I’m here to actually see a few folks would reconsider a vote that you took a couple weeks back to petition the Advisory and Finance to transfer $60,000 to print the Town Charter due to the fact is that originally it was kind of like printed and mailed for around $25,000 and then it became printed and mailed for $75,000. So, I’m here to, I guess call it plead to have you consider not spending an additional $50,000 for a publication that could be done for the original price somewhere around $25,000 printed and mailed.

One of the big reasons I’m hearing is that you folks want to get it out for March 13th, which is the PACTV presentation for the Charter. And they have lined up a number of people Advisory and Finance, Committee of Precinct Chairs. My guess is maybe even some of you. And that would be happening March 13th but yet, I did a little bit of digging and PACTV was not contacted to perhaps postpone that presentation. I would advocate that you postpone it to the middle of April. And I did some rough calculations March 13th is two and a half months before the Charter is actually going to be voted on by the citizens. And we hear time and time again how people’s attention spans are relatively short. The state law itself only requires you to publish it two weeks before the election. We’re talking I’m going to use the word rushing in to publish this charter two and a half months before the town election. If we could postpone it, get some really robust bids which myself I’ve been digging a little bit and perhaps have it be published sometime in March, hold it and then wait for let’s say I kind of said mail it out the week of April the 10th and 11th that’s a Monday, Tuesday. My guess is the people that have it there by Friday, which will be April 14th. That’s 35 days, 5 weeks before the election.

Now, these presentations will be happening if PACTV doesn’t postpone it, I hope they will, there’ll be other presentations. And also, just to let you folks know is that those people that are really, really interested in viewing this PACTV presentation, they’ll already have the charter. It’s on the Town website as we speak. So, again, I’m going to ask you folks if you would strongly consider not spending an extra $50,000 to go from newsprint to again, I got a little bit of education to something called virgin paper, $75,000, $25,000. Dare I say, shocks, I think a lot of us here in this room could probably do a lot of other things with $50,000. All right? So, I guess that’s the best I can do.

Like I said, I did a lot of research and I hope that you would reconsider the vote you took last time and rather than spending and costing the taxpayers $50,000 extra and I won’t go into the reasons why because some of you have expressed your reasons why. So, thank you.

[0:40:06]

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Kevin Lynch:

I’d love to answer any questions.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Brindisi?

Derek Brindisi:

Just so it’s clear. Last week, I went in front of Advisory and Finance and asked for a $60,000 Reserve fund transfer in order to support the cost to distribute the proposed charter to all the residents here in Town. I stated at that meeting that I was going to be working with Ms. Barrett, the Finance Director and her Procurement Team to go out one more time to seek better quotes from local printing companies and we’re actively working on that. I am optimistic that we’re going to get a number less than the number we went to A&F on.

I stated to A&F that if we were able to get a quote and a cost that’s less than the $75,000 that’s on the table right now that the remaining balance of those dollars would be returned back to the reserve fund. So, that’s the pathway that we’re on right now. The question of rushing this, it sounds like maybe even during my presentation that we were trying to meet a deadline. PACTV is holding a forum on March 13th as Mr. Lynch pointed out. Whether or not we meet that deadline is really up to the printing company to decide. Meeting that deadline is not going to move us away from doing our due diligence and finding the most appropriate costs for our taxpayers. So, that’s the pathway that we’re on.

The question about when to send this out, that’s a separate question. Should we wait the two weeks prior to the annual election or should we send that out as soon as possible so that folks have time to digest it? And if it happens to be in their hands in concert with the PACTV forum or the League of Women Voters forums, that just may be luck.

Kevin Lynch:

We’re kind of blurring timelines. I’m advocating getting it printed best price available and I can bring another price. I contact the printer. I’m not Procurement but to send out the charter four weeks not two weeks, four weeks before the election. I think that would really, really help the folks out. Okay? So, I even have general timeline here five weeks before the election. So, I think we really need to stop and reconsider this. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. You have?

Anthony Senesi:

We have J.R. Frey on Zoom and Al DiNardo. JR, can you unmute yourself?

JR Frey:

My pleasure. Thank you for having me. I earlier made some very brief comments via email regarding the request for four-way stop at the intersection of River Run and Wareham Road. Those comments are specifically germane just to the fiduciary responsibility that you have to the entire Town. I don’t feel that it is necessarily appropriate to put our roadway funding at risk. With that said, I do think that there are some additional options that could be looked into. Possibly, one of the simplest, if our traffic engineering folks would take a look at the possibility of adding a warning sign to the stop sign that simply says, ‘Cross Traffic Does Not Stop.’ That is a warning sign that is within MUTCD and specifically addresses some of the concerns raised by both bus driver and some of the residents. So, that would at least more fully inform drivers approaching from River Run Way or approaching from the Greenside that Wareham Road is a through Road, and is not stop sign controlled.

[0:45:01]

JR Frey:

The Town also is a Complete Streets Community and as such has put forth a project prioritization plan to improve the community and make it safer for pedestrians. However, when that prioritization plan was endorsed by the Town, at that point, Redbrook was just in its infancy and there probably wasn’t a lot of understanding of what the conditions would be. As well as in the sense that it is really intended to be an outdoor and walkable community right from the get-go. It was perhaps not perceived that this particular piece would be an issue but crossing Wareham Road is an issue for people of all modes and abilities. And we want to be able to let them do that safely. So, perhaps, we could reopen or continue that discussion and identify whether there is an appropriate complete streets project that could be pursued by the Town.

I don’t know where it would fall in the prioritization, but it’s another option for funding and would allow us to move forward with some improvements. Shared streets is another new grant program from MassDOT. I know that that has been used effectively by other communities to put in improvements such as RRFBs, which are rectangular rapid flash beacons and those are a light system that notifies drivers who are approaching a crosswalk that a pedestrian is waiting to cross. They have a significant success rate in improving driver compliance with the law that they are required to stop for pedestrians who are attempting to cross a crosswalk. So, that’s my piece. I think there are still a lot of options on the table that we can do to improve safety and make people feel safe and comfortable in our neighborhoods. Thanks.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Anthony Senesi:

We have Al DiNardo on Zoom.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Mr. DiNardo?

Al DiNardo:

Hi, Madam Chairman. I assume we’re still on Public Comment. First of all, I’m from Precinct 17 Town Meeting member. I support my colleagues with this issue, but I want to make a statement earlier about the County Commissioner coming forward. I know you’re limited in what you can say because this is Public Comment, but I’m glad we’re receiving millions of dollars from Plymouth County. The question I have is would we have received that money anyways? And I was struck by the fact that we were not given some sort of update of what their plans are for the Woodlot. This would have been a great time tonight with this good neighbor olive branch that has come forward from the County Commissioner. This Town went through a lot of pains last year especially Town Meeting came forward and the citizens with that vote. So, call it my North Shore political paranoia but I just think we’re owed an explanation of where we stand with the wood lot issue and what the thoughts are up on Beacon Hill. So, that’s just a statement I wanted to make. Of course, I don’t expect an answer from the Board, but I think the town is needed that at some point from the County Commissioners. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you, Mr. DiNardo. We also don’t know all the details of it, but I know one thing it’s not going to be, and that’s a horse track. So, okay. Anyone else on Public Comment? Great. Oh, I’m sorry.

Kate Barnes:

Good evening. My name is Kate Barnes. I’ve been a long time Plymouth resident, and I have been on Great South Pond for 10 years. I’d like to thank the Town and the Natural Resource Officers for their very professional and diligent work to keep Great South Pond as pristine as it is.

[0:50:11]

Kate Barnes:

Because it was really headed in the wrong direction. There were too many people doing too many dangerous things on that beach. I really thank the Town for their hard work and the Natural Resource Officers were just amazing, and I hope the service will continue because it makes a tremendous difference on a Great South Pond. It’s a great pond of Massachusetts and it should be protected. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. Okay. Next order on the agenda is License and Administrative Notes. Do we have–we have quite a few of them. Do we have any questions or concerns with any of them? And if not, I look for a motion to move as a group. Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I just have a couple observations of some editing that may be needed on a couple under Administrative Notes under the Open Session meetings. Number 8, the Open Session minutes for October the 4th on page 4 under the discussion of the Christian flag at Thanksgiving. Mr. Wrestling Brewster is referred to as Mr. Wrestling, and I just thought this is a conversation that may be accessed at some point in the future and people may want to know Mr. Brewster as opposed to Mr. Wrestling. Okay. Secondly, on Administrative Note #12, the Open Session minutes of November 15th page 6, it states that Mr. Helm myself noted that the red line version is mailed. It needs to be corrected. I requested that the red line version be mailed. At that point of presentation, it had not been determined that a redline version be mailed. And I in fact, requested that. And I would just like that adjusted. Thank you. But other than that.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Anyone else? I look for a motion to move as a group.

Harry Helm:

Motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Second?

John Mahoney:

Second then I assume we’re referring to 1 through 14?

Betty Cavacco:

No. We’re referring 1 through 30.

John Mahoney:

All of them? Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

You still second?

John Mahoney:

Yes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. A motion by Mr. Helm, seconded by Mr. Mahoney. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Next, we will go into our Special Town Meeting Articles. Mr. Brindisi?

Derek Brindisi:

So, the first one is Article 4 – Capital Improvements. Lynne, is there anything specifically you wanted to present on Capital Improvement?

Lynne Barrett:

So, there are four items on Article 4. Two of them are projects that went before the Capital Improvements Committee and were ranked under the ranking process, and those are items that had to come before the special versus the annual because of timing. Either the vehicle needs to be replaced or secondly, with regards to grant funding for the Bridge Project. So, that’s why those two items are on the special on the Article 4. The other two projects are like plans and studies that have been asked for by particular departments, police department and the Town Clerk’s Office. Those aren’t capital projects. Those didn’t go before CIC but they just go before town meeting through Article 4 because Article 4 also includes plans and studies.

I believe the departments whose projects are here tonight, if there are any specific questions but that’s what’s before you.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions? Do I have a motion?

[0:55:01]

Dick Quintal:

Motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Quintal, seconded by Mr. Helm. Discussion? I mean, I’m sorry, Mr. Mahoney? Mr. Quintal? Mr. Mahoney? Discussion? No. All those in favor? Unanimous. Next is Article 8.

Derek Brindisi:

All right. Good evening, everybody. So, I’m here to talk about Article 8. Article 8 is to Amend the General Bylaws, to amend Chapter 71 and add Section 10 to the bylaws. And in summary this language as written on your agenda this evening will allow the Select Board to accept land as donations. So, right now, as you know, under the statute in order to accept land as a donation, it has to go to Town Meeting. In a community that we oftentimes get donated land, what we’re proposing here allows us to be a little bit more efficient. Whoever says no to donated land? So, we figured by proposing this General bylaw, we can make government a little bit more efficient by accepting that through the Select Board and then moving swiftly on acquiring that land.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have any questions for Mr. Brindisi? Okay. Motion?

Dick Quintal:

Motion.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Quintal, seconded by Mr. Helm. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. Article 9 – Municipal Airport Capital Supplemental Appropriation. Mr. Cardillo?

Matthew Cardillo:

Madam Chair and the rest of the Board, thank you for having me. I’d like to introduce myself first off. I know the face is probably different than you’ve seen the last three decades representing the airport. Back in June, Tom Maher decided to retire and I was lucky enough to take on that position. He had 27 years of dedicated service to the Town, the Airport Commission. And I talked to him the other day and he’s loving retirement. So, he already has 500 miles in this year on his bike so he’s excited.

I come before you today because we have two separate projects for supplemental appropriation. One is a hanger that is owned by the Town that the State Police Air Wing Department is in. There’s an insulation issue. That money was appropriated last spring town meeting, $100,000. We wanted to up that to $150,000 due to increase in the cost of construction right now.

The second is for an environmental assessment that’s being done after the master plan that the Airport Commission just finished. That environmental assessment was originally planned to be paid for with what is called retained earnings, not retained earnings sorry, with the airport gets about 150,000 a year from the Federal Aviation Administration. It’s probably entitlement money I guess you’d call it, and we were planning to phase that. It’s over $300,000 project. We’re planning to phase that over a couple years but since the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law money came out, the BIL money, we are getting a little bit more of that entitlement money every year. So, we were able to fund that entirely through that BIL money. So, we’re looking to increase that amount. It’s a 95% funded project. 90% by the Federal Aviation Administration and another 5% percent by the Mass Aeronautics, Mass Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division. So, the local share is 5% of 375,000.

So, we already have our 5% of $8600, which would have been free original amount back at last spring town meeting. The new 5% would be $18,750. So, the delta is $10,150, and that’s all paid for through Airport Retained Earnings. Take any questions.

Betty Cavacco:

Any questions?

John Mahoney:

Matt, how long you’ve been on the job?

Matthew Cardillo:

I’ve been employed with at the Plymouth Airport for seven and a half years but I’ve been the manager now since July. So, six, seven months going by pretty fast.

John Mahoney:

So, was this analogous to kind of being the first quarterback to take over for Tom Brady?

Matthew Cardillo:                                                   

Yeah. I would say I wear a size 13 shoe but the shoes seem to be really loose right now. They’re big shoes of fill.

John Mahoney:

Okay. And now, are you still in the learning curve phase?

[1:00:00]

Matthew Cardillo:

I guess so, yeah. I learned a lot under Tom, just through osmosis, just being near him all the time but yeah, I guess we’re still in the learning phase. I think we’re always learning.

John Mahoney:

All right. Congratulations on the job. Thanks.

Matthew Cardillo:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

A question. I’m reading your memo. So, at April ‘22 Town Meeting, we were authorized to borrow $2,250,000 for the estimated construction.

Matthew Cardillo:

That’s different, yeah. That’s Article 10. That’s the next one.

Harry Helm:

Oh, that’s the next one. All right. Okay, never mind. I’ll ask this question later.

Matthew Cardillo:

Okay.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Any other questions? Do we have a motion?

Dick Quintal:

Motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Quintal, seconded by Mr. Mahoney. Discussion? All those in favor. Unanimous. Thank you. And now, you’d say Article 10.

Matthew Cardillo:

Yeah. Just a quick analysis of the money so far. The construction, it went out for bid and was awarded to Hart Construction for 2.8 million. There’s some additional costs now with a 20% contingency. That’s 577,000 engineering Services and others 734,000, which brings that anticipated maximum to 4.2 million.

And then currently, through ARPA funding and through remaining article funds, this is 2.2 available. So, the plan is to seek additional ARPA money. I am speaking with Mass DOT Aeronautics about making up some of that and then anything else would be paid for out of borrowing under the retained earnings for the airport.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

So, at the April ‘22 Town Meeting, the town was authorized by Town Meeting to borrow 2,250 000 for the estimated construction costs for this project.

Matthew Cardillo:

Correct.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Was that the estimate of the full construction costs? Because I’m concerned that we’re nearly double at this point.

Lynne Barrett:

So, I think a few couple of things happened with this project. One was the design from the engineers that the Town was working with sort of missed a few things the first time around. And under peer review by a second engineering firm, we’re able to catch some things and added those things. And when they ended up finally putting it out to bid, those items were all included in there so the cost of that exceeded what the original sort of estimates were based on the preliminary design.

Secondly, Town Meeting in a previous article to the one that we did last year, we voted the original design services prior to construction, resident engineer and oversight. So, that’s what this project includes the additional construction costs plus the engineering, which is required during construction and oversight plus a contingency. With the cost of everything, we wanted to make sure that if there were any change orders or anything happened that we had sufficient funds.

Harry Helm:

So, just to follow up. Lynne, in the original construction of the 2,250,000 estimate so the engineering was off? Okay. Was there just–I think I know the answer but just confirming. Was there a construction contingency added in to that original 2,250,000 or is that construction contingency mentioned here just totally new to the estimate?

Lynne Barrett:

I believe it is new.

Harry Helm:

It is new?

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah.

Harry Helm:

Okay. Was there any particular reason that you know of that a construction contingency wasn’t included because isn’t it pretty much standard operating procedures?

Lynne Barrett:

It is. And unfortunately, because the project sort of started out with the airport manager sort of requesting and then a DPW ended up getting involved, so it was a little, you know, we wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same playing field here. And so, we’re revisiting this to make sure that we have all the estimates and what we think it’s going to cost us.

[1:05:15]

Harry Helm:

Okay. So, I don’t mean to grill you. I just kind of want to get my head around this. So, basically the article says to determine whether this new appropriation or adjusted appropriation shall be raised by borrowing or otherwise. So, you’re going to be proposing a Town Meeting borrowing?

Lynne Barrett:

So, what we did in the original article and what we’re doing in this one, we’re just amending the original article to increase the amount and to include these other costs. And in the article language, there’s language that says, if the Town were to receive any federal or state grants or any other funding that it would reduce the amount that we’re going to borrow. So, we’re going to authorize $4.2 million of borrowing. We’ve already received two 2,250,000 in ARPA funding, which was the first grant that the Chairman from the County mentioned earlier this evening.

The Select Board, we knew last fall that the cost of this project was going to be more than the 2,250,000 so we had asked you to increase the allocated amount of dollars. So, you guys did that back on October 4th. We increased it to $3.2 million. So, they went out to bid and we got the actuals, which is 2.8 but then we had to add the resident engineering services on top of that. So, between the ARPA funding of like 3.2, Matt as he said is going to request some funding from Mass DOT. So, any monies that we get from Mass DOT we’re going to go for as much as we can get and the other sources that may come up and then that’ll all reduce that 4.2 million. And then whatever’s remaining, we’ll end up borrowing and if the airport has sufficient retained earnings, we can pay off that borrowing or if they don’t, then we would borrow but they would pay the principal and interest over 10 to 15-year period you know based on what we end up borrowing.

Harry Helm:

Am I correct in–I mean, this is bad math and it’s wrong, but since the county has allocated 2,250,000 but we’ve committed to using $3,200,000, let’s say 950,000 more than the original allocation, where really actually what you’re looking for is not 1,931,000, it’s going to be 975,000. So, it’ll be less than a million dollars in increase. Okay.

Lynne Barrett:

Yeah. So, we’re going to 3.2 of ARPA but the total Project is 4.2. So, it’s like a million dollars that we’re going to try to get from Mass DOT. So, that’ll reduce that million and then whatever the remaining is.

Harry Helm:

Okay. How likely do you think any airport retained earnings might play in this? I mean, when you kind of think about airport retained earnings in the future?

Lynne Barrett:

I know that the airport and I mean Matt can speak to this. They have sort of a Capital Improvement plan on the books that they are looking to do and they’re going to be using their retained earnings for that. So, that’s why we’re in close conversation with them if it can’t be paid off with retained earnings, we would then borrow and they would pay that principal and interest out of their operating budget going forward.

Harry Helm:

Okay. And one last question, sorry about this. Originally, when this was discussed with a former manager in DPW, there was a conceptual concept of extending the sewer system across South Meadow to the commercial areas. Is that still part of this discussion?

Lynne Barrett:

It’s not included in these numbers.

Harry Helm:

Okay, but are we still keeping track of that one?

Derek Brindisi:

I think it’s certainly a possibility that once we get the treatment plant upgraded, it’s something we could consider down the road.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. I think that that was an important aspect of doing this. And I just don’t want us to forget about it. So, all right. I’ll stop now.

[1:10:12]

Betty Cavacco:

Any other questions? Are there any left? Do we have a motion?

John Mahoney:

Move approval.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Helm. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Article 11 – Petition to amend Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 363 of the Acts of 2014. Mr. Brindisi?

Derek Brindisi:

Great. Thank you again. So, I want to take the Board back to I believe it was the December 7th, the December 8th Select Board meeting where we had on the agenda discussion items for the Board to consider for future articles.

Selectman Mahoney had brought up the article, which is before you this evening to amend the 2014 Special Act authorizing the Town of Plymouth to establish an 1820 Courthouse fund. So, as written in front of you this evening, the amendments are stricken and the additions are underlined. You can see here that this amendment is to broaden the use of the meals tax, in this case to be on the 1820 Courthouse but for all facilities specifically for a public education, public safety and/or public works facilities. This proposed amendment also takes away the June 30th, 2040 sunset clause as well.

So, in summary, what’s being proposed this evening is that the meals tax revenue will not be used just for this building. It can be used for the buildings, the facilities that I named and that these meals tax revenues will not sunset meaning there’s a notion out there that come 2040, the meals tax just goes away. In actuality, the way the act was written, the meals tax in 2040 would no longer be deposited in this 1820 Courthouse fund. And in fact, it would actually go to the general ledger.

So, this is really a strategy to secure those funds to make sure they don’t go to the general accounts and that they’re use for a very specific purpose. And in this case, for facilities improvement.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

So, earlier tonight, we approved I think 14 sets of open meeting minutes. And if you were able to look through one of those sets, I can’t remember July, August or September, there was a presentation by the former DPW Director and others with respect to the needs of a potential DPW Annex of $100 million or so. So, government and I don’t care what form of government it is, is incapable of thinking beyond 365 days at a time. So, I know that this Board had set a goal of long-term fiscal planning. There is some confusion out there with respect to this tax. When it was passed in April of 2014, it became a permanent tax. The tax was not sunsetting on July 1st of 2040. So, if you don’t do anything on July 1st of 2040 so the beginning of FY ’41, that money is gone. It goes into the general fund. You will never see it again. So, building off of the success of building this new Town Hall, the new construction not the 1820 modernization but the new construction of this Town Hall originally presented at Spring Town Meeting of 2014, our finance director because of the anticipation of its sun setting and going into the general fund, you had to build up roughly a 16 to 20 million dollar buffer so that that buffer in the account would have enough to pay the last seven mortgage payments on the new Town Hall FY ‘41 to ‘47. So, your mortgage payment is $1.8 million times 7 is what’s that? $12.6 million, so in theory, when you showed up at ‘47 and you made your 30th and final payment on this building, you would have had a roughly 4 to 10 million dollars left over in the account.

We’re always having the discussion about where does the money come from and we show up in the future whether it’s in elementary school in North Plymouth or somewhere else in the community, whether it’s virtually all seven of our fire stations, whether it’s a DPW Annex or anything else.

[1:15:08]

John Mahoney:

All we do is sit here and just constantly just raise property taxes. By making this change five to ten years down the road, whether it’s a DPW Bond, another fire station or a school, we will position those people in the future not to just raise property taxes by doing this and freeing up this money.

The first thing you’re always going to do is pay the note on the Town Hall, but then potentially anything surplus to that, anything that becomes a delta, you’ll be able to pick up some of the debt service on another infrastructure investment. And those three are outlined in the potential changes.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Any other questions? Comments? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I just want to make one comment for those assembled and watching. The actual article does say to see if the Town will vote to authorize the Select Board to petition the general court to amend sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 363 of the Acts of 2014. In other words, just the passage of this article at Town Meeting will not change this language. It authorizes the Board of Selectmen to petition basically the legislature. Just wanted everybody to be clear about that.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, it’s going to go to town meeting if it’s approved and they’re going to debate sending it to the legislature to change the legislation.

Betty Cavacco:

Well, they’re going to debate sending it to us to change.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. And we feel comfortable. Do we all feel comfortable as we know what this community is going to need in 2040? I like the idea and the thought of it, but I’ll be honest with you I didn’t think the sell at this town hall by using that tax was not any infringe on any taxpayer. It’s all tax money. I get what you’re saying about the general fund, but if your general operating budgets 300 million in 2040 and you get one point, about 2 million from here and the rest is going to be on the levy vice versa, no matter what the projects are. I mean, to me it’s the number it takes to run this corporation, it’s going to be that number. So, whether you say, “Well, we’re going to use this money or that.” I mean, it sounds very nice but it’s who’s to say at that particular point. Not that I don’t give yet, you know, I mean, I won’t be sitting there. I don’t think any of us will. And that’s my point, I mean the times needs are going to change. I mean, I can’t tell you what they’re going to be that’s for sure. I wish I could because then I wouldn’t be sitting here for sure. You know what I mean, John? So, other than saying it’s for an elementary school or a fire station, I mean, I get it but I don’t think that we should be or any town meeting member should be looking at 2040 because none of us are going to be there including them unless we’ve got somebody that’s like 10. Everett.

Betty Cavacco:

John will be there. He has a time machine.

John Mahoney:

So, we know that the school committee currently has hired a consultant. And supposedly any day or any week now, they’re going to release a report that’s going to tell them what they’re going to do with respect to a potential new school. That’s going to be 100 to 200 million dollars. We know that tomorrow, I mean, our biggest liability is infrastructure. That’s the biggest thing we have over the next 30 to 40 years. We have eight elementary schools. The first one was built in 1910, the last two were built in 1977. Over 30 years, those modernizations and new construction with inflation, that’s a billion dollars all day right there. So, if it goes into general fund, it just becomes one-time revenues. When you keep it outside in its own interest-bearing account, it’s actually making more money on top of the money.

And then obviously, the key in the community like Plymouth is you’re right, it is a tax but it’s a non-property tax that’s handled in a conservative manner. If this was comes anywhere near the general fund, I would have said repeal it immediately. I would have never have signed off on this back in 2014, but the key here is that depending on who you talk to in tourism in this community.

[1:20:06]                        

John Mahoney:

I mean, we’re told anywhere from 55 to 75% of that revenue comes from people that don’t live in Plymouth. So, 55 to 75% of the revenue is not going on the property tax pay of businesses or residents in this community. So, the people who come here are proactively investing in our infrastructure for us. And obviously, the current revenue streams are not where you want them. They’re only in the 1.8 to 2 million dollar range so it’s barely getting to the point where it surpasses the annual debt service that we have to pay on the mortgage on the Town Hall. But five to ten years down the road if we make this choice, it’ll be the right thing. They’ll be fights out in the audience about where to put the money with respect to. There’ll be different competitions for different infrastructure.

Betty Cavacco:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Well, first, I agree with Mr. Quintal. Money is fungible. And what goes in is one aggregate and where it goes, it all ends up balancing out including tax dollars and all that sort of stuff. And this would be essentially an earmarking.

And I’ll argue all day long every moment I’m on this board to really question the need to build new schools, build new buildings of any kind. We will argue about that later on or the boards ahead of in the future will argue about that, but one of the things that we do know and I’ll go back to my time on the Finance Committee, we brought onboard Dude Solutions to determine the maintenance issues in this town.

Dude Solutions said it’s going to cost $29 million to bring our facilities that we have right now up to snuff and then several million dollars a year after that. So, we’re talking regardless of somebody’s need to build a new school. And I’ll just mention, I took a look at the old school district I went back to in Pennsylvania, where I went to in Pennsylvania. They’re still using schools from 1950. They’ve just improved them. They don’t build new facilities, they improve them. But anyway, we can argue about that later but what we’re not going to argue about or we can’t argue about is the fact that we have a problem with the maintenance of our current facilities. This earmarks that. This earmarks the money.

It’s not up to anybody to say that it doesn’t go for that. We’ve created a maintenance stabilization fund that I think one of the things that we actually item 20 that we passed, Board will vote to recommend special Town Meeting Article 5, Facility Capital Maintenance Stabilization Fund. So, we have that fund. This in a way would help fund that. So, we can argue about building buildings, but the one thing we can’t argue about is the state of our infrastructure right now and the need for that money. So, I’m agreeing with Mr. Quintal and I’m agreeing with Mr. Mahoney.

Betty Cavacco:

Do you agree that he’ll be here in 2040 because he has a time machine?

Harry Helm:

Well, if he has a time machine, he’s actually there already or has been there already because he’s here right now.

Betty Cavacco:

John, can you share the lottery numbers with us? Okay. So, Article 11. Do we have any more conversation, questions? Do we have a motion?

Harry Helm:

Motion that we approve.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Helm, seconded by Mr. Mahoney. Any discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay.

Article 12 – Precinct 3. For the record, Anthony, Mr. Quintal was in opposition.

Dale Webber:

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Dale Webber appearing tonight as a spokesperson for Precinct 3. I’m joined by Vice Chair Gerry Sirrico. Gerry is passing out some materials for you to follow along with, should you choose to do so. I’ve also taken a rudimentary and novice approach at a first stab at PowerPoint presentations.

[1:25:00]

Dale Webber:

So, you can choose to either follow along and listen to me or if you’d rather listen to Article 12 PowerPoint presentation, you can follow that up on the screen. I thank town staff to my right, town staff to my left at the collaboration that has got us to this point. And I’m hoping that we can leave here tonight with the support of the Board to move this article forward to town meeting.

We have so far gained the support of several of our neighboring precincts as to reaching consensus and we’ve met with the Chamber of Commerce and got initial favorable support there and they are also assisting us with some future meetings this coming week with the downtown businessman and Waterfront Businessmen Association. So, anyway I’ll proceed.

You can see the notation at the bottom of the screen on the PowerPoint. Please refer to the document packet that’s in front of you. I’ll just read the first article. If you can keep that up there, Anthony and I appreciate Anthony. If you can go back one screen until I’ll prompt you to switch in a moment.

I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I told you this was going to be an issue for me. Please go to the next slide, Anthony. Thank you. So, the text that’s on the right-hand side is what I’ll read to you in the record and you’ll see that in your handouts. This is the language of the article itself. This has been drafted by Precinct 3 and approved by Town Counsel and town staff to see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate a transfer from available funds or some of money to conduct inappropriate traffic parking study coordinated with the Mass Department of Transportation and/or the Massachusetts Highway Department, if necessary, as well as any and all applicable local boards, agencies and/or committees for the purposes of determining the need for potential improvements including but not limited to improvements with traffic flow, speed limits, crosswalks, sidewalks, parking and any other measures deemed appropriate to increase the safe level for pedestrians, the safe travel for pedestrians and motor vehicles.

The subject location for this requested study shall be from JB’s Corner at the intersection of Sandwich and Obery heading west to Route 3 then North to Cherry Street, East to Court Street and South back to JB’s Corner including Water Street as depicted in the attached map or take any action thereto. So, you have a map in your packets that you can look at while I go to slide number two. Anthony’s already ahead of me and he’s on three.

So, Precinct 3 has for a number of years taken calls from residents concerned and stressed about the same things most anyone traveling throughout Precinct encounters. We have been slow to react to the fact that despite our precinct and our neighboring precincts being largely built out, we have experienced a steady surge of conversions of single-family homes or prior business facilities into multi-unit apartments, condominiums, bed and breakfasts or short-term rental units. You’re still in slide 3, Anthony. Hold on one second for me.

We can’t reverse this issue but this article is our attempt to come up with a professional strategy on how to deal with the impacts of this increased residential density and the doubling, tripling or even quadrupling of the number of vehicles regularly driving down and parking on both sides of our narrow streets and our sidewalks.

Slide 4, please, Anthony. This has made it much harder for vehicles of residents and non-residents alike to travel safely upon many of our streets throughout the district and has impeded pedestrian traffic on some of our sidewalks.

Slide 5, Anthony, please. These concerns have led to an assortment of small-scale initiatives by individuals or groups of individuals via calls to their precinct or to their elected officials to address issues on their street or in their neighborhood. Those efforts looked at a small section of the larger problem and most still remain unresolved. Slide 6, please, Anthony.

[1:30:00]

Dale Webber:

So, in conjunction and with the consensus from meetings with the downtown Steering Committee, Precincts 1, 2 and 4, Precinct 3 has submitted this article to begin the process of compiling all of the issues and to address the bigger picture as outlined in the town counsel approved language of our article.

Slide 7, please, Anthony. The goal is to have engineering professionals undertake a comprehensive study to address changes any manner that will not fix an issue in one neighborhood by creating a new issue in an adjacent neighborhood. The professional engineers that review this problem will bring impartial eyes upon these issues and provide some practical Solutions that could be employed to improve the situation.

Slide 8, Anthony. When their work is complete, the residents of the area will be invited to opine on the results of their findings before any changes are implemented.

Slide 9, please, Anthony. Since residents of all precincts along with thousands of tourists continue to make their way in and around the area of study in our article, we look forward to town-wide support of this initiative addressing the safe and efficient movement of pedestrian and vehicular travel in the district outlined.

Slide 10, please, Anthony. That’s the map. You have a copy of that map in front of you, a hard copy. We’ve passed that out everywhere that we’ve gone so that you can take it home and study it as you go through these documents. But I also want the comment, if Anthony could go back one page, please to page 9. I want to make a comment on some of the comments that I’ve heard this evening from Board members about the funding source.

So, obviously, this funding source is coming out of free cash, which is not any new taxation. It is money that’s a revenue source resulting from the remaining funds after having met the previous year’s financial obligations as certified by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. So, we look at this as an initiative that so far everywhere that we’ve been seeking support, we’ve gained the support of people to say it’s about time that we look at something other than somebody coming from their street and saying we’d like to see improvements on our street. We have so many of those initiatives that have lingered and languished for a long time.

And the issue here is our precinct, Precinct 3, Precinct 4, Precincts 1 and 2 are all basically historical districts. Again, this is Precinct 3, where all of that began many moons ago. So, the issue comes down to be that we have historical districts with very narrow roads. The roads were designed some of them and have not seen improvements other than maybe a mill and overlay project but the streets themselves haven’t been widened. Some of them have no sidewalks. Some of them have double sidewalks on a very narrow road. Some of them have one sidewalk on a very narrow road and some have two. So, crosswalks, speeding, all the items that I’ve identified in my prior presentation and prior comments tonight are on the table. But we want to remove the local politics from this. We don’t want to have precinct people coming up and urging for something in their precinct. We want to make sure that what we do is something that won’t impact a neighboring precinct or a neighboring street or enable. So, hopefully an objective look with an impartial set of eyes from a professional standpoint will bring us to a place we can all think is a better place to be. So, that’s basically my comments. I did forward to the Board this afternoon some information that the Committee of Precinct Chairs had requested of me and I did not have that at the time. I want to thank DPW with Sheila Sgarzi and James Downey, the Traffic Engineer for forwarding along the bio on GPI, the engineering firm that has been slated to put this scope of work and this cost estimate together.

[1:35:04]

Dale Webber:

As well as a list that I’ve included in your hardcopies. I did not alter the PowerPoint presentation a list of all work that this engineering firm has done for us prior to this. So, those are my comments. I know that there’s people in the audience that have come to our precinct meetings. We meet monthly as a community outreach effort. And there are people here starting I think with Vice Chair Mr. Sirrico who can speak to some of the issues that have historically been addressed, but how we got to where we are now and where we are. But before they come up, if you have any questions of me, I’ll entertain those. I counted on you, Harry. I’m ready.

Harry Helm: 

I always ask questions. Mr. Webber, I attended the COPC meeting last week where you presented. First of all, I think this is great and this is a model, I believe a way to get these done because there are other areas in the town that are going to need this sort of thing as our population balloons.

But anyway, so, in that vein, somebody mentioned one of the precinct chairs mentioned that a similar study was proposed or completed down in Cedarville around the whole Great Herring Pond State Road interchange and that it cost like a hundred thousand dollars more than this. I didn’t get a chance to read what you sent us earlier today. Did you address that in there?

Dale Webber:

I cannot address why another engineering firm gave a higher price. That’s industry standard. It’s not for me to discuss. I don’t even know if that project has been done yet. I know that they appropriated some money but maybe somebody from DPW.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. Would you mind, Ms. Sgarzi? Could you kind of attempt to address that question? I mean, I do not know exactly what the fellow was talking about other than a study that was done because of what is going on down in Cedarville at the interchange of State Road and Great Herring Pond and the state requiring a rotary and all that sort of stuff. And he referenced his knowledge of a study that was either ordered or completed and the estimate for it was about a hundred thousand dollars more than this. So, I guess, my question to you would be you know given your work with GPI, are you confident that this is a good number?

Sheila Sgarzi:

Yes, I believe–

Harry Helm:

Okay, because this seems like a really big undertaking, important but you know.

Sheila Sgarzi:

It is a big undertaking. Actually, I believe the study you’re referencing, GPI came up with that total as well. But that study hasn’t gone forward yet.

Harry Helm:

Okay, but the concept was not whether it went forward or not, but the difference when thinking of the scale and scope of something down in that area as compared to this, which is really important and really big. I guess, like I said, my question to you is, is this in your mind this estimate of 166,000 will that do the trick or do we need a little bit more free cash?

Sheila Sgarzi:

I mean, just getting back to the GPI study. So, that’s to look at roundabouts on Herring Pond Road and State Road. So, that’s two proposed roundabouts. That’s again a proposed study.

Harry Helm:

Two? I thought it was one.

Sheila Sgarzi:

There are two.

Harry Helm:

Two?

Sheila Sgarzi:

Yup.

Derek Brindisi:

I think two is a part of the study. The town is interested in funding one of the two.

Harry Helm:

All right. Let’s stick with this. But you feel confident?

Sheila Sgarzi:

That’s a proposed study. We spent quite a bit of time with GPI going through this scope. There’s going to be a lot of public meetings with this. It is a healthy number. We anticipate there’s going to be more work that comes out of this study. There’s going to be potentially multiple construction projects, multiple subsequent capital requests as a result of the study.

Harry Helm:

Well, yeah. This is just the study. Okay. But you feel good about this number?

Sheila Sgarzi:

Yes.

Harry Helm:

Okay.

Sheila Sgarzi:

Yeah. And as Mr. Webber has mentioned, we’ve utilized GPI for multiple projects in town. They did the roundabout down on Water Street. They do almost all of our traffic peer reviews. So, it is a consultant we would recommend.

Harry Helm:

Thank you.

[1:40:01]

Dale Webber:

If I could, I did have an afterthought, Mr. Helm. Thank you for your question. When we were meeting with Ms. Sgarzi and Mr. Downey and GPI, myself and Mr. Sirrico, we learned of new software. I don’t know when the Cedarville project was started or how it got there but I was impressed and also a little taken back by the fact that my idea of traffic studies has always involved some sort of manual counting system like that or a hose across the street that every time you ran over it, it would trigger a counter to advance in a steel structure. Everything now that was in this study is going to be taken from cell phone data and the providers of cell phone data. There’s some type of a software that puts a composite of all the cell phone service providers into some type of a mix, and the engineers can pull from that how many people utilize an intersection at any given time on any given day. Kind of scary to think how much big brother has looking in on us, but that’s what we’re looking at now. And we had said it, Gerry and I made the comment to the engineering said, “Well, now, that you’re not going to have to do as much physical work hopefully that will reflect in your price bid.” I’m not saying that’s what happened. I’m just saying that that was brought up.

There was another point. They’re going to use a lot of drone technology. The issue of you saying, is this enough out of free cash, that 165,000? If you look in your materials on the cover letter from GPI, there is a recommendation of between 50 and 100,000 for any immediate construction that might be needed based on their findings, which we all know won’t go far. But we didn’t put that into this presentation because as you can see that last bullet, this comprehensive work will take approximately nine months. So, we’ve got at least two more town meetings to come up and discuss any additional funding that may be needed. If that answers your questions.

Harry Helm:

Absolutely does. And thank both you and Mr. Sirrico for the work and also Precinct 3 and the other precinct members and public for really working on this.

Gerry Sirrico:

First of all, I want to thank Chairperson Cavacco, Vice Chair Quintal and Harry Helm for having us here and the gentleman next to them. Gerry Sirrico, Precinct 3. I probably lived in this area longer than anyone that’s here tonight.

I’ll just tell you a little bit about the Mayflower Street area that I live on and then I’ll yield to the next person that wants to speak. Back in I think 2006, am I correct? Mr. Downey cut his teeth on the Mayflower Street project where they redid the roads, the water pipes, sewer pipes, gas pipes, so on and so forth. That went pretty smoothly up there. They did a nice job. The Town was willing to meet with us many times. Myself and Mr. Downey and Mr. Kashi walked around and talked to neighbors as they did the job and asked, is it okay if we can do this? And everything went well. I’m not here tonight to speak about what they’re going to do, but I’m here tonight to speak about the crux of this problem in this area and Mr. Helm’s alluded to and he’s right, it’s not going to be long before it goes right down to the canal with the way this area is growing and all the problems are going to move on down.

So, you have people speeding on through our neighborhoods. We got people pocket on the sidewalks. We got people that can’t walk on the sidewalks because there is no sidewalk or we don’t have good crosswalks. There’s a myriad of problems. I’ll give you just what I witnessed the speeding by my house. Also, the neighborhoods have grown. These old neighborhoods have grown due to multi-unit homes becoming bed and breakfasts, things like that. So, people are parking everywhere. If you don’t believe me, take a look at Fremont Street, take a look at Mayflower Street.

When Mary Henry was alive, she fought for a lot of this. At the time, in 2006, the Police Chief, the former Police Chief told the residents, the study should be done from Bradford’s Package Store to North Plymouth to try and straighten out our problems but everybody else’s, and that was in 2006.

[1:45:13]

Gerry Sirrico:

Do you remember that, Jim? When we had that meeting, that’s what Mr. Boteiri said. So, I have trouble backing a truck and trailer down my driveway every day because no one will wait, and it’s the same everywhere. You’re going to hear it from everybody. So, all I’m saying is we’re given an honest effort to get something going, to try and straighten something out that might permeate the whole town before it’s done because that’s in the future but the future is now the way this place is growing. But I’ll yield to the next person. How you doing, John?

Woman:

Good evening. I’m with Gerry, definitely. After attending our Precinct 3 meeting a few weeks ago, which was called to address the parking and navigation problems that exist in North Central Plymouth area, I was encouraged to hear that there is a request being put forward to fund a study to address these issues. Listening to some of my downtown neighbors who live in the midst of the struggle to find a parking space just to park and go into their homes at the end of the day made even more clear that we need to support Article 12, which will fund the North Central Plymouth circulation study.

This study will address traffic flow, speed limits, crosswalks, sidewalks, parking and any other measures deemed appropriate to increase safe travel for pedestrians and motor vehicles. Some streets should become one way, making it a better flow. Others should just have parking only on one side to allow emergency vehicles to get through safely and quickly. I just know that we need it, and it’s not just where I live in Precinct 3, it’s all over the place in downtown.

We are a tourist destination and when they find no place to park between the restaurants and all of those people, they lose their business as well as just the homeowners trying to find a place to park at the end of the day. So, I am very encouraged that this has come about and do hope that you will go ahead to support it. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Phyllis Ferrara:

Hi! My name is Phyllis Ferrara. I’m here to ask you that you support Article 12. I live on Oak Street and would like to tell you about some of our experiences. Over the last 27 years, we have had at least eight vehicles hit while parked. Six were hit and run including one when my son and I were actually in the vehicle. The two most recent incidents involved the total loss of two commercial vans we own for our business. One van was hit and totaled in May of 2022. This was very difficult to be without our main business vehicle at the start of our busiest time of year and at the height of the pandemic. We eventually replaced that vehicle and in May of 2021, a year and a day later after replacing the first van, the second van was hit and totaled.

I believe that all these accidents are a result of excessive speed. Oak Street has a 25-mile an hour speed limit but it is seldom observed. Over the years, the Police Department has been responsive to calls for traffic enforcement. However, that is only effective when an officer is actually physically present. There is currently two-way traffic on Oak Street with parking allowed on the west side of the street. It is necessary to have on-street parking as most homes only have small driveways or no driveway at all. When the Oak Street School was used as a school the residents were able to use the parking lot at the school during times when school was not open. That building is now in the hands of the Plymouth Housing Authority and that parking is no longer available. This has led to the need for more neighbors to use street park on street parking.

Many have had their vehicles damaged. Sometimes more than one vehicle has been hit in a single incident. Neighbors have resorted to parking partially on the sidewalk in an effort to prevent the loss of or damage to their vehicles. This has helped somewhat, but it’s not a long-term solution. In the past, there were times when vehicles would be ticketed for parking partially on the sidewalk. Everyone would stop the practice, more vehicles would be hit, everybody would go back to parking on partially on the sidewalk again.

[1:50:10]

Phyllis Ferrara:

It is necessary, but it is still not legal or ideal. We have actually had an officer knock on our door and ask us to move our vehicle so that it was partially on the sidewalk to make it easier for the flow of the two-way traffic. And I certainly hope my speaking here tonight does not result in my neighbors getting tickets, but I say this just to demonstrate the need for some resolution to these problems. I have some ideas for changes that might help these issues, but I do not have the expertise to know the impact those changes would have on the surrounding area. That is why I feel strongly that a comprehensive study by people who possess the necessary level of expertise be done at this time. It is imperative to ensure the safety of those who reside, work, visit or otherwise utilize the area outlined in Article 12.

It is necessary to improve safety for pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic. There’s a real need to look at all of these problems, changes need to be made. It is my hope that you will recommend that town meeting approve Article 12 as it is an integral component to managing growth and making positive changes for the town’s future. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you.

Dale Webber:

I believe that concludes the people that had expressed an interest in speaking on this. I’m glad Mr. Canty’s here tonight because he’ll get a preview of what’s to come on Thursday night. And I appreciate his attendance at all these meetings because I believe this is his third view of this presentation. Hopefully, we can gain your support to get us to the finish line of town meeting. And if there’s any other questions, I’m available.

Betty Cavacco:

Does the Board have any questions?

John Mahoney:

I don’t have any questions but I’m also a Precinct 3 resident and I do know that over a decade ago, one of Mr. Brindisi’s predecessors, there was an issue on Newfield Street and it was a site visit in the middle of the day in the middle of the road talking about traffic mitigation. I can’t remember if Mr. Webber, Mr. Sirrico might have been there but all I can tell you is that the Town Manager showed up with a manila envelope, and in the envelope was the history of the traffic issues on Newfield Street and went back to 1975. And that meeting was probably in 2011 or 2012. So, an investment like this is long overdue.

Harry Helm:

I motion that we recommend approval of Article 12 to town meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Do we have a second?

Dick Quintal:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Motion by Mr. Helm, seconded by Mr. Quintal. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Next are the two sections of the agenda where we will Execute the 2023 Special Town Meeting Warrant and to Execute 2023 Annual Town Meeting Warrant. And I’ll make a motion to execute both the annual town meeting and special town meeting warrants with subject to legal edits.

Harry Helm:

I second that.

Betty Cavacco:

Any discussion?  All those in favor? Unanimous. Town Manager’s Report.

Derek Brindisi:

All right. So, a few administrative updates. We have received notification from a state delegation that a number of legislative items have passed. So, the Plymouth Plantation Highway is now called the Plymouth Patuxet Highway. The parking fine special legislation that was filed in October has passed. So, at some point, when the Board is ready, we can have a discussion item to talk about increasing parking fines in those districts that require a beach sticker. The PILOT legislation that allows the Town to enter into a PILOT agreement with Holtec has passed. And then we have also received notice that we are now able to accept individuals up to the age of 39 to be police officers.

[1:55:05]

Derek Brindisi:

So, those are four legislative updates. We’ve talked a lot about Stephens Field over the past couple months. Our staff is meeting with Bills and Thomas. There’s a few modifications to the design. They’re actually moving the building out of the flood zone. And so, because of some of these slight modifications, the now projected date to go out to bid is mid-May. So, we’re going to be delayed by about four weeks.

We have approximately 54 town meeting members who are up for re-election this year. So, those folks who haven’t pulled papers yet, please know that we have approximately up to 54 vacancies coming up. I want to thank Silvio Genao, our HR Director. As part of one of the Board’s goals to provide professional development opportunities, he held a labor relations roundtable with our DPW managerial staff and covered everything from past practice to progressive discipline. So, again, trying to enhance the knowledge of our managerial staff.

I hope everybody noticed when they walked to the door, there’s a big kiosk out there. So, that’s one of two kiosks. The second kiosk will be placed in the atrium area. The reason why that one’s out here by itself is because we’re pilot testing this kiosk. And so, I would encourage folks to use it. Actually, during the day hours, we have someone from our help desk stand out there. I’m encouraging folks to use it so we can get feedback and we’ll use that feedback to make modifications to the kiosk so that it’s more user-friendly. The purpose of that kiosk is to try to educate and inform folks that come here at Town Hall, this four-story structure, where to go, where to find services. And so, we’re thinking that this kiosk out here and the kiosk that will be placed at the atrium will help do just that. So, again, I encourage folks to use the kiosk until we go to a more–we’re in the beta testing phase right now.

James Downey did leave. So, I had mentioned earlier that James Downey who just left a few minutes ago is our acting Town Engineer. So, congratulations to James. And then last, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the Water Street Project. That project as we talked about in the past is very complicated and we continue to run across a number of challenges. To date, we’ve had seven water main breaks in that area. So, we’re inching along. We’re hoping that we get this project complete by June 1st. The contractor has stated that it needs to get out of here by June 1st so hopefully, we’ll still tracking for that date. You’ll see that this has been a slight adjustment to the traffic pattern. The one way actually goes up to Chilton Street now as well. So, again, we’re trying to get out of this first phase as soon as possible. We know it’s infecting a lot of the businesses in that area. So, hopefully, we’re out of there within the next couple weeks. And we can move on to phase two. Pending any questions, that’s all I have for this evening.

Betty Cavacco:

Any questions? Perfect. Next is the Select Board Open Discussion/New Business/ Letters/ Old Business. Mr. Mahoney?

John Mahoney:

I was told over the weekend that the bids were in for the Spire. That’s a pretty significant town meeting action with CPC funds that was taken recently. And I was told that the good news was that all three bids had come in under what town meeting had approved. But I just wanted to communicate to the Board and to the Town Manager that I was also told that one of them was significantly lower than the other two. So, we can sit here all day and talk about well it’s a private non-profit but it is taxpayer money, and I just want to make sure that whoever’s in charge of going over those bids that has gone over with a fine-tooth comb to make sure that that low bidder is legitimate and that the work we’re getting for that expenditure no matter what it is, is quality.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Anything else? Motion to adjourn?

Dick Quintal:

Motion.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Second. All those in favor? Good night, everyone.