HALIFAX — The Select Board on Oct. 13 approved a $10 increase to the town’s curbside trash and recycling fee. The annual charge rises to $450, and the optional second bin goes to $280.
The board also scheduled a special town meeting for Jan. 12. After a lengthy debate, it voted 3-0 to let Democratic Town Committee leaders host a one-hour, nonpartisan get-out-the-vote booth on town property, with conditions.
Chair Thomas Pratt presented the new rates. The $450 fee covers weekly trash pickup, recycling every other week and access to the recycling center. It is billed in two $225 installments, in October and April. The second bin rises from $270 to $280 and is billed $140 per installment.
Pratt said the 14% interest on late bills and the $15 demand fee will not change. The demand fee was raised from $10 last year.
Pratt said the town’s rates remain much lower than private haulers. Jonathan Selig urged residents to compare prices themselves. He said the cart-based program turned around a bag program that had been losing money, and he called the $10 increase modest.
The longest discussion of the night involved two co-chairs of the Democratic Town Committee, Sam Cox and Ellen Snoeyenbos. They asked to set up a pop-up tent from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 17. That was the first day of early voting and part of a national get-out-the-vote day.
They planned to bring: a sign encouraging people to vote early, a list of early-voting hours in area towns, and a laptop with a hotspot so residents could check their registration.
They said four or five people would attend. There would be no campaign signs, shirts or buttons. They also said they would stay more than 150 feet from Town Hall, the early-voting site.
Pratt said he would be more comfortable if both parties were represented.
“The tricky part here is that it’s a town-owned property that’s being asked to be incorporated into the display,” Pratt said.
Selig praised the organizers’ work in the community. He also said they are publicly identified with one party, and he proposed requiring formal notice to the Republican Town Committee. The organizers said they had not contacted Republicans because they were waiting for the board’s permission. They said anyone was welcome to join. Snoeyenbos said that, as residents, they should not be denied the chance to speak.
Pratt said four days’ notice did not change his view. He asked whether the event could move to Oct. 24. The organizers said it was tied to the national date.
The board approved the event on town property near the library. The approval required the Select Board’s office to send the Republican Town Committee notice and contact information.
The special town meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 12. Pratt said moving it from the fall into the new year avoids conflicts with the holiday season and allows time to certify free cash.
The warrant opened Oct. 13 and closes Thursday, Nov. 5. The agenda had listed Nov. 3, which is Election Day.
Pratt read aloud a complaint filed by Patrick Higgins about the board’s Sept. 22 meeting. The complaint raised two issues: The agenda did not identify the pending lawsuit the board would discuss in executive session and the revised agenda did not note when the original had been posted.
Pratt said the first omission was his error as chair. He said he has since taken a 90-minute refresher course on the open meeting law.
“This was obviously not with malice in the heart or intentional form, but it did happen. So we have to be better on that,” Pratt said.
Interim Town Administrator Darleen Sullivan said the second issue caused no harm because both agendas remained posted online. The board voted unanimously to have legal counsel send the complainant a letter.
The Oct. 13 agenda named the lawsuit for that night’s executive session: Attorney General v. Town of Dracut et al., in Suffolk Superior Court. Pratt read the case name aloud before the board went into closed session.
The board appointed Nicholas Clark, a Silver Lake graduate, as a patrol officer. Deputy Chief Ted Benner said Clark was the top candidate among eight people interviewed from about 20 applicants. The department plans to send him to the full-time police academy in January.

Plympton’s free cash was certified by the state the day before the Sept. 29 Board of Selectmen meeting, but Town Accountant Lisa Hart told the board the number is lower than it used to be and that several items will pull on it further. Two old accounts are in deficits that will have to be written off. A new $9,200 bill for the town’s financial software was never budgeted. Fees that once flowed to free cash are now going into a police revolving account instead.
Hart opened the 28-minute afternoon meeting with an update on the year-end close and the town’s switch to new accounting software. She handed the board the state’s free cash certification, which Chairman Nathaniel Sides said had arrived “hot off the presses yesterday.”
Hart said the town is getting free cash certified faster than it used to. “It would be nice if the amount was high like it used to be,” she said, adding that the town tends to spend more, which leaves less behind. Records from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue list the certified free cash at $215,376.
Sides asked about roughly $250,000 in real estate taxes still listed as receivable. The accountant said that figure is “fairly average” for the town.
Hart pointed the board to two balances she said the town will not recover. The first is a water infrastructure grant account that was overspent and has carried a deficit for a couple of years. “That’s going to need to be written off somewhere,” she said. “So, we will need to find a place to get funds for that.”
The second is the town’s old police detail account. She said its unpaid invoices are now more than two years old and are unlikely to be collected. A few years ago, she said, the town opened a new detail account to start fresh. That account also tends to run a deficit, but revenue that comes in through September can be applied against it, so it usually clears within about three months. She said the detail accounts should be tracked more carefully. As long as the old deficits stay on the books, she said, they affect the town’s cash.
Two school grant accounts, Title IV and IDEA, show about $11,000 in deficit, but she said those are not true deficits. They are reimbursement grants: the schools spend the money first and then draw down the funds. Hart said communication with the schools about those drawdowns “has been very poor.” She has met with school officials and asked them to send copies of their grants and to draw down funds by the end of July so the balances do not affect free cash.
A police grant through SEMLEC, the regional law enforcement council, has also been in deficit for some time. She said she has asked the police department to find out whether more grant money is coming or whether the gap must be covered from another source.
Sides asked whether a surplus anywhere in the police accounts could offset the deficits. Hart said the department’s revolving account for vehicle fees does hold extra money. She said administrative fees are now also being deposited there, and she does not know whether town meeting ever voted to allow that. The revolving fund was set up for vehicle fees, she said, and she has not seen anything spent from it.
Hart told the board those administrative fees used to go into the town’s general revenue and end up in free cash. With the change, she said, the town will get less free cash.
Sides, drawing on his time on the Finance Committee, said he believes the administrative fees pay for about three extra hours a week for a police department staff member, rather than adding those hours to the salary line. He said it would be “cleaner” to put the cost in the salary line and return the fees to general revenue, and that the board should take that up with the Finance Committee. Hart agreed. “I would feel better with it that way,” she said.
The town moved this year to the VADAR financial software system after its longtime vendor, CDS, stopped offering municipal financial services. The accountant said the first VADAR invoice, for $9,200, should arrive soon. “We need to figure out where that money is coming from,” she said. “That was not budgeted.”
Sides recalled that the cost came up during budget season and suggested it may have been planned for the technology line. Administrative Assistant Briggette Martins asked who would process the payment. Sides said the accountant’s office should handle the warrant, but that the funding source should be confirmed with Town Administrator Bob Fennessy.
Hart said she is fully comfortable processing and posting warrants in the new system but has not yet started the monthly budget reports she used to send each department. Under the old system, she said, she could email all of them at once. Now she will have to print and deliver each one. She plans to start with the largest departments and any department spending ahead of pace, and hopes to have those reports out by Oct. 15 and no later than the end of October.
She is also working on three year-end reports due to the Department of Revenue: the balance sheet, the Schedule A, and the tax rate. She said the town hopes to set the tax rate by mid-November to avoid the December rush at the state.
Asked by Sides whether VADAR will eventually make the job easier, Hart was candid. “Right now it does not feel like it’s saving me any time,” she said. She expects it will take about a year to be fully up to speed. She added that the Treasurer-Collector’s contract with the new payroll vendor, Harpers, covers preparing the town’s 1099 tax forms, which VADAR does not do, and that the two offices are gathering quotes for that work.
“Everyone’s aware of the fiscal difficulties we’re going to face this year,” Sides said. “So any information you can provide us to help us make some decisions would certainly be helpful.”
The board also approved the warrant for the Nov. 3 state election. Voting will take place in the Deborah Sampson Meeting Room at the Town House, 5 Palmer Rd., from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Along with nine statewide ballot questions, the ballot includes U.S. senator; governor and lieutenant governor; attorney general; secretary of state; treasurer; auditor; U.S. representative for the 9th Congressional District; governor’s councilor for the First District; state senator for the Plymouth and Barnstable District; state representative for the 12th Plymouth District; Plymouth District attorney; Plymouth County register of probate; Plymouth County commissioner; and Plymouth County treasurer.
The item was listed as a ratification, but a town official told the board it was an original vote. The board had approved early voting hours months earlier, she said, but had not yet voted on the election warrant itself.

On Sept. 1, an unenrolled voter walked into the polls and had to make a choice before marking a single oval. Take a Democratic ballot, and you could weigh in on Ed Markey versus Seth Moulton for U.S. Senate. Take a Republican ballot, and you could help pick a Plymouth County commissioner and a nominee for governor. You could not do both. Question 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot would end that choice by ending separate party primaries altogether.
Question 3 would replace the Democratic and Republican primaries with a single primary ballot. Every candidate for an office would appear on one ballot, labeled with their party or political designation, and every registered voter would get the same ballot. The top two winners would advance regardless of party -even if both are Democrats or both are Republicans.
It would cover governor and the other statewide offices, U.S. Senate and House, the state Legislature, Governor’s Council, and county offices such as district attorney, sheriff, register of probate, county treasurer and county commissioner. Governor and Lieutenant Governor would run together as a ticket. It would not change town elections, presidential primaries or the election of party town committees.
Halifax, Kingston, and Plympton look different from Massachusetts as a whole in one important way.
According to the most recent enrollment figures from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, about 20,700 registered voters live in the three towns combined. Roughly 70 percent are unenrolled — close to the statewide figure. But the rest split almost evenly between the parties: about 15.6 percent Democrats and 12.9 percent Republicans. In Plympton, registered Republicans slightly outnumber Democrats. Statewide, Democrats outnumber Republicans better than two to one.
That balance shows up at the polls. Of the roughly 4,700 ballots cast in the three towns on Sept. 1, about 59 percent were Democratic and 41 percent were Republican. In Halifax the split was nearly even: 812 Democratic ballots and 733 Republican.
It also shows up in November. The 12th Plymouth House district, which covers Kingston, Plympton and part of Halifax, has been decided by fewer than 2,000 votes in each of the last two elections. Rep. Kathleen LaNatra (D-Kingston) defeated Republican Eric Meschino by 1,836 votes in 2022 and by 1,708 votes in 2024. The two meet again this year.
That matters for Question 3, because much of the case for it is built on a statewide problem — one-party districts where November is a formality — that looks different here.
In most of this year’s local races, Question 3 would have produced the same November ballot.
12th Plymouth (Kingston, Plympton, part of Halifax): LaNatra and Meschino were each unopposed in their primaries. Under a top-two system, both would have advanced. Same November matchup.
6th Plymouth (the rest of Halifax): Rep. Kenneth Sweezey (R-Duxbury) and Democrat Jessica Bradley Rushing were each unopposed. Same result.
Plymouth & Barnstable Senate (Kingston, Plympton): Sen. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth) and Republican Kari MacRae were each unopposed. Same result.
2nd Plymouth & Norfolk Senate (Halifax): Sen. Michael Brady (D-Brockton) was the only candidate who filed. On Halifax’s Republican ballots, 703 of 733 voters left the state Senate line blank because there was no one to vote for. Question 3 would not have added a name. It changes how candidates are sorted, not whether anyone runs.
The clearest local example is the one race on the September ballot that Silver Lake region voters actually contested.
Three Republicans — incumbent Commissioner Sandra Wright of Bridgewater, former commissioner Anthony O’Brien of Pembroke, and former Rockland Selectman Korey Welch — ran for a Plymouth County Commission seat. Democrat Rhonda Nyman of Hanover was unopposed for her party’s nomination.
O’Brien won the Republican primary with 13,295 votes. Only 33,060 Republican ballots were cast across all of Plymouth County, a county of roughly 420,000 registered voters. In Halifax, Kingston, and Plympton, O’Brien drew 882 votes to Wright’s 509 and Welch’s 266.
The 2,766 Silver Lake voters who took a Democratic ballot had no say in that race. Neither did any unenrolled voter who wanted a voice in the Markey–Moulton contest, which appeared only on the Democratic ballot.
Under Question 3, all four commissioner candidates would have appeared on one ballot in front of every voter. Nyman, as the only Democrat, would very likely have finished in the top two. The question of which Republican joined her would have been decided by the full primary electorate rather than a Republican-only one.
The same logic applies to governor. In Halifax, Mike Minogue beat Brian Shortsleeve 590 to 139 on the Republican ballot. Under Question 3, both of their tickets would have been on the same ballot as Gov. Maura Healey’s, before every voter.
Supporters, led by the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argue that the current system asks too much of the 70 percent of local voters who belong to neither party.
Selecting a party ballot does not enroll an unenrolled voter in that party. But it does force them to give up every contested race on the other party’s ballot. On Sept. 1, voters faced exactly that tradeoff: a Senate primary on one side, a county commission and governor’s primary on the other. Danielle Allen, the Harvard professor who chairs the Yes campaign, argues that under Question 3 every voter would weigh in on every contested race.
Supporters also point to how few people are deciding. Turnout across the three towns on Sept. 1 was about 23 percent. LaNatra’s uncontested Democratic primary drew 5,816 ballots districtwide, about one-fifth of the 28,775 cast in the district’s 2024 general election. When a race is truly decided in September, they argue, it is decided by a small and unrepresentative slice of voters.
They also argue that a guaranteed two-candidate November would encourage challengers to run against long-serving incumbents. Jesse Littlewood, the campaign’s manager, told Boston.com: “When they don’t have to compete for our votes, they don’t have a need to listen to us.” State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, former Gov. Deval Patrick and former Gov. Charlie Baker, who endorsed the measure this week, have backed it, along with former Massachusetts Republican Party chair Jennifer Nassour.
Research from California, which adopted a similar system in 2010, offers the supporters’ strongest evidence. A 2026 study found that in safe districts, the winners who emerged from same-party November races had been chosen by about 34 percent of registered voters, compared with about 11 percent under the old party primaries.
Opponents — an unusual coalition that includes both the Massachusetts Democratic and Republican parties, the AFL-CIO, teachers’ unions, and progressive groups organized as Voter Rights MA — argue that the measure would narrow November choices rather than widen them.
The local example they would point to is 2022. That year, the 12th Plymouth race had three names in November: LaNatra, Meschino and unenrolled candidate Charles McCoy Jr., who drew 856 votes. Under Question 3, only two candidates can appear on the November ballot. An independent or third-party candidate would have to finish in the top two in September to be seen by the much larger November electorate. Research by Richard Winger of Ballot Access News found that in California and Washington, no minor-party candidate had reached a November ballot in a race where both major parties fielded a candidate.
Opponents also say the current system is not as closed as the Yes campaign suggests, because unenrolled voters can already choose either ballot. “It’s a solution in search of a problem,” Massachusetts Democratic Party chair Steve Kerrigan told Boston.com. MassGOP chair Amy Carnevale has said the measure would erode the ability of parties to choose their own nominees and “amplify the role of big money.”
Opponents argue that candidates would have to run two broad, expensive campaigns instead of one, putting candidates without wealthy backers at a disadvantage. And they cite research finding that when voters see two candidates of the other party in November, many skip the race entirely.
Locally, Sen. Fernandes, whose district includes Kingston and Plympton, is among the elected officials who have endorsed a no vote.
Political scientists have also found little evidence for one of the most common claims made for systems like this one — that they produce more moderate lawmakers. Studies of California and Washington have found effects that are small, inconsistent, or absent.
Question 3 is the most lopsided money fight on the November ballot.
The Coalition for Healthy Democracy had raised about $5.1 million and spent about $4.8 million as of its Sept. 4 report to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Most of that money came from executives in private equity and investment firms. Donors giving $100,000 or more in 2026 included:
Counting contributions since 2025, the Boston Globe reports that David Peeler, formerly with Berkshire Partners, has given more than $1 million and Andrew Balson, Managing Partner at Cove Hill, nearly $800,000.
The opposition committee, Voter Rights MA, had raised about $35,000 and spent $8,000. Its money came from two sources: $25,000 from the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee and $10,000 from SEIU Local 509’s political committee.
A yes vote would replace party primaries with a single all-party primary beginning in 2028, with the top two finishers advancing to November regardless of party.
A no vote would keep the current system, in which Democrats and Republicans vote in their own party’s primary and unenrolled voters may choose one party’s ballot.
Because Question 3 is a statute rather than a constitutional amendment, the Legislature could amend or repeal it before it takes effect in 2028.