Needham Select Board, 6/23/26

Thank you for watching!

Recording in progress

calling to order the select board meeting for Tuesday, June 23rd. This meeting is being broadcast by the Needham channel, the town's YouTube channel. I think the Needham Observer is recording and I assume that the Needham Local is recording via the Zoom but if anyone else here is recording or recording on Fine. It's the time to tell the chairs now. So we're going to start, as we always do, with public comment.

And I know, Madam Chair, I just want to note that member, Vice Chair Levy, is on Zoom.

Oh, OK. Because he was running late. All right, fantastic. Thank you. OK, we're going to start with public comment. I believe our public comment is online this evening. Eden Boney?

I don't see him listed. If he wants to raise his hand, allow him to speak.

The letter said he couldn't make it.

Oh, did he? Okay, well, we'll start with you.

I thought the letter said that he couldn't make it, so he sent us the letter instead.

Oh, okay. I didn't see his letter. All right, so if you have public comment, come on up. You're going to have a seat, and you're going to introduce yourselves by name and address. And are we all speaking together, or are we three separate comments? uh we're all going to contribute okay generally generally generally around three minutes i don't mind but also this we're just going to listen we're not going to respond but so I'll go first that's fine just um bring this you don't have to speak into it but the people online can't hear you if it's not close so we'll keep in the middle

So I'm Lori White Fernandez. This is my husband, Rob Fernandez, 19 Bradford Street. This is Karen Walker. I don't know your actual address. 13 Webster Park. 13 Webster Park. and so we're here to express our concern about a rat problem that we have been seeing in our neighborhood and also in some public areas surrounding We think that it's a concern that should be addressed on a greater scale than just privately paying for exterminators. So we have two stories here that we want to bring to your attention so you know how dire the need is that something has to be done.

Yeah, great. Yeah, and we're following up, too, on an email that was sent to the select board from Amy Finn, who's also a neighbor and wanted to communicate it. Yeah, basically, it seems like it started about two years ago We had an issue in our garage, saw some droppings, started to set some traps. And over a period of maybe four weeks, we caught 21.

21.

21 rats. And we didn't want to be, you know, it took us a while to want to be public about this. We were actually quoted in a Needham Observer article anonymously about a year ago, and we thought, okay, this needs to be public. so that's finished but I think to emphasize Lori's point we think the town needs to take a proactive and coordinated response to this it's not just the center of town they're moving out yeah

and like I've seen them running over to Woodlawn, like it's on the other side of Great Plain Ave. It's not just us and our neighbors, the abutters. it is definitely and we're seeing it spreading elsewhere at dusk or that time at night but go ahead Karen

My problem is relatively new considering about somewhere in November I noticed things were coming inside our house because we have a room that's not completely finished. So we had animals coming inside. We didn't see them. We didn't know. I hired somebody to come out and see. A couple months later, when we figured out what was going on, he said, oh, you've got rats. It's very simple. Just drop stuff in there and cover up the hole. So my husband dropped stuff in there, covered up the hole, and guess what? It didn't work. So we hired another company to the tune of $1,840, who was doing some stuff and was supposed to do gassing, which didn't really happen in any good time. We parted company with them. yesterday because and when we found out actually the ongoing thing was oh no no you owe and they charged my card and they oh you're gonna owe about three thousand dollars for the year so this is not Not good.

So my husband did call in between those two people, the person in the group. We did call all of the Board of Health and someone called or talked with him. Gerd? Is there a person named Gerd? I don't know. Whatever. She's the rat person. And she said, well, the town uses gas when they deal with rats. And that was it. No recommendations, no anything.

and we did call when we first found out we also called the town they gave leaflets but it really didn't do much but I think there has to be a greater awareness because They could travel up to 300 yards. They breed five times a year. It could be on average nine pups. and they could start procreating as early as five months. So like it is an aggressive problem. And I think their breeding machine, I think the problem is if someone has open compost, which has happened with our neighbors, meaning that it wasn't above ground, it was just in a pile that's a food source if someone has water on the ground or even in a bird feeder they can crawl up and then that's you know water and they just need a place where they have shelter and so they can borrow underneath so

you know we saw them in the center of town and then they're moving to where we are and I'm seeing them you know further away but I've also seen people with just open compost that they're just throwing it it's not in a properly sealed container or it's on the ground where they can burrow underneath, which was our case. It was sealed, but they could borrow underneath. So it's a greater problem.

If I could add one thing, too, and I think our problem started when there was construction abutting our property, abutting our property. I know that another neighbor, the Youngs, had the same problem with their budding something, you know. House knocked down. Yeah, a house knocked down. And the problem is that this is happening a lot in Needham. and we're all connected. So it would be really nice if we could take a concerted view of the problem as a town, figure out what to do. I would do anything to help out. I really would, but I can't do it myself.

and I think people don't want to admit that they have this problem. But neighbors are like, oh, we don't have any. And you're like, you definitely do. You just don't. You just aren't seeing them because they're not just selectively going around one sealed off property to go to another. They could travel within a football field.

We might be out of time too, I guess.

well that's our concern thank you so Amy's email came in we have started speaking about this interdepartmentally so we'll we hope to have some more information in the future and thank you so much yeah thank you yeah it's hard yeah it's hard and it can only get thanks for thanks for coming out? Yeah, coming out. Yeah, thank you. And letting us know about the problem.

Thank you. Thank you for listening.

Okay. Fantastic. Bring him over, please. Hi, Aiden. I'll ask you to unmute yourself so that you... Paul. Hi. Okay, so we're ready for your public comment. I'll just remind you to introduce yourself. Hi, can you hear me? Yeah, can you hear us? Yep, I can. Okay, great. So if you can introduce yourself and say your address and then we'll give you about three minutes and we appreciate your time.

Yep. I will do. I'm going to start off by saying that my connection isn't very good, so this might not come across clearly, and I apologize if it doesn't. But my name is Aiden Boney of 13 Nichols Road. I am here on behalf of Safe Streets Needham. Last Friday, a child was struck by a vehicle on Great Plain Ave. The investigation is still active, and I want to be careful about the specific details of this crash. But what has been reported publicly is telling. According to the Needham Observer, the child was halfway across the crosswalk when she was startled by a yielding driver honking their horn at an oncoming vehicle. Spooked, she ran back directly into the westbound lane. I want the board to sit with that sequence for a moment. A driver stopped to yield. Another vehicle kept moving in the adjacent lane, and the child was caught between them. Pay the price.

I want to use this as a reflection and to open a conversation about pedestrian safety, especially on Great Plain Ave. This crash is not a freak accident. This is a double threat, one of the most well-known documented crash types in pedestrian safety research, and one that is unique to multi-lane roads. On a two-lane road, the sequence of events is not possible. I also want to raise something that many Needham residents have brought to our attention since this. Drivers on Great Plain regularly pass around vehicles at a stop to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. This is not an isolated incident, and we have heard it from resident after resident. It is dangerous, illegal, and a behavior that four-lane roads actively enable, because the road design itself signals to drivers that there is always another lane to move through. The data in this corridor tell us the same story. 35% of all crashes on Great Plain Avenue are side swipes.

Side swipe collisions are a collision type unique to roads with multiple lanes in each direction. That means at the minimum, more than one in three crashes on the street are a direct consequence of a four-line design. Days before This pedestrian was hit. I stood before the podium in front of you and said, quote, There will come a day, perhaps when this border area future one, when a serious injury or death occurs on the stretcher road, as one did in 2007. When this happens, people ask, why did the board choose an unsafe plan when a safe room was on the table? That day came faster than any of us hoped. I am here to open the conversation about pedestrian safety and what is the right choice for Needham. This has been a big conversation in town for the last week and a half. Residents are concerned, especially in downtown on Great Plain. Needham wants better. A safer design is still on the table. Thank you so much for your time today.

I sent you all an email with more information in regards to this.

Yes, we received it. Thank you, Aiden.

Thank you. Have a great afternoon.

You too. Is there anyone else in the room who is here to make a public comment this evening? Anyone else online? OK. All right. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to move to our first order of business, which is a public hearing, an Eversource grant of location for 78 Birds Hill Avenue. We'll bring the participants over online. Okay, so we're going to be joined by Joanne Callender from Eversource and Rafael Loureiro de Souza from Loureiro Construction. I hope I'm saying that correctly.

Yeah, you're right.

great okay so we'll ask Joanne maybe you can get us started here sure good evening

Eversource is seeking to grant a location to install approximately six feet of conduit into Hillcrest Road. And this is to provide underground service to the new home at Lord help, 78 Birds Hill Avenue. Sorry. I was also asked. to share some more information about the customer's request. And the fact of the matter is the customer did make this request in January. and we needed more information from the customer and the customer did provide it, but there was a glitch in the system and we didn't receive it. Well, we received it, but we didn't have all the full details, so it just sort of sat on a desk, I would say. And then in April, when the customer reached out to us and asked what was going on with the request, that's when we realized we had all the information that we needed. And then we went to process the order. So there was a significant delay on Eversource's part.

And so it's my understanding that, unfortunately, the customer went ahead and installed the service prior to this grant allocation request.

Okay, excuse me. So when was the install done? Do we know?

That I don't know.

Okay, so Mr. D'Souza, can you?

yeah yeah so they installed so we have a person from every source in april uh and so he he bring the design they are proposing right so and that's when that that what was done yeah

So it was done in April before that you talked to Eversource or after?

After. So Eversource came out to take a look to the design, right? So talk about the design. and he explained what to do to us, like to show where the bot needs to be and everything. And then we did. So of course, that's my first ground up. So I didn't know about the GLL, I'm sorry. if i jump a few steps so we've been needing for a while now with renovations that's my first one and i apologize for any inconvenience of that movement okay

If it's helpful for the board just to articulate the process, Eversource tends to enjoy and please correct me if I'm wrong, send out a field representative on site to look at the area and mark up the drawings. that Eversource needs to be able to apply to this board for a grant of location. So there is someone from Eversource that goes out on site first with the requester to initiate ultimately it coming to this board.

That is true.

However, we do at that point state to the customer that they have to wait for the grant allocation before they can do the work. and we put that on our sketch as well okay so I don't know where the miscommunication came in but our designers do make that known okay and uh

so understood there was some miscommunication uh the the work has been done and has it been checked is it all

Are you comfortable if the board approves the grant application now and take public comment as you would even though the work's been completed?

Okay.

all right um do my colleagues have any uh comments i mean it's just disappointing that this happens but i can understand there is communication sometimes

Levy, Frail, Keane, King, Levy, Reid Dowd, Needham, Councilor Levy, Frail, Keane, King, Levy, Reid Dowd, Needham, Councilor

Okay, well, so first time's a charm. I understand there were extenuating circumstances, it sounds like, you know. things got a little confusing here but in the future we need you to make sure that you have the appropriate documentation in hand before starting the work as long as that's understood I think

No, 100%. So we've been, you know, like I said, doing renovations for a while. We have never had any problems before. And I appreciate it. We understand all this missing information and... I'll make sure that never happened again.

All right. Thank you. All right. Well, in that case.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

I make a motion to select board. Thank you, Bill.

Yes, it is. It's circled right there. Is there anyone in the room who would like to make a comment on this public hearing?

or online. Great.

We're going to bring you over, Sherry.

all right hello hi my name is jerry um i'm uh at 70 birth hill avenue um i just uh uh have a related question um i think in addition to that They also have three or four dead trees pretty tall. I'm just wondering if the builders are going to take care of it?

yes actually so we have our our three three company there last week checking they're doing all the tests for the the trees so uh that's So at least at the first look, they said everything looks good. They are still alive. They're big, but still alive.

That's absolutely not true. Levy, Frail, Keane, King, Levy, Reid Dowd, Needham, Councilor Levy, Reid Dowd, Keane, King, Levy, Reid Dowd, Keane, King, Levy, Reid Dowd, Keane, King, Levy, Reid Dowd, Keane, Keane,

the concern over the trees. And I'm going to ask that we kind of take this offline because this is really what we need to be talking about here is the the grant of location for the work that is on the our meeting agenda. So let me ask you, certainly, I think, Raphael and Sherry, perhaps you should get in touch with each other. And if Sherry, you have any concerns, you can contact the building department to discuss kind of your concerns about the trees so that they can look at it from that angle as well. Would that be all right? because we have to stay pretty close to the subject at hand here. And while I understand this is important to you, it's not something that we can discuss at length here.

yeah okay understood um yeah okay great thank you i appreciate it and i appreciate you speaking up about it okay um any other public comments online no okay so you were saying

Oh. Madam Chair, I move that the select board vote to approve and sign a petition from Eversource Energy to install approximately six feet of conduit in Hillcrest Road.

Second. OK. Any further comment? Mr. Levy is online, so we're going to do this by roll call vote. So Josh, get ready to unmute yourself. and we'll go down from this end. So Kathy? Aye. Kevin?

Aye.

Bill?

Aye.

I vote aye. And if Josh can unmute himself, maybe he's driving. I know he's on his way here. So we'll call it a day at Oh, he just disappeared. Okay, so we're going to call it a day at 4-0. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Joanne. Thank you, Raphael. Thank you.

Have a good evening. Have a good evening.

okay so we're going to move on to our next agenda item this is also a public hearing and this is the recycling and transfer station user fees and charges and we're going to have a whole host of folks come join us okay um So the Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Advisory Committee. Dave Davidson, our Director of Finance, Karis Lustig, Director of Public Works, Celia Simchak, Assistant Director of Finance, and Matthew DeMaurie, Superintendent of the Recycling and Solid Waste Division. Hello everyone. Okay, so we're going to hear about recommended changes to the RTS rates and charges.

Yes. Take it away. Madam Chair. Staff met with the Southwest Advisory Disposal Committee earlier in the year, and there was just a modest change recommended to the full rate schedule. Levy. Consistent with what the committee had spoken with the board previously is to gradually increase the rates for the in recognition that the costs are increasing, including the cost of the bags themselves. There's a recommendation of a 3% increase, which would increase the package of 10 bags from $21.60 to $22.25, and the small bags from $11.60 to $11.95. That is the only changes being recommended for the board to act upon.

the proposal would be for the board to vote on this at your next meeting which would be scheduled for which is scheduled the 21st of July and these rates would not take effect until October 1st And with this, I'll turn this over to the chair of the committee.

If you refresh my memory, I believe the vote was unanimous for these recommendations. We just want to make sure we stay on top of increasing prices and do it incrementally annually and evaluate them annually so we don't get in the same place that we got to before. So it's an easy kind of discussion.

Great.

I just say this makes sense to me. I mean, for a couple reasons. One, I appreciate the slow and steady that you guys are pursuing as a policy. I think that makes it easier on the residents. and also I think this is the kind of thing the great thing about the yellow bags is that the more you use the more you pay so I think there's a fairness in that and if we don't stay on top of the price increases. Ultimately, it is a subsidy by the taxpayers, which I think is less desirable. So all of that to say, I think what you're proposing makes sense.

Okay, the contract ends in two years?

So it ends June 30th of 2028. Okay. To be clear, I think that 3% is a good increase right now. But in the new contracts, I've heard like 8% might be typical. So that's a new landscape. That's actually better than what I was hearing about five years ago in terms of I was thinking sort of almost a parabolic rise in rates due to capacity issues. But I think what's affecting rates now is actually rail service because so much material is going out to Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania. We're a net importer in New England. We're going to also be a net exporter in terms of debris trash. Most of our municipal trash is being processed in state. Most of it.

The material going out of state tends to be more construction, so that's not really what Needham residents are generating right now in their collections at the transfer station. That doesn't mean the demos or the houses. might be going out of state. But what we collect at the transfer station, it's MSW, municipal solid waste. That's being processed in state. We expect that to be processed at the incinerator at... out in Millbury, yeah. And those rates, 8% isn't as bad as what they were talking about about five years ago. That's a lot. We have to stay on top of it and keep our eye on it. But Karis is working on that contract with 35 other communities. Okay, great. Thank you.

if that's the case is there any merit to the idea of like starting now moving prices up one or two percent a year worst case you get to 26 and you're already beating that three percent increase But if it's eight, then you're hot.

I was kind of an alarmist. I mean, Karis knows about five years ago, I was waving my arms and saying, look out, this is going to be bad. So it's not as bad as I thought. So maybe... you know going by my prediction isn't a good idea because I would have

one thing i'll just add is about 10 years ago the town along with the other communities in our waste agreement renegotiated rates and we actually saw a decrease in our rate per ton which is The thing that never happens, right, where you get a decrease for a service. But at the time, the facility and wheelabrator was going to be sold. Our contracts were about to potentially be renegotiated. And so they wanted to lock us in as clients because we're a steady stream of waste for that facility. And we were able to reap the benefits of it for the past decade. I think most likely it will put us back on the trajectory that we were on before of seeing increases. So all I'll say is I believe last year was the first year that our rate was the same as it was 10 years ago. which is a pretty nice savings that we had. And we just don't anticipate that to, that sort of benefit that we had from that negotiation is just not gonna last through a new contract. Sure.

The only other question I had is I assume that because you've not noted it, that no other costs are changing. For right now, it's really just the bags.

Yes. We amended a lot of the fees last year and felt that and they're all just usually just and the cost to us. We don't really charge residents more than what we get charged for taking away those things. So there hadn't been any increases in those other than what mattresses was a big one.

I guess two questions. What's the thought on recommending a change in the bag fee but not on the commercial drop-off fee? So if residents have a commercial hauling, it sounds like their rates will not be changed at all or as much. compared to residents who dropped their own trash off.

We've been more aggressive on raising the commercial tonnage rate and the higher rates in terms of the large drop-offs and one of the lower rates, a recurring theme that you're hearing. for different services that are provided by the town. Just give you a flavor in some of the area communities for the large bags, native charges for the same package of 10. $22.50. Sudbury just raised their rates to $26. Town of Weston is $40. town of Westford is $27.50. Many of these communities are raised. Some of the communities on the Cape, Brewster is $20 for the large bags, as is Sandwich is $20. But Sandwich also charges a $60 fee to enter the recycling center. Needham does not. Brewster charges $50 to enter the recycling center.

Again, Needham does not.

No, thank you. And that kind of really every town has different expenses too. When this used to be an enterprise fund, but if the goal was for it to be self-funded, that interest never happened. Is there still a target for what percentage of operations is meant to be funded by fees?

I believe that we're looking at certainly the one-off items that we charge at least what it is that the town has to pay for the disposal items such as white goods, air conditioners and mattresses and such. and ideally we would like to get up to where the paid to throw are paying the cost of the trash processing fees. We're not there. Thank you.

Do you want to go ahead, Jeff? I think this idea of the transfer station operating as self-sufficiency is a myth and it's been explored and studied and that's how we got to here today without a fee and recognizing how much of In Kind Services, the town and other citizens who don't pay into it benefit and also have a responsibility. So that's why it needs to continue to be supported by the tax levy. and get away from the myth that we should only pay for what we handle and touch ourselves, resistance to paying for our trash. If you don't mind my candidness.

No, I'm just, there's no right answer. It's just, I mean, you could imagine the entire other way being 100% subsized. Like, is there a target, whatever it is?

When I first got involved in the town, my first committee was the SWDRAC, so I'm very excited to see them here tonight. And I know it's a lot of hard work, and I think you were involved back then, Jeff, probably. and I know this is a lot of hard work and I want to first say thank you for all the work you do to come up and review these numbers because there's so much involved up there and thank you Matthew and your Crew, I see some of them here. But I think this proposal here is a very reasonable proposal and I would be in favor of it.

Excellent. In that case, Mr. Termini. Do you want to make a motion?

No, hearing. To hearing. I liked your public hearing.

Truly, it's circled. Sorry, everyone. It's a public hearing. Who would like to speak on the rates proposed this evening? No one in the room. Anyone online? All right then, Mr. Dermody. We can have discussion.

It's just a hearing.

Yeah. Oh, that's right. That's right. It's just a hearing. Good grief. Sorry, everyone. I have a cold. In July, I'll make sure I hear and I'll make sure I make that motion. It's a little rough in here today, so apologies. Kevin, you had a comment you wanted to make.

Yeah, just to talk trash with you guys. I just wanted to say that. previously, we had to raise the commercial hauling rate. How has it worked?

I think it did what we hoped it would. We don't want to be desirable location for out of town material coming to us. and I think we've seen that reduction in that commercial bulky out of town rate. I think it was appropriate, and I think probably we're going to have to do some analysis on crunching the numbers, but I think even though it has reduced tonnage on that side, I think the revenue number's been about the same. I'm guessing we'll crunch that. Probably Justin knows better than I do.

Awesome. Thank you.

Excellent. Anyone else? You guys have anything else you want to? Scherer. Thank you so much for all the work. I know that this is much more involved than the spreadsheet that comes to us, so thank you.

The process and the numbers.

Agreed. Thank you.

Thank you.

okay so the next item on our agenda is to set the water and sewer rates you can see that some of our cohort has stayed we reviewed these figures in our last meeting and I guess I would ask if you have any little review that you want to give us.

Madam Chair, two corrections. to your motions under option three where it says the basic quarterly service fee would increase by that should be three dollars not three percent.

Thank you.

and under option four the same thing it shouldn't read three percent it should read three dollars and the committee did make their report too at your previous meeting. They provided four options with heavier emphasis on option one or option three.

By heavier emphasis, you mean preference. Yes, I go with preference. Okay. All right. Then I will open it up to comments from my colleagues. Bill, you want to?

go first I don't remember hearing that about option one or option three because I mean a lot we have a lot of expenses that are coming and we have you know we have an elderly population on fixed income so with the leaning towards or their recommendation preference is the correct word, I guess, is option one or option three. then I would probably lead towards the option one, which is a little bit less increase than the option three. Of course, I wanna make sure we can cover our expenses, but I would like to do it in the most economical way, functionable, if that's a word, which I think would be option one.

Madam Chair, I came into this thinking they're all very similar. I am looking at the fixed fees, and those increase the least for option two. I know next year we're probably going to reviews again and we're gonna have an opportunity to perhaps even change what the thresholds are between steps so I and and I think The most important thing is that when asked, any of these options are expected to sufficiently fund the operation. So that's why I think I prefer option two.

Kathy? Madam Chair, could you remind us why the emphasis was on one and three?

The particular reason is the increase in the basic service fee is one of the biggest problems as we keep describing the most expensive gallon of water is the first gallon of water and the least amount of money is paid on a usage basis for the first gallon of water, and it's the last gallon of water that the most is charged, contrary to the way people usually think when they're buying in quantity, that they get a lesser price per unit. and much water and sewer operations are heavily capital intensive and that cost again regardless the amount of water being delivered is just as expensive. Just to remind the board, we will be looking at services that require a larger Pipe going into the dwelling.

And there'll probably be some recommendations to change that pricing structure. Also in recognition of the demands on the infrastructure. but the bottom line was it's recognizing that the fixed fee certainly helps, brings in a A fixed amount of revenue for fixed costs. The true way to lower the rate of increase going forward is with particularly with all the demands to keep individual consumption Dowd is to grow your customer base and there's not too many options not too many opportunities for growing the customer base

Quick. You talked about the larger pipe going into, you know, is that new code? Is that revised building code?

No, no, it's just the need to provide the water to the pump. Think of a multi-family unit. that only has one service meter, whereas maybe you have a duplex that has two separate meters, two separate service lines, certainly a lot of larger commercial operations that require a greater amount of water. it just has the ability to provide the water that the dwelling requires.

Okay. And of the options, option three, does that do the best of the target revenue? I mean, are we trying to get as...

Well, yes, of the four options, option three would return the highest revenue estimate. All right. And we'd meet our targets then. Yes. OK.

actually Madam Chair I have another question so we're looking at average increases ranging from 3.9% to 4.4%, correct? I'm just wondering, within any one of these options, would the percent increase vary a lot between consumers or are most consumers going to be pretty well tight around that average?

No, it could be with a fixed fee, low-end consumers would realize a greater percentage increase, but a smaller dollar increase. Like the analogy I sometimes use is something costs a penny, you go to two pennies, it's a penny increase, but it's 100% increase. So it's the same thing. The lower end users will realize a greater percentage increase, but a lower dollar increase in their bills. And conversely, looking at this as The consumers using more than 12,000 cubic feet start thinking your businesses and stuff, they will be closer to or a little less than that average. Okay.

Okay, so I've heard a couple of preferences expressed. Do you guys have?

Yeah, curious, I'm thinking.

Trying to understand where you are.

I'm actually thinking option three only because I think with the fee even though it's a hit I've talked to a lot of people and there's this feel hard time understanding the less they use it doesn't it means our rates have to go up the more the less people use the more the rates have to go up correct So sometimes having the fee helps understand that there's a base and then conservation can happen after that. Is that a better way to figure it out in your head?

Yes, correct, because one of the basic services people need is water and sewer services, and you have to have the ability to... push out the sewer and they have to provide clean potable water. And even though folks are reducing the consumption, we still have to have the ability or ready to serve. Yeah. And so, as I said, it's capital intensive in order to provide these services. Okay.

Yeah, I guess that's where I am as well. I feel like we're already we're the town is subsidizing this service. But if we can cover our to the extent that we can cover some of our basic costs with a fee because the water use is variable. I think that sounds preferable.

Yeah, Madam Chair, I would say I'm comfortable with option one or three, because when you think about providing water, it's one of the ultimate fixed cost business, right? You've got all the pipes, no matter what. So having you know some steady income that is more predictable that can cover well not even cover but take take a little dent you know and that fixed cost does make sense to me especially since our consumption does vary quite a bit year to year, month to month. So I'm comfortable with one or three from that perspective.

all right well uh which is it going to be folks i think we need to just can you help us uh decide between the two would you have some I mean, really, I mean, this is not our area of expertise. You've indicated a preference for one and three. To be perfectly honest, they're very, very similar. So Is there a benefit to one over the other?

It's just a matter of when you're looking at the time.

Just balance.

We know that the rates are going to have to go up again next year and the year after. In fact, just interesting, we got a report from the MWRA. Today, in terms of Needham's, there you go, there should be five of them. and the green line is the water consumption purchasing from the MWRA year to date. As you can see, it's much higher than the last two years, which have been exceptionally high as well. so and we do know that MWRA water is more expensive than our locally produced water so we do know That right there is telling you we're looking at another rate increase next year just because of a greater reliance on MWRA water.

notwithstanding all the capital investment that needs to be made. But to your question, there is nothing wrong if you want to to a halfway point is to go with option one rather than option three.

Would option one defer a cost to next year? I mean, do we have to then make up what we don't charge this year?

Well, it will put more option one increases the usage rates more so than the other options. but doesn't increase the basic service fee as much.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, I think it's the service fee that feels most impactful.

Yes, because all these rates are across-the-board type of rates, so a 4% increase in the primaries, so the Step 1 is going up by 4%, Step 2 is going up by 4%, and so on. and the irrigation rates are going above by 8%, but there's no increase to the basic service fee on the water. whereas under option three, those rates would be a 2% increase in the step rates. and a 7% increase in the irrigation rates, but there would be a $3 increase in the quarterly basic service fee. or in other ways of saying a $12 flat increase annually on all customers.

I would still lean towards option one with, if we are having an increase this year, let's try and not, I mean next year, not do as much this year. Yeah, but then are you piling up? It could be, yeah. Yeah. It's going to go up no matter what. I know, but do you want to spread the pain? How much is it going to pile up? And I think the service fee is an issue. Yeah.

Okay, well, I mean, I don't want to be flip about it, but the total increase that we're talking about is $12, right? The yearly fee. Yeah, so it's, I mean, it's not huge.

No, it's not. It's not huge. If you have a lot of things that increase by $12.

Yeah, yeah, everything, no, I agree. Everything is increasing. I just want to put it sort of in a perspective. All right. Well, does anyone want to make a motion?

Sure, Madam Chair. I move the board approve the water and sewer rate identified as option three. and suggest that they be effective July 1st, 2026 and that the board approve a septage disposal fee of $85 per 1,000 gallons.

Okay. So option three, do we have a second? Second. All right. Any more discussion? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. And those opposed? Nay. Nay. Okay. So four to zero. I've got no explanation. Okay, moving along. Thank you, everyone. All right. So we're going to talk about some alternative polling locations next with Katie King and our town clerk, Louise Miller. Come on up.

How are you?

The town clerk and I have been on a grand adventure touring town buildings to review alternative polling locations. The clerk had joined the board previously in the year or the end of 2025, discussing some of the reasons that we were looking at new locations. So just there's a memo in your pocket, but to summarize, Precincts C and D were the original impetus. They currently vote at the Newman. It's our last school-based polling location, and I think it's everyone's preference to find an alternative there to relocate out of the school. and then subsequently we got funding from town meeting to do the renovations at the center at the Heights that's the polling location for precincts A and B and that construction

is underway starting next week through the end of the calendar year during which we will have two elections in the fall and then lastly the town clerk was very opportunistically looking at the map if we're going to be looking at alternative locations She had also identified that the Rosemary Recreation Complex currently houses two precincts, F and G, and it's pretty tight. We truly did tour alternative facilities with IT, building maintenance. We had conversations with the police department and primarily the sites are the former Hillside Elementary School on Glengarry Road. Young, the Public Safety Building in the Training Room, and here in Town Hall. Looking at a variety of considerations that the Clerk needs to run. polling location that I will leave to you to articulate. But just to jump to the punch line, the recommendations to the board is to vote

change in polling locations to move precincts A and B to the former Hillside Elementary School, to move C also to the Hillside Elementary School, to move precinct D to the Public Safety Building, and Precinct G here to Town Hall. And with that, I'll turn it over to the clerk to share what it's like to run an election and why these are good fits.

Sure. So the first thing is state law does require us to try to place polling locations if we can't place it in the precinct itself or if there's a, you know, shared precinct in one of the two precincts at least a precinct that's adjacent. So that was one of the considerations as well as we were looking at this. So Precinct C&D, I was here before. I don't think I need to repeat the issues with the Newman School. FNG is probably new to you. So I just want to go very quickly through FNG. So the way election runs is we either have walkers or drivers who come to a polling location and they have to enter the polling location. They have to be checked in. after they are checked in, they receive their ballots, they vote their ballots, the ballots are placed through the reading machines and then they exit.

And so if you look at Rosemary as just an example, there is a single entrance and exit point and as the voters walk down we separate the i don't know what what it is some kind of a activity room in half half go to the left half go to the right but they then have to cross the voters cross each other again exiting so it's a single entrance and exit point and the voters are crossing each other on either side of the room so Ideally, what you have is some kind of a circular pattern so that voters can check in they go to the booths, they check out, they vote, and they exit. And that's a much better pattern. Also for emergency planning,

some of the locations are easier than others and we do work with the state we just had recent emergency planning which we're going to bring all of that feedback back to the town but like you know we have to look at things like how many exits do we have how easy is it to pack up and take if we have to evacuate take our machines out with us things of that nature so as we were looking at locations that's how we came up with what we did and I really loved the hillside thank you for suggesting that last time because there's ample parking . We would use multiple rooms so I think in the memo we did highlight that we might need an

police detail right now we have five we would probably need six instead of five but that would be the only added cost but I think there would be great benefits and then the other thing is by having the polling locations where they are we're maximizing the number of walkers to each of the polling locations for each precinct it's still you know we're still going to have heavy elections you know not every election is heavy and we're still going to have the same you know congestion that we have during heavy elections but I think this might be much better and I do want to thank Katie for you know helping organize and we spent some amount of time walking around listening to HVACs to see how loud they were and whether they would interfere with some of the election requirements about voters identifying themselves and election workers identifying voters, things of that nature.

But yeah, so that's where we are.

great well thank you both for doing that tour um can i just ask it sounds like the changes to a and b are temporary but the changes to c d and g would be permanent so i'm not so sure so the

Cath as a polling location is also very tight for two precincts and we do have mix-ups where voters end up putting their ballot in the wrong ballot box It happens at every election. And so I think that ideally we would only have one precinct. at the CAF. I do understand though that the hillside is not a forever solution, but nothing is a forever solution in the world.

And just to note, the suggested motion for the board was just to cover September, November of 26 elections and the next April with the thought that we just regroup, check in, see how it went and go from there.

And then we would have time because the following year we wouldn't have an election until March. So we once we go through September, November, April, We have a little breathing room to reevaluate.

No, I appreciate that. I think, you know, just be really important to people, creatures of habit.

They are. And we used to vote at Hillside. So just go back there.

We were.

It caused great confusion.

I'm sure we'll do a very comprehensive job of letting people know about these changes.

I think Hillside is a great idea especially because of the parking. I think the parking is really important obviously and then making it accessible for walkers. Here, in this building, there would be three precincts. Can you kind of let us know where they all would be? How would that work in this building?

So they actually would all be upstairs in Powers Hall. Right now, we have plenty of room for two precincts. There is that corridor. outside. So that gives us a good area where if people need to line up, they can line up in a heavy election. It's also Very handicap accessible from the side entrance. So it's a really good location. It has a good flow to it. It's got good visibility for the police detail. they can see the entire room from a single point. It's just a really good large space.

And would you have, I'm just thinking about your description of Rosemary, which is where I vote. Would you have people for different precincts coming in different doors or would they come in one door and exit one door? Like, how would that actually be set up?

So They actually enter two different doors in Powers Hall, and right now we've got them kind of the same way that we do at Rosemary. Some go off to the right, some go off to the left. There is enough room that we could have a left, a middle, and a right with stanchions in between. and then the voting machines are in the back where there are floor plugs and we spread them out and we actually put the checkout poll workers in between the machines so they can't get mixed up um okay yeah great kevin no it's just good to see hillsides we're still milking it for all it's worth oh yeah we don't like empty buildings

I'm supportive of the change. I think, especially Newman, we've gotten a lot of people who don't like having polling Newman. And even though the vote is for these three elections, I think it's clear that we're not going to go back there if we can avoid it.

I think once we're out of a school, we're never going back to a school. Yeah. Bill?

I would agree I support it, and I do vote here, and I can see how there is room for that third polling location here.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. Super.

Madam Chair, I would move that the board vote to change the following polling locations for September 1st, 2026. November 3rd, 2026 and April 13th, 2027 elections. Precinct A and B from the center at the Heights to the former hillside. Elementary School, Precinct C from Newman Elementary School to the former Hillside Elementary School, Precinct D from the Newman Elementary School to the Public Safety Building, and Precinct G from the Rose Bay Recreation Complex to Town Hall. Second.

Excellent. Any more discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you again for doing all that work. I have a lot of mail to send. all right thank you very much thank you thank you everybody we're doing a public hearing

Can we move the consent calendar?

You can, yes, but I just want to make a note about our consent. before we vote on it. People in this town make donations to the town and to various functions of the town all the time, and it's always appreciated whether it's 15 cents. There are lots and lots. of money. But this week we have an extraordinary donation from the estate of Robert T. Murray to the Needham Public Library of over $500,000. And just want to sort of note and, I don't know, just kind of mark that this person held that institution so dear that they would choose to distribute their estate in that way and just appreciate that.

and that as well will be administered by the Commissioner of Trust Funds. We don't know the restrictions on it, but we'll get the details.

Yeah, the restrictions are only that it be used for non routine maintenance. So things that are and whether it's interest only to be expended or principal, we'll get those details as well. It's just really special. And very generous.

I just want to make a note as well on the number eight, the Henry Hospitality extending the hours. This is the state's New Law that expires July 31st. We do not have a regular meeting until a month from now. I want to make sure that other establishments have an equal opportunity, so I would be happy to have a special meeting just for that purpose if other establishments wanted equal treatment on that.

Yeah, I think they were able to make that request and we haven't received any others. But certainly if others come in, then we can think about how to handle them. All right. So we have a motion to approve the consent agenda. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. So all those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

And that's 4-0. Great. Okay, so we'll move on to the public hearing on stormwater bylaw regulations with Tom Reiter, our town engineer, and Kim Donovan. and our new building inspector, building commissioner. Welcome. Nice to see you. Okay, so Just to be clear, nothing has changed from the presentation that you gave us last meeting, correct?

Nothing has changed. I added notes to the margins. Just so you can see what they were.

okay excellent and um so this is a public hearing and we are welcoming well i i don't know if you want to preface this but if so go ahead

So yeah, so this is the stormwater regulations that's a long time coming. This is the first adoption of the regulations. The bylaw was adopted last October. and subsequent we had some coffee hours with builders, realtors, engineers just to go over our draft regulations and so they can ask questions. We also put together some guidance documents so the builders understand what they're going to be required to submit when they go through a permit. the permits are generally going to go through the building department because most of it deals with house construction and it's not a separate permit this is a permit is attached to the building permit

if there's no building involved, but it has to do with filling in over 100 cubic yards of material or adding more than 500 square feet of impervious area. then it would go through a street permit process with the engineering division and with conservation, if you're in the jurisdictional area for conservation, you would go through the conservation if there's no building involved. So that's pretty much it in a nutshell. and it just applies for understanding what the engineer has to do for the design. This is different than the previous bylaw we had because now we have an engineering requirement

Soil Testing Requirement, and also the capture of an inch and a half of stormwater over the impervious area requirement. as well as an operation maintenance plan. And that I mentioned before, it gets recorded as a notice at the deeds. So I'm not sure, Kim, if you have anything extra, if I missed anything.

Oh, Kim, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were online.

She had a better connection, so.

Yeah. All right. Well, so thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the room who is here? to speak on... We're having a little bit of a time delay, Kim. Sorry. That's okay. Did you want to add something?

No, I just wanted to say, Tom, you did a great job explaining it. I just wanted to clarify that just so everybody understands the difference between the two documents. So when we went through the process of the stormwater bylaw review, was passed and is in full effect in the town of Needham as of May of this year. we determined that it is best practice for us to have a separate regulations document for the express purpose that basically to explain it In simplified terms, a bylaw defines what is required while the regulations explain how those requirements are met. So that's an easier way to understand the two documents and why the two different. Previously, our previous bylaw was sort of a pseudo bylaw regulations document on its own, and that did not did not function as well as we would have liked it to.

So one of the improvements we thought was pertinent was to have two separate documents. So that was the only thing I wanted to add. Thank you.

Thank you, Kim. Okay, anyone in the room who is here to comment on stormwater bylaw and regulations? Is there anyone online with their hand up? Okay. Well, that makes it fairly quick.

You got Paul Belior's letter, right? Yes. Okay. Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy,

actually it focused more on the guidance document that we submitted as for submittal requirements and he makes a valid point that you know One of the things we ran into problems before the bylaw, the previous bylaw is that we had land surveyors submitting designs where they're supposed to be submitting existing condition plans, offsets to property line, property line information. and the same thing goes with engineers. Engineers should be submitting the design, not offsets to property lines and stuff like that. So he's just making sure that we don't make a requirement that requires the engineer to certify offsets.

And there was a second letter as well.

and as it came from Dave Harrow and the comments I put in the margins and I agree with most of them. I think one of the comments that he made may already be implied into the document already. So if you want me to address those for the next, you know, I think they are valid points that he made as well.

Great. Any comments?

Just a question. I know you sent a summary of changes that were made since they were originally drafted.

Yes.

Could you review those quickly?

Okay, I didn't print them out, but I got my phone here. So Section 1, the general provisions, there was an addition of a conflict clause between the regulations and the state's requirement. Oh, thank you. So section one is just the general provisions. and it pretty much says that if there's a conflict, it will be whatever is the most restrictive will be adopted. Section 34, new or existing storm drain connections. We added the language to have the burden of proof on the applicant if they want a connection to the town's drainage system. Section 4 applicability, a clarified trigger of the increase of 25% of the build-in footprint.

and added a catch trigger for any stormwater flow, any substantially change in stormwater flows off the property. So projects that now start doing point source discharges towards their neighbors. We can have the authority to come in and say, you need to do something. Section 10, general requirements. So separated the 4,000 square foot impervious sites. versus under the 4,000-square-foot impervious sites. We also specified the source for determining the precipitation frequency using the NOAA Atlas maps. out of the requirement for the submittal of a summary stormwater report.

and then in the bylaw it indicates that there is a going to be a there may be a requirement for adding tree planting for projects with more than 4,000 square feet in pervious cover. So we added that into the requirements of the three trees per stormwater control measure. section 10.5 foundations that are built into the water table will require some sort of compensatory storage in addition to the stormwater treatment. so that you're not discharging into the town's drainage system. You have to find a location on site.

I'm saying above crowd or can't do that?

could be in ground, they could pump it to an above ground location or irrigate their yards, you know, whatever, yeah. As-built drawings added to track the total impervious area on the As-built plan. This will help us sort of find the impervious square footage for the lot. and Design Criteria, Section 10.8. We are offering some more guidance to assist applicants. So it's just kind of indication that, you know, we are here to help. Levy added technical standards for water quality requirements for phosphorus total suspended solids. So those are kind of the bulleted summary of changes that we have.

Great. Anything else?

all right very good thank you both and thank you kim you're welcome i didn't really do anything but thank you we have heard from some people saying they still want to make a comment. I haven't heard from them in a week, so I can give them a deadline.

Well, they're welcome to email the Office of the Town Manager at any time. So, otm.needhamma.gov. Anytime. Before or after.

yes and in terms of next steps the comments in the margins we can translate that into red lines into the regulations have that for your packet on the 21st so you can see what you're putting on

I did want to add, if I could, having the two separate documents is a benefit for clarity, but also for functional changes. If we find at any point that some of the regulations are not explanatory enough or don't give enough detail based on what we have, which we feel is pretty comprehensive. if for some reason it's still not sufficient, we can make some edits to it. And the benefit of having it in the two separate documents is that a bylaw as you know, requires a town meeting vote, whereas the regulations would require it to be brought in front of this board. for approval and acceptance. So it's a little bit less cumbersome to get changes put forth. So if there are questions, whether concerns or residents bring up any other future issues.

This is not as, I wouldn't say set in stone, but as difficult to change as it is with a bylaw.

thank you all right so we'll we'll always accept emails okay uh should there be a timeline though because we need to adjust for the next meeting

We can always accept emails, but if comments want to be in by the end of the month, I think that would give us plenty of time for the next email.

That would be helpful for us too.

Yeah.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we're going to move on to a discussion of our noise bylaw policy and direction. We're going to be joined here by Justin McGregor, who is our Assistant Superintendent, Department of Public Works, Recycling and Solid Waste Division.

Welcome.

Hello.

Could I chime in, if I could, Madam Chair, while Justin's getting settled? Justin is not here in his recycling and solid waste role. The Select Board has a lot of goals. and We Tap Talent, wherever we can find it. So on this, Justin is here because of his skills and his interests, and he raised his hand when we put out the call. So I just want to acknowledge that and look forward to the discussion.

Excellent. Yeah, bring it on. The presentation that you put together is really great, so I can't wait for you to walk us through it.

Appreciate that. Good evening Madam Chair and members of the select board. Tonight begins the policy discussion around one of the board's goals, updating Needham's noise bylaw and identifying what a practical enforceable approach could look like for the town. This is not a request to adopt bylaw language this evening. The goal tonight is to review Needham's current framework, summarize the main complaint categories identified through department input, compare how selected peer communities approach similar issues, and receive direction on what staff should develop next. First one might not go. There we go. What's driving the discussion? The discussion is being driven by a gap between the noise issues residents report and the tools available under Needham's current framework. The most common issue identified is powered yard equipment, especially leaf blowers and landscaping activity. Construction timing is also a recurring issue, including early starts, weekends, Sundays, and holidays.

Less frequent but still relevant are disturbance calls, amplified sound, early deliveries, loading and unloading, and dumpster service. The board's policy questions fall into four main areas, scope, standard, ownership, and escalation. That means deciding what should be regulated, how it should be observed or measured, who would be responsible for handling it and how the town would move from education to enforcement when needed. Needham today. Starting with Needham's current framework, the existing noise regulation is strongest when the issue is construction activity tied to a building permit. General By-law Section 3.8.1 applies to construction activity conducted pursuant to a building permit when the noise extends beyond the property line. The stated time window is 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. unless otherwise authorized by select board rules or regulations. That is a useful tool for permitted construction, but it is not a comprehensive noise code.

It does not clearly cover issues such as landscaping, leaf blowers, early deliveries, loading and unloading, amplified sound, or other non-permanent activity. Needham also has public health nuisance tools, but those are generally better suited for chronic issues than short-term noise that must be observed in real time. So the key point is that tools exist, but if the board wants to explore an expanded framework, the next step would be to define what sources are covered and who would handle response, documentation, and enforcement. what residents report and most often. The main categories on this slide come from department input and resident reported concerns. Powered yard equipment is one of the most frequent issues, especially in the spring and fall with most concerns involving leaf blowers and landscaping equipment. Construction timing is another recurring category.

Police hear concerns about early starts and weekend activity, while the building department reports relatively few permit-related noise complaints, most of which are resolved through calls to the contractor or property owner. how peer towns structure their rules. To understand the range of options available to Needham, I reviewed several peer communities. The main takeaway is that there is not one uniform model. Most sounds use one or more basic tools, time windows, targeted equipment rules, or a general audible standard. Wellesley is a useful time window example. It regulates commercial outdoor activity, including construction, earth moving, yard maintenance, home improvement, and related deliveries. The hours are 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturdays and state observed holidays, with Sunday prohibited unless an emergency or police permit applies. Snow removal is exempt.

Westwood and Dover are narrower and focus mainly on construction equipment and construction hours. Lexington and Newton provide stronger examples for yard equipment and leaf blowers. Dedham is the broadest comparison point, using a plainly audible standard at 150 feet during quiet hours. I believe their quiet hours are 9pm to 7am. peer less than through powered yard equipment. Lexington and Newton show two different approaches to yard equipment regulation. Lexington's model is broader. It regulates landscape maintenance equipment, not just leaf blowers. with separate hours for commercial landscapers, residents, and town operations. It also phases out gas leaf blowers with commercial use prohibited in 2025 and resident use prohibited in 2026. Newton's model is narrower, but more detailed.

It focuses on leaf blowers with a Memorial Day to Labor Day restriction, specific hours, equipment standards, and a commercial permit system. Commercial operators must be permitted and identifiable and repeat violations can lead to permit suspension. The takeaway is that yard equipment rules can address a common complaint category, but they work best when paired with clear communication, exemptions, an enforcement owner, a warning to the citation process, and enough administrative support to track complaints and repeat violations. Dedham is the pure example for a broader general noise framework. Its bylaw uses a plainly audible standard at 150 feet from the property line during quiet hours. Plainly audible means the sound can be clearly heard by a person using normal hearing without special equipment above normal background noise. That allows basic enforcement without requiring a decibel meter in every case.

Dedham's model covers multiple sources including construction and demolition equipment, landscaping equipment, loading and unloading, power tools, loud outcries, and commercial or industrial noise. The takeaway is that a broad standard can cover more categories than a construction-only bylaw, but it should be paired with a clear enforcement owner, documented escalation, and public-facing definitions. So I put up three tiered options for Needham. The suggested options are organized into three possible tiers. Each could stand alone or they could be phased over time depending on the board's direction. Tier 1 would clarify construction hours. This could refresh Section 3.8, clarify weekends, holidays, and noisy construction work, and add a narrow emergency or outside agency exception. This would be the lowest lift option, but it would not address yard equipment, deliveries, or broader disturbance noise.

Tier 2 would add a yard equipment rule. This could establish hours for landscape equipment with the option to distinguish between resident and commercial activity. The board could also consider seasonal limits, equipment standards, or phase-in timelines. This would target a common complaint category, but it would require clear communication and an enforcement owner. Tier three would be a broader nuisance noise framework. This could use quiet hours and a plainly audible standard and can include deliveries, loading, amplified sound, power tools, commercial or industrial noise, instruction, demolition, and landscaping equipment. This would be the most comprehensive option, but it would also require the clearest structure, strongest coordination, and the most administrative support to implement consistently. The overall suggestion is that the scope selected should match what the town can realistically administer, document, and enforce. Which leads me into practical challenges.

The practical challenges are evidence, authority, staffing, and case tracking. Most complaints today are resolved informally. Temporary or nighttime complaints are difficult because they often require real-time observation. Meter-based standards can help in some cases, but they require equipment, training, protocols and staff availability. This is why many communities rely on standards that can be observed and documented in the fields, such as hours, activity-based rules, or plainly audible standards. The stronger the scope, the more important it is to have a framework that can be applied consistently with targeted rules where appropriate and clear exemptions for essential operations, safety, traffic management, and continuation of service. Implementation choices. The implementation design is as important as the bylaw language itself. The first question is ownership. One option is a police-led model for immediate response and ticketing.

Another is a public health-led model for chronic nuisance orders, hearings and technical evaluation. A hybrid model could divide those responsibilities while a code enforcement option could improve field coverage and documentation but would require staffing and administrative support. The second question is what needs to be defined in the framework. Covered sources, hours, exemptions, permits, penalties, repeat offenses, evidence standards, and the actual complaint process. A practical suggestion is that any policy direction address both what the town wants to regulate and who would be responsible again for response, documentation, and escalation. Suggested next steps, they would be to start with the board confirming the preferred scope. From there, the board could identify the enforcement design, including whether it would be police-led, public health-led, hybrid,

were supported through code enforcement along with the evidence standard and penalty structure. From there, staff and town council could then prepare draft language, cover activities, hours, exemptions, permits, escalation, penalties, and repeat offenses, followed by rollout materials such as guidance, FAQs, intake instructions, training, and tracking. Overall, the suggested framework should address the primary concerns, preserve essential town operations, and establish standards that can be administered consistently. To close, tonight is not about adopting a noise bylaw or approving final language. It is a direction-setting discussion and the beginning of the policy development process. Based on the initial research and department input presented tonight, I am looking for direction from the board on what I would like staff to bring back next.

The main decision point is scope, whether to further develop a construction-only clarification, a targeted yard equipment rule, a broader nuisance noise framework, or a phase combination. Once that direction is clear, staff can return with a more developed framework addressing standards, enforcement ownership, exemptions, permits, penalties, and communications. with that I welcome the board's questions and direction on what framework staff should explore next and thank you for your time

Thank you. Well done. It's very comprehensive. So questions? Why don't we start down here?

It's a lot of information. You know, I'm leaning towards doing like a phased approach to tier one, tier two, tier three. I don't know how you feel about that, but I know there are issues with a lot of things I've heard from constituents already one of the first things I heard about is noise things and and it's just like you said it's not just the construction it's dumpsters it's other things so But I would look, you know, to try and, you know, because it seems like tier one could be done pretty quickly. You could really tighten up that. and then move on to Tier 2 and Tier 3. Because I think in the end we probably will want to get to Tier 3. And I don't know whether it's better to do a phase or just jump right to Tier 3. But it seems like Tier 1 could be done pretty easily.

Yeah, we'd just be redefining the hours, clarifying the Sunday work and just kind of updating it. And I agree going slow and steady through those phases would probably be more reasonable for residents to kind of follow.

Josh. Yeah, so I want to start with a couple of complaints I've heard that I hope we can address. So one, I guess it probably falls in tier one, that even though we have these construction hours, Some construction within a building is allowed to happen after those hours. So the equipment is not moving around, but they're still nailing and hammering and it's still very loud, even though it's happening inside the building. So I think even if it's just tier one, I think that has to be strengthened to have some sort of audible standard.

Yeah, do the plainly audible standard from the property line would cover that inside a building.

Yeah. and then I've heard a lot of complaints about leaf blowers. There have been a lot of suggestions about how to regulate that whether it's like Reguling Specific Equipment. That seems cumbersome. I would prefer an audible standard. But I think the difficulty, not that it's not able to be overcome, but We don't want to prohibit... Well, I would not feel comfortable doing an outright prohibition. I would want some sort of hours to allow it so that it doesn't... It doesn't interfere with people's neighbors' work from home or quality of life, but an outright prohibition may be a little extreme. So I think we just need to balance that.

Yeah, I can agree with that. Newton is very rigid and very strict. They have manufactured limits on what you can purchase. I think it's 60... three decibels which is actually pretty much what the conversation we're having right now is so you can imagine you can't really clear a lot with a leaf blower that's little Louder than I am right now. But I agree that is the hot topic from what I hear in the department input.

But I want to address it because people are clearly bothered by the way leaf blowers are used now and without any restrictions.

I think we could include the tier one do an update like Bill had spoke about and just include some sort of yard equipment maybe how you said it, use a timeline or specific hours. Newton has the Memorial Day to Labor Day, which is pretty strict, and that's when people are most likely going to be doing work on their yards. I agree, though. After we pick a scope, I think I can dive deep into the research and see what's the easiest lift or what's attainable for that.

Thank you. I think we have to look at it. I think it was mentioned something that might be different between commercial use and personal use, so we might have to look at that as we're going along.

Kevin? Thank you for doing this. This is, I mean, the memo was great. It was so thoughtful. I was going through and I was like, this is so well articulated. And I like that you just sort of even sang the table for the discussion we're going to have. I think with Bill, I would love to eventually get to everything and you're going to do it. But I think the only thing I would add is I think there might be a component of of chronicness, of time. Like a chainsaw, someone working with a chainsaw might tick every single box, but it's temporary because once you cut down trees, you can't cut it down again. but leaf blowers are there every week at a certain time then they go to the adjacent property and the one around there right another consideration is It's not just decibels, it's frequency. And that really is a target of leaf blowers, not necessarily lawn mowers.

So that might be something we want to tease out as well. and then like I know there's questions like this winter there was someone when we're in the single digits someone's a contractor had a dryer and blower going over the long weekend to dry out concrete on the patio they were doing. Probably not a good idea, but the point was the neighbors had to live with it for three days or this thing's roaring away. And so I remember that was a kerfuffle. So I think the issue is also just consideration of repetition. Trash haulers are showing up at 4 in the morning. That's too much. If it was one and done, I understand we all make noise. We have to live with each other. When it becomes predictable, then that sort of adds an element.

Yeah, there were a handful of 2 to 4 a.m. dumpster service complaints, not by town staff.

Right, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

So I'm thrilled we're talking about this. I think the quiet hours are important, but they're absolutely not enough. I think we have a daytime noise problem, and that's really what I think we need to address. We obviously need to make sure that the quiet hours are actually quiet and do that clarification. But to me, more important is the daytime. And that is primarily yard equipment. We have other towns, many other towns, who have tackled this for several years. They have different models. I think we could look into those different models and see over time which has borne out to be more effective you know they all were being creative and trying something now we're a little further down the road or they're a little further down the road so i think we could see you know, what is most effective and what might translate best to us. So I'm comfortable with prohibiting the gas powered things because there is an alternative. There are electrics.

you know I don't think we can prohibit like say a chainsaw if there is no alternative but when we have alternatives that are there when we have other towns that are doing it I don't really see why we cannot do this and I and I think that for me If I am trying to weigh the convenience of commercial landscapers with the quality of life of Needham residents, it's pretty easy for me to go with quality of life for Needham residents. I'm very in favor of going at this.

Thank you. Yeah, I have a couple of things. I personally agree that with Kathy's discussion of gas power, especially the leaf blowers, I know that that's been an issue in town and something that's been investigated and that there were compelling reasons not to do that at this time. The equipment is not broadly available. It's not broadly are priced to allow service providers to switch over. I think that there is a sense that there are residents in town who actually do need these services. And as our population ages and ages in place, there's likely to be more. And so we don't want to you know, we just want to be respectful of people who feel that these are essential services but balance it with the noise pollution for the neighborhoods surrounding the property.

And I work from home, so I totally feel that noise pollution on a regular basis. but I think we have to consider both options. I guess one of the things I'm wondering is if you know of anything happening at the state level, because as we all mentioned, and as you mentioned, lots of towns are dealing with the same problem and these same issues. And often when it bubbles to the surface in this way, the state starts to pay attention and pass something that can be more broadly applicable.

The DEP does have some regulations, but I did not dive into that research because I was trying to stay on a course of coming to this meeting with the most relative information, but I can definitely look into that.

yeah it'd be interesting to know I think what direction the state is going in because if we can sync up to some degree that might make it a little easier you know it's always easier if we're gonna If we're heading in a direction of determining what equipment service providers can use, I mean, it's always better if the state kind of does that for us because then it applies to all towns. I have heard that There are some people who are super happy in Newton, but there are lots of folks who are equally unhappy, and so we just want to watch that. I agree with your comment about quiet hours, Kathy. Like, if there's no... control over noise level during the daytime hours. That's really, I think, when we must be getting most of our complaints with the exception of the 2 a.m. dumpster runs.

Right, and those are few and far between the night calls.

I think it's fair to say that A phenomenon that I have noticed in my neighborhood is that one service provider will come into the neighborhood and service multiple properties. They're driving the equipment back and forth between the properties, and then they have maybe five guys all with lawn with leaf blowers and they're all on the same property at once trying to get things done as quickly as possible and you think that then it would be over but then they move to the next property and it's just you know you're running around your house trying to close the appropriate windows and everything so I think I don't know. Ultimately, I'm not quite sure how we address that, whether it's the decibel level that's specified on the equipment or you know something experienced in air at this 150 feet or something but i do feel like we it is something that we have to address i i am curious um did you get any input from the board of health Sounds like a lot of this stuff might fall on them.

A lot of it was like just public nuisance. So like constant noise, like HVAC systems and stuff they could measure in real time. where they weren't coming out and taking a decibel reading on lawn equipment. So they did not have much information in terms of yard equipment.

Okay. And then lastly, and this is really an exception kind of situation, but I know that there is some night work that the town does, and I think I am assuming that we give some sort of a butter notice when night work is going to be done but we don't want you know shake our finger at others who may do the same thing and then not do that ourselves so understanding that some of that sometimes it has to happen I just want to make sure that we have a policy in place to make sure that abutters at least get I think this is fantastic. There's a lot to think through here, though. I think we're going to have to noodle on this a bit.

Yeah, and I guess just we'll take this back, all of the feedback. I heard some themes, but some things to work on, and I'd say Justin was being very diplomatic. I don't think there's any community that's cracked this nut and magically figured out how to enforce all of these noise problems. So just to kind of level set. that this will be quite challenging and I think balancing what can be achievable relative to what we have the resources to support and you know any enforcement or front-end administrative work would be you'd be considering that relative to the other budget priorities in future years so we'll take this back do some more work this is really helpful because I think Justin did so much work and needed kind of a feedback point.

So thank you. Excellent. Really.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you guys. Thank you for your time.

Okay, and so we're going to continue our discussion on appointments, the appointment process, and we'll welcome Chris Heap, our town council, to join us. Hello, everyone. Hi. All right. So you were not here for our last discussion, but I know you've been watching the meeting.

Yes.

And you have some thoughts.

Yes. So I went back through the video of the discussion at your prior meeting to sort of try to put together a list of the questions that were directed my way during that discussion. And I've attempted to do that. but if I miss anything please just let me know and I will attempt to answer questions that I may not have thought about ahead of time but I'll attempt to answer anything by the time we're done One of the questions that I heard was about having the policy direct the vice chair to coordinate with the committee chair that has the vacancy before interviews are scheduled. to talk about the committee's needs, how things are going, and get a general sense as to what that committee might be looking for in a new appointee. that discussion can certainly happen that there's no problem with that I would say that

Discussions between one member of this board and one member of the board with the vacancy are not subject to the Open Meeting Law, and those discussions can happen without the need to comply with the Open Meeting Law's requirements. I would just add one, I think slight caveat to that point, which is that if we want those discussions to occur, would suggest that either that just be the subject of discussion and sort of a clear sense of the board or that it be a suggestion in the policy rather than a firm requirement. And the only reason I say that is because one thing that we know from prior open meeting law determinations is that if something is directed to happen in a policy that is coordination between two boards that can be a factor, one factor among many that may cause the Attorney General to conclude that a subcommittee has been created and that that subcommittee would need to comply with the Open Meeting Law.

So I think, and the flip side of that analysis is that if communications of that type are left to the discretion of the Vice Chair, that points in the other direction, that it's not a subcommittee and not subject to the open meeting law. So I think if we want those discussions to be able to happen, again, preliminary discussions before the interviews start, just about general need. If we want those to be able to happen somewhat informally, then it probably is best to have that be a suggested approach rather than a required one. Next topic that I had was put together a menu of options for actually conducting the interviews of the candidates. And there are several of those. I think three principal ones that I noted.

First is that the vice chair can do the interviews by themselves and by that I mean without the involvement of a member of the other committee that has the vacancy. Levy. they can do it by themselves, they can do it with staff. Those interviews without the involvement of the other committee would not be subject to the open meeting law and could happen sort of offline without the need to post a meeting. Next on the list is having the vice chair conduct the interviews with the involvement of someone from the other committee that has the vacancy. if that happens that does create a subcommittee for purposes of the open meeting law and that subcommittee would need to conduct all of its interviews under the OML. But there are still two options for how that would be done. The vice chair and the representative of the other committee could conduct those interviews in open session.

in a posted meeting open to in-person attendance and with minutes being taken. Alternatively, the vice chair and the representative of the other committee could conduct preliminary screening interviews in executive session. Purpose eight. to go into executive session allows local ports to do preliminary screening interviews in executive session. the catch there is that that's not all interviews that's preliminary screening interviews only and that is intended interviews intended to create a list of finalists for consideration by the parent body, which would be the full select board. So there are that's an approach that can be used but if that is utilized there would need to be some care given to make sure that only

what are considered preliminary screening interviews under the OML are being done, not finalist interviews essentially.

And those would be posted meetings, because you have to post open, go to executive session,

you would those meetings would be posted yes there'd be an agenda of the subcommittee posted with the town clerk's office 48 hours at least ahead of the meeting um the subcommittee would open the meeting, vote to go into executive session, and then conduct the preliminary screening interviews in executive session. that because that is intended to provide some protection to the applicants and shield the interview process from public view, the agenda would need to note the inner preliminary screening interviews are happening but it wouldn't need to note the names of the candidates being interviewed ask a question about that

So preliminary screening, my understanding, it's not final. So there has to be a certain number of candidates that are recommended, not the exact number of seats that are being filled.

If that approach is used, I think you would need to come out of that process with a list of more candidates than there are seats.

But then who's doing the final interviews in that case?

So the select board. And it wouldn't necessarily need to be, so the language used in the OML is, there needs to be some consideration or interviews left for the full board I don't know I don't believe that the select board would need to interview the finalists but they would at least need to discuss them and decide which of the slate is going to get appointed. And the list of finalists does need, at that point, the list of finalists does need to appear on the select board's posted agenda.

So this means it would be, in a scenario like this, your option B2, that means it is impossible for a nomination to be put on the consent.

I believe that's right.

Yeah. there would have to be a discussion of two candidates in the open session and a vote on which candidate the select board- I believe that's correct.

Okay. So we're deciding on options for interviewing candidates. Could we do some option A and some option B1, or would you recommend we would do them all the same way? My reasoning is maybe there might be some committees where the chair just doesn't feel that they need to be there so maybe option a they feel that the vice chair could do it but there may be other committees where a chair might want to be present when their interview is going on so I don't know whether we could do some with option A and some with B1 posting it and having an open interview process.

From my perspective, you can absolutely do it multiple ways. There is no need to choose one and have that be applicable to all appointments. So yes, you could have flexibility. You could either delegate to the vice chair the decision on how this is going to go in any particular case, or the policy itself could be drafted to give that flexibility to the vice chair.

I would just add your current appointment policy makes a distinction between sole appointments by the select board and joint appointments. So that may be one categorization to think about because joint appointments inherently are you're creating a subcommittee. are inherent in that process.

If I read this properly, If the committee chair is involved in the interviews, there has to be some kind of public interview or public selection process. either all the interviews are public in b1 or in b2 there's some sort of final selection discussion that is public yes that's right okay so to the extent to which the goal is to get consensus nominees that can go on consent that leaves you with option a which means no committee chair and i think that's right just so we understand our choices.

You couldn't do consent under option B1? You could under option B1 if you're conducting the interviews in public.

then you're not okay but where does the discussion or in that case though in option b1 the chair of the committee and the vice chair of the select board discuss in public which candidates they like? That seems uncomfortable.

I think they're just interviewing. They're not discussing. They're just interviewing.

just it's okay well no i mean under option what i identified as b1 um the interviews are happening in public yes if the if the select board vice chair and the other committees designee do the interviews in open session and want to bring forward one candidate to the select board they could and but the discussion about who they prefer to recommend would happen in open session.

right so just the awkwardness could they have a discussion could they just interview and then afterwards they interview the meetings over and then could the vice chair make a recommendation without the input of that chair of the committee yes that's where it could go to consent so they're involved in the interview but not

I guess so at that rate what would be the point of having the committee chair in the interviews if the committee chair was not involved in Making any recommendation. Then you're just having it all in public and embarrassing everyone for kind of no point.

I don't know what's embarrassing about anything, but...

Well, I mean maybe the people who are raising their hand to be on a committee don't want everyone to know that they were considered and rejected. maybe they don't like the idea of having an interview that is open to the public I mean you know that's like any job interview you've had or whatever typically is not open to the public I mean this is A rather novel and potentially difficult experience for people. It might really chill people raising their hand.

Well, it certainly ups the ante.

I mean, you're asking a lot of people. We're already asking them to work for free, to work in the evenings, etc. And now you're saying, well, you're going to do a public interview. It's a lot.

So executive session gets around that.

To the point at which preliminary screening changes over to consideration of finalists.

right and then at that point you have to have a select board discussion do we want candidate a or do we want candidate b and y and yeah again pretty awkward Whoever is the non-chosen one gets to hear in public why they weren't chosen and why the other one was.

I don't think you have to say why they're not chosen. You can just say why I've been in this position and you're just someone else's chosen.

but it's a public discussion.

Right, but the public discussion could change. We choose candidate A and that's it. That could be the discussion.

But if you were candidate, B, if I were candidate B, I might prefer that no one knew that I was even going for that position.

I've been in that position with this town and I did not feel that way.

Okay.

But some might.

But some might feel different.

Yeah.

Okay, noodle on that.

We don't have to solve everything. One of the next ones on my list was sort of, considering generally how it could be possible to limit discussion of candidates in open session out of consideration for the candidates whether and how that could happen. And the best response to that that I can come up with is that use of the consent agenda to appoint the recommended nominee is the best way to keep the discussion opens an open session. But short of being able to approve a candidate on the agenda, there really is not much mechanism for the board to consider an application or a nominee without discussing it in open session. I think there is tension between

the desire to shield nominees from public discussion of the candidacy and the requirements of the open meeting law which requires that if a discussion is to be had with the full board

So I just want to say that I think part of the history here is, yes there is a desire or there has been a desire on the part of the board to not subject volunteers to discussions of their candidacy but i think more than that the the point of the consent agenda was to confer unanimous approval to a candidate. We are asking people to serve. We are appointing them. And the idea was that if a candidate didn't garner unanimous consent that maybe they weren't the right candidate. And this kind of draws on the whole notion that I think was misunderstood previously that one objection should veto a nomination. I think the idea was not that

the power should reside in a select board member to veto a nomination. The idea was to garner that the candidate should be able to Garner unanimous consent and approval from the board to the committee that they were moving towards. So I just I guess I'm thinking of this both in discussion of candidates in public, but also just what does consent mean to us as a board and to the candidate who receives it or doesn't? So just throwing that out there.

I agree with you. You know, committees do the work of the select board in a way. That's what we want them to do, and we want them to feel they have the full support behind them as they do it. So that's the beauty of the consent. Technical question, though? For posting. a meeting 48 hours in advance. It's happened to me that we were trying to get everyone up on Zoom and the chair couldn't make it for another 30 minutes. There's something, you know, their work call or something like that. So we sort of could scramble and say, OK, can I want to meet again in 45 minutes type of thing? I mean, it's hell on logistics. But could we do a window? We posed. There will be a meeting. There will be a meeting. and it might be a Zoom that stays open for two hours.

And in that, we're gonna try to meet at 10, say. but could we have it, I mean, if we have to be, I mean, otherwise we'd have to repost every time someone was late 15 minutes.

You can certainly, if you're doing the meeting over Zoom, you can open it at the appointed time. continue it for you know pause it adjourn it continue it reconvene it yes you can you can keep them you can keep a meeting open for three hours if you okay if you want to all right that would give a little wiggle room yes because I'm just it's so hard to get some things happen

Okay, so you have a couple of other sections you want to just continue through or did we address them already?

I think the only other one was just sort of the logistics of and I don't know if I have a specific answer on this one but maybe just flag it for discussion but the logistics of managing A request by one select board member to either take a candidate off of consent or to have a discussion with the vice chair about the nominee. as the policy is currently drafted, the full board is notified seven days before the meeting about who the nominee is. And then there's an opportunity to requested to be taken off of consent and put on the regular portion of the agenda, or in some cases to sort of talk to the vice chair about the nominee.

all of which is perfectly appropriate under the open meeting law provided it only that discussion only occurs between the vice chair and one other select board member and it may not always be clear to all of you that that discussion has been commenced by another one of you. So just the only thought there is that it may make sense to include in the policy a logistical mechanism where those kinds of communications are routed through the town manager's office just so that we don't unintentionally find ourselves in a situation where a serial discussion among a quorum is actually occurring.

I agree with that. And that nearly occurred in one case. And we didn't have that mechanism, so it was a little awkward.

it's tricky because it's perfectly appropriate until it's not and nobody else could be expected to know really that the line has been crossed.

On this issue, this was the issue that I had the most concern with. I understand the intent to have consensus. I think that's admirable, but it's not always possible because we just all have different opinions and different viewpoints. The reason why I don't think it's Well, why I do think it amounts to a veto is because it's one member of the board asking or insisting that a recommendation be withdrawn and that's just not communicated to any other member of the board or to the public.

except in the the scenario that we're actually talking about it could be i mean you wouldn't know it could be four it could be three it could be two it could be one because we can't there's no way even through the town manager that that the appointing member would have a count of the objections I guess the point is that if you don't have consensus, that's what you know. But you don't know you could have more than one member who doesn't approve of, for whatever reason, the nomination. So that makes it tricky. I hear you and I'm not disagreeing that it's not that one person should get to put the kibosh on the nomination. But in this situation, you don't know what you're looking at. What you do know is that you don't have consent.

And the question I think then becomes, what's most important? for that nominee to have the full support of the board to do the job that we're asking them to do or for the appointing member to hang on to a challenged nomination, understanding that it could be one, but it could be more because we don't all share the same opinion. I mean, I just feel like we live in a town where so many people are willing to volunteer. We have so much talent in this. group of residents that it's hard to imagine that we couldn't find a candidate who would garner unanimous consent and then move forward with that behind them to do their work for the town.

But I think that always happens after the interviews. So I guess I would just take the example from May 26. If it's a civility question, during the interviews, there's no way to assess what the potential future criteria are for select board members to object. And so it does slow the process down and it is not it's not something that we can really integrate into our interview process because of the ordering.

Well, Madam Chair, can I just observe from my experience being vice chair that sometimes it takes a little bit longer to find the person. So sometimes you know it's advertised and there's a set of candidates who apply but none of them is quite right and then you advertise it again and you advertise it again and different people see it at different times so even you know you have a pool of candidates sort of in the first round but the that isn't the total universe of possible candidates and you know you never know when people might see something so different candidates will emerge over time so the option of leaving it open and advertising it longer often does surface new candidates if you could not find a candidate that was qualified and had consensus support so that is something that happened with me many times actually

yeah no that is a familiar situation i guess um yeah i mean i just you know again not to not to lean on history but it does seem important that volunteers have a consensus vote behind them i think that the other meeting was the first time that we we were put in this position of discussing in public a candidate. And I guess I'm just hoping that as colleagues, we can work together to the extent allowable by the open meeting law to make sure that our volunteers understand that we value their work, that we value their privacy, and that we support them wholeheartedly. And I am concerned about the impression that a non-unanimous vote gives.

I think that we can do this. essentially.

I think the wording though that Mr. Heap sent to us about can the appointment policy suggest that nominee be withdrawn is important because he suggests that this be at most a state of preference and not B requirements. I wouldn't have a problem having it be a stated.

No, I agree. I agree. And again, like what I wrote up for our last meeting was, you know, a discussion of historical past practice and things that I believe worked but not nothing is set in stone. So that's exactly, I think, what past practice has been.

And so how would that work in practice? That if someone had a concern, one or more members had a concern, they would email the town manager?

Yeah, well, I think we need to work through that because we can't just, you know, I think you've said that we can't be like, okay, well, now there's three objections. I mean, we can't be counting.

you know doing that way that I was hearing it was you know with town staff we already tell you seven days in advance who the nominee is if one member does have a concern I think procedurally, if that was flagged to me, I would know that's the first concern and so that person can talk with the vice chair. If the second person comes to me and says they also have a concern, I think what I'm what is being suggested is that I say you know there's already two members talking the vice chair and the member who the first concern is discussing it either will get resolved which has happened in the past questions have come up they've been resolved maybe it waits an agenda you know it gets deferred to a future agenda and that gets resolved if it is not resolved I think what's being suggested is then it goes from consent to discussion and that's normal for any agenda item that any member wants to pull off of consent.

But that's also a signal that it's a serious concern and that we are not going to be able to recommend this candidate unanimously and I guess that's a separate consideration from whatever the reason might be is how do we want to send what message are we sending to that volunteer

I guess maybe this relates to Bill's comments earlier. What is that message that you think is being sent?

That they wouldn't have unanimous support of the Select Board. okay but uh is there more or is that is that it that's that's the only message that would they could for sure take away yeah that's the message that would be sent. They don't have unanimous support.

Madam Chair, could I also just raise another aspect of our past practice that doesn't seem to raise open meeting law considerations, but I think is relevant here. That our past practice has been that a week before our meeting, the email goes out. Here are the potential nominees. so like board members have a chance to express any concerns they might have and that the nominees themselves are not nominated or are not informed until the agenda becomes public and that means that as far as those people know all they know is that they haven't been picked yet great you know and therefore it eliminates a lot of difficulties if there is discussion it needs to have. And sometimes it takes a while, you know, before like you might get interviewed and then you might get told, you know, weeks later,

that you are going to be on the agenda because the interviews took that long, or maybe there was a concern that needed to be resolved, et cetera. Or you might hear sooner, but I think Our staff has always been very good about explaining the process to the people being interviewed and that it might take several weeks before they heard anything one way or another. But leaving it to staff and leaving it until the moment that the agenda is going to come out with the consent agenda on it saves a lot of trouble.

I agree. I just think that's better all around, whether you're picked or you're not picked. Everyone should hear at the same time. I agree that it makes it non-controversial.

It's the only professional way to do it.

And I would just add, I think if there is a concern that's raised, I feel that it's courteous to the candidates to let them know that there was a concern.

Why? Why? Why?

because I guess it depends what the concern is so maybe not in all cases but but if the concern is about someone's character that I why I This has nothing to do with the open meeting law, but I think applicants who want to serve the town, who have the best interests of the town in mind, deserve to know that there is a serious concern about them personally, and they should have an opportunity to address that.

I guess, you know, I've been noodling this for, you know, since we first had this meeting and thinking about what all this means. And you're going to have to forgive me because I'm spending all my time studying for the bar. and so I am immersed in all of this law and what you are describing sounds to me like a thing called procedural due process. and procedural due process is when you give somebody notice of something that is being taken away from them and you give them an opportunity to respond. and it sounds like that, but procedural due process only happens when somebody has an entitlement that is being taken from them. And so what we have here is something very different. People are interviewing for a volunteer position. In many cases, we might have five or six or even seven people interviewing for the same position. Only one person is going to get that.

So no one of those five, six, or seven people have any entitlement to have that position. Nothing is being taken from them. Therefore, the idea that they have a right to kind of know what's going on to respond to it just doesn't it seems out of place so i i don't think it's in my mind it's not a legal requirement well no i know it's not legal but i'm saying this is the analogy this is where it this is where that kind of things tends to happen when something is being taken from someone that they are entitled to

I don't think we need to know them right. Someone else was chosen.

Why give people that kind of agita?

We've talked about this before on the job, Hopkins. You don't usually say why they weren't chosen, just someone else was chosen.

Yeah, I have to, I mean, the risk of, too much information. I just think that's unkind. I mean, if someone isn't chosen, they aren't chosen. If I volunteered in good faith and I wasn't chosen because someone thought that my whatever, whatever, like I don't show up, you know, whatever the reason is, like that's just going to make me. feel bad. I already didn't get the position. Why do I need to know that? Can't I just go on and live my life?

No, but that's a good example. What if someone thinks you don't show up to things? I mean, that...

It's not about what we think of them. I think this is way a bridge too far. I can't get on board with that.

But it's obviously what we think because any of us could essentially veto when on the knee.

No, because we picked someone else. Someone else was chosen for the position. That's too much information.

In most cases, I do agree. If we're going to go down this path of vetoing people for any reason whatsoever, that, I think, is kind of dangerous.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we're vetoing people for anything. any reason whatsoever. We've just had a long discussion about this. We've also discussed that it is both a question of what of an objection versus a unanimous consent. So distilling it down to say that one person is vetoing, again, is something that I think we've already addressed. This is different. This is advertising. that someone didn't get a position when when we could choose to just be kind and say and and and in many cases this is going to be the case whether a nominee was rejected or not there are always going to be well i mean hopefully hopefully there will always be more volunteers and applicants for a position than positions to be filled so there are always going to be people who didn't get the position and i don't see any reason to give them a different answer than anyone else.

So I have heard from applicants who were not chosen for positions, and sometimes repeatedly, and that makes them discouraged when they don't know the reason why they weren't chosen. So I think it goes both ways. I mean, I think sometimes if people want to volunteer, they continue to put their name out there and aren't chosen and they don't know why and they feel that there's no productive feedback that will allow them to serve then I think that's also a way that people feel that they kind of withdraw from the system.

I'm not feeling it. No, I think No, we talked too much about this. This is, I think, absurd. We don't owe an explanation to people who didn't get a position. It's like you're either you're on or thank you very much for applying.

But either way, standardizing it makes it standard. Yeah. All right.

Do you have thoughts on this that you want to... No, so just to wrap it up, I guess, it's like there's an opening. It's posted. We would suggest that the vice chair... if possible contact the chair of whatever committee the vacancy is for the vice chair would then interview the candidate by themselves then the vice chair would make a recommendation along with the assistance of staff Right, in conjunction with staff, yes, it's written up in conjunction with staff. We will be notified seven days prior to the town meeting who the recommendation was, I mean town meeting, select board meeting. if there is an objection or if there is a question then one of us could have a go through the town manager to have a discussion with the vice chair about what a reason might be If someone else has it, they're going to call the town and say,

I have a question about this and she might say okay there's already two discussions like you said and then you know we can't make it a requirement because that would be a problem but our stated preference would be that you know that this there's an unresolved concern that that person does not be put forward on the consent agenda.

I mean, B2 still requires an open discussion of two candidates. I mean, so I personally find that a no-go.

Yeah, I actually, my concern is that I think we become also overly politicizing. I think you might go have an agenda item where two names are up and You know, I mean, in one case recently, the candidate emailed and lobbied and welcomed a discussion. It's like, I don't want the discussion with them. I think it just seemed overly politicizing. and just having two people up publicly, it's a different dynamic that we haven't had before.

Can I just observe? It sounds like the preference, and I don't mean, well, I'm going to be a little critical. It sounds like there is a preference for not having as much discussion in public.

That certainly sounds true.

Right. And I guess I view this as a public process. and that's where the tension lies, I think. I mean, this is government work. We keep making comparisons to private sector and how we hire in the private sector, but this isn't the private sector.

But this is also not work. These are volunteers.

and I think a lot of it is to protect the person.

Yeah, I disagree with that assessment. But I also think that I would like to have as a select board goal a unanimous nomination, period. Regardless of all this other stuff, I think it should be a goal of the Select Board to unanimously recommend volunteers to other committees and boards that we are responsible in some degree for, I think that's an admirable goal to have. And if our policy is in support of that goal, if others agree that that is the right goal, then I don't see that there's a an issue here. I mean, the attempt is not to avoid public conversation, although I think that's also something that I agree with.

The goal is to have unanimity in our nominations. and with that, we don't have to have public discussions of people in any respect.

I appreciate Josh's sentiment as a public process. but not to put too fine a point on it but one of the roles of vice chair is that you actually did have almost an absolute veto power over who you chose. You saw all the candidates. You only bought the ones you thought worthwhile. In a weird way, that was a veto. You made a decision at the vice chair level to choose certain candidates and that was your prerogative and I think we're okay with that. It's just This is a bit of a mixed message. We want a public process. But quite frankly, the initial choosing of these candidates wasn't public. But it has to just be the vice chair's decision. And there was a decision made to do that. So, you know, there's talk about a veto, but in a weird way, that was a veto too.

We only saw the candidates that the vice chair moves forward. So...

That's also not something that's set in stone. That's something that we can discuss as well.

I think we're trying to find a practical way to do this. you know that does not take up all of our time that does not take up all of staff time where we can accomplish the goal of board appointments that have the support of the board so that those people are going on to the committees with the support of the board and that we fill these committees slots it takes a lot of time there are a lot of slots we have what 300 people working on committees or more a lot so and you know there's a certain amount of turnover every year you know and these committees cannot operate without a quorum so I would also just urge some practicality you know we want to encourage people to do this and we want it to work we want to get people on committees we want the select board to support them we want them to feel supported and happy through the process

you know i think it is very doable to find consensus candidates for every slot i also think that you know what i did when i was vice chair is when people were not chosen and there were other things that came up i might contact them and say hey you know there's this other thing you know so that people who are interested and want to find a slot that we find a slot for them I think that is also doable to make it inclusive and so that people feel that they do have a chance. So I think we can do this in a practical way that gets the job done.

and so one last question so I guess if we had this policy the way it would have worked with the Zoning Board of Appeals that I would have made a recommendation. One or more members would have reached out to the town manager, expressed an objection. I don't know if it would have been enumerated what the objection is, or could have just been vague and said, I object.

I think the process I'm suggesting is the first member that I hear from that has an objection, I would recommend call the vice chair to discuss it directly. and then if I got a second member to voice a concern to me, I would just let them know we can't violate the open meeting law. The vice chair is already in discussion with another member.

To be extra careful, I would suggest that the second member in that fact pattern not express a concern to you, but rather simply ask the question, has anyone else reached out to the vice chair yet?

Great.

So there's no sort of, it's a, can they reach out to the vice chair? Not, I have an opinion about the applicant.

Right. I'm not relaying content between just procedurally making sure that only two members are talking.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So.

All right.

So there is some sort of deliberation among two members of the select board. The first two. Hopefully not more than two members.

Only two and no more than two.

and then I'm just walking through this and so then there's a discussion and if it can't be resolved then it either gets withdrawn or it gets put on the agenda for a discussion.

But the preference of the board I think would be that it would not be brought forward if it cannot be resolved. We can't make it a requirement.

If the goal is a unanimous nomination, a nomination that can go on consent then if you are making the nomination you would have to weigh what the what your determination would be do I want to force the nomination or do I want to find a candidate who can satisfy everyone?

Yeah, that would be the weighing. I think If the goal is unanimity, I think there is an implicit understanding that some people will never be eligible for appointments.

I don't feel that way.

Can you explain why that's the case?

I can't think of anything that would unilaterally bar someone from being a volunteer in the town.

The threshold about civility before.

I'm not going to go back to that. You asked me a question and I've answered it. I can't think of something that would unilaterally prohibit someone from volunteering with this town. That's my answer.

OK. So I guess that's in contrast with what I observed about the conversation on March 23, May 26.

Well, that was a pretty stilted conversation. That shouldn't, yeah. so it wasn't complete for sure. Anyone else? Any other questions? Okay, so Chris, what would our next steps be given this conversation?

So I think I heard consensus about the revisions that we're talking about. And I think Bill did a pretty good job summarizing them. Thank you. Or most of them. So I think having heard that I think we're in a position where I could probably draft a set of a proposed revision red line of your policy for you to look at at your next meeting if that works.

Excellent. Could I add to that? Reappointments and appointments are currently on hold. You don't meet again until July 21st. So I think a question I would ask is, would the board be comfortable moving forward with reappointments under the chair's document of practice kind of assuming if somebody is willing and able to continue to serve that we kind of move forward to reappoint them on consent not do an interview process for those reappointments. I think that would allow us to advance those and kind of take them off hold for your July meeting. or we can keep them all on hold and just revisit it later in the summer.

I think let's hold it and just get this settled.

Let's proceed with those because we may have committees that don't have quorums and in any case those people who want to continue and the chairs want them to continue those are not vacancies so i would suggest that we go forward with those yeah why why would you want to i guess um

do you have an objection to if the chair of the committee is willing to have them re-up and the individual is willing to re-up was there an issue with that

So I think if we're reviewing the whole policy, let's just get the policy settled.

Well, I think we're creating a backlog, and that has ramifications for committees all over town. So if that part does not need to be rewritten, why don't we allow that to move forward? continue to draft, we have a policy that's still in effect.

So I'm happy to recommend appointments for reappointments. That's what I meant. Excuse me. Yeah.

All right. Great. That's great. That'll help. Can I clarify, though, again, drawing on my own experience as vice chair, I did not recommend reappointments. that was something that staff told me were being reappointed.

I was not recommended. The only ones that came to us as an active matter were those that weren't going to simply re-up. So there wouldn't actually be anything for you to do, to Kathy's point.

Oh, well, so this was circulated to the board in April. I think that the reason why I wanted to do all Appointments and reappointments for boards at the same time is so that I could look at new people who may be applying to understand where they might fit in. If not on this board, are there other boards? So I wanted to really look at it holistically to understand both people who are currently on the board looking to be reappointed and new people who wanted to be on the board.

But perhaps you'll two vacancies, appointed two vacancies, right? not appointed to positions that are already taken by somebody who is currently there. By themselves.

Yeah, you can only point to vacancies.

So I think we're talking about non-vacancies here when we're talking about reappointments.

You'll be liaison. with the chair of the committee who can give you that same information for open spots. But for folks who are up for reappointment, it seems like it would be better to just let them be reappointed assuming everyone agrees without any action on your part.

Yeah, so I think in most cases that would happen. I think the questions are the threshold issues like Kathy raised about civility. And I really do want to make sure that everyone's up to date on their state ethics. So that's the only thing, two things that I think.

That's the job of the town clerk to remind volunteers when their ethics has expired.

Well, we discussed on May 26 that some members of the select board have threshold requirements for appointments. And for me, being up to date on your state ethics is kind of a threshold requirement.

So but if they're re-upping, they have to go to be re-sworn in at the town clerk's office. I'm not sure why we need to be involved in this. They're going to the town clerk's office.

This was communicated to the select board, to all committees, to liaisons.

It's all- I understand that, but I'm not understanding what action is required from you on reappointments.

to recommend them. I mean, that's what the policy says.

What policy says that the Vice Chair is to recommend reappointments?

The existing appointment policy governs all appointments.

I don't believe it covers appointments that is different than people re-upping. I don't believe those are appointments. I don't believe those are included. They literally never came to me. I never knew about those, I only knew about the vacancies

I mean, I think we've discussed that every board member does it differently and the practice is not good.

Within reason, right? I think that's why we're having this discussion. How big is the role?

What is the role? Right. So here it's saying following advertisement of a committee vacancy, the vice chair will interview all qualified applicants. But in this case, There is no committee vacancy, and it wouldn't be advertised. Right. We don't advertise those. They're not vacancies. So I guess to that point, this is number two in the standard appointments.

This is outside of the appointment process.

So this could be a reason to hold off if there's a disagreement about this.

But I agree. If the chair thinks the person wants to be reappointed and the person is willing to do it, I think it should be done and we shouldn't hold it up anymore.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, and I think the ethics issue, although always important, is a different standard for reappointments that's right now. And that's actually not. that's not material to these reappointments. They will discuss this matter with the town clerk when they get sworn in.

Yeah, so standard appointments, number one. For the purpose of this policy, a standard appointment shall be defined as an appointment of a qualified member of the community to a committee where the select board has sole authority to appoint the member. That does not distinguish between candidates who are currently on the committee versus not currently on the committee.

Yes, it does. There's a reappointment. It's not an appointment.

Well, they're all appointments.

Well, I would disagree.

There's re-upping in this appointment.

I think those are wholly outside of this policy.

I just feel like this expands, that we're trying to expand this controversy where it doesn't need to be. If the member is happy to be reappointed and the chair is happy to reappoint them, I'm not sure why we need to be involved in that unless there's a term limit. in which case it would not be a reappointment anyway.

Well, I think it goes to Kevin's point. They are representing the select board.

But they're doing it well enough that the chair wants them back.

But that's our role to make those appointments.

We've already done it. We did it.

I think in the matter of expediency, we have an existing policy and we should allow these reappointments to go through.

I hear your opinion, but I'm hearing also that consensus is going the other way. Bill? You think that it should just be reasonably automatic.

Just adjust the motion for clarity. Yes.

Yeah. So, Kathy, is this a motion that you want to make with me?

Yeah, sure. I will make a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we continue with reappointments of members to committees where the committee member wishes to continue, the committee chair wishes them to continue while we pause on new appointments.

Second.

Okay, so and then we can address this more thoroughly in our redrafted policy, potentially, if that is even necessary. But for the moment, it sounds like we have consensus to move forward with Thank you very much. In the interim, yes. So the motion is on the table. All those in favor, say aye.

I have a question. Is that effective now or is that to be put on the agenda for next week?

Effective now. Effective now. to move forward with reappointments while we ponder the rest of this.

Do we know who those people are who are appointing?

The staff knows. Yeah, the staff knows.

I would feel comfortable if the select board knew who they were appointing.

This will all go on to consent.

Well, will it? That's what that was my question.

That's what the motion is. Yes, what I was suggesting is, Anyone currently serving who's up for reappointment, we would administratively process to put on your consent automatically for your July meeting.

Yeah. OK. So we're going to vote on Cathy's motion with the understanding that this would go on the consent agenda for our next meeting, those reappointments. any more discussion all those in favor say aye aye those opposed okay uh the motion passes thank you Chris so so so just we just voted a to keep going, but as far as the drafting goes, you're going to provide us with some fabulousness out of this crazy discussion.

A new version of your policy that does all of the things we talked about tonight.

Thank you.

Just to be clear, so no one's confused or surprised, I will go through the names to understand who the people being reappointed are. And if any member of the select board has an objection, I assume that they'll raise them.

I'm sure. I mean, that sort of sounds like you're...

I just don't know who they are.

So I need to know who they are. The way that it has worked is, and I'll just speak from being chair of TCHOC, you know, email goes out to us you know here are the members of your committee who are up for reappointment go talk to those members find out if they want to continue if they want to continue I go back to, and yes, and I want them to continue, which in my case I do want all of them to continue. Then I go back to the town manager's office saying, all these people have re-upped. so if somehow in the process of a consent calendar on the select board those people were no longer on my committee that would be not what I was expecting as a committee chair, you know, and not what our process is. So I think the consent is the consent. Those people should be very automatic. Yeah. Agreed.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Forgive. I need to just take a little bio break. But Mr. Vice Chair, if you want to keep going, you can.

What is the next agenda? Why don't we take a five minute recess?

Everyone can take a break. Okay, we're back in session.

hi guys oh that's amazing thank you okay so the next item on our agenda is the town managers select board goals update

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the update. So there's 34 initiatives that are in categorized under and all of those seven goal areas. I won't go through the goals themselves but just updates on all of the initiatives and this is in advance of the Slick Board. You do your goal setting over the summer. We're still working on a and give an update on where we are on each item. So first is around organizing and clarifying our public art processes. And this is a summer project that we'll be tackling and hopefully bring you recommendations for our process starting in the fall. We're under federal requirements to update our website and meet higher accessibility standards. And that compliance date was actually pushed out one year.

So we have now until April of 2028. It's still a heavy lift, but it gives us more time to get there. So that work is underway. We completed a celebration on the Town Common. We did the picnic in June and it was good to see many of the board members there. We are regrouping just to discuss how it went, opportunities for next year. We'll just keep going to keep celebrating on the Common.

Actually, can I just throw in? I know that we were asked for our feedback. and I didn't email any feedback but I do actually have one and it sort of relates to this I'm wondering if we can and I'm not sure that this needs to be I don't have a goal for us to do anything about, but I would like to help our businesses better understand the available uses of Town Common. This is something we've talked about before that Maybe we could ask John Sisson or... think about how it should be best done but to just help because I think there's there is more availability of use of the town common than a lot of our businesses believe and it would be great to have more you know activity on the town common whether that's a free an exercise class that's free and open to the public but Available, whatever. There are lots of ways that we can use this.

But I do think that in the past, businesses have maybe made a phone call and sort of not gotten a full understanding of what those rules are and how they could work within them. So just one addition. Thank you.

We are inventorying all of our bathrooms in town buildings to see where we could basically just create an initial plan for making sure that there's all gender options for some facilities that's just changing signage because we already have single use restrooms for others it would be a longer term capital project so the goal here is just to have a full view and inventory that so we can plan moving forward.

Maybe I'm mistaken. Is there still a requirement? You can have all gender bathrooms, but at some point I thought that there was still a requirement to have at least one separate male and female restrooms and buildings.

The state was looking at the plumbing code and I think some variances were granted so have to get the most updated but in the areas in the facilities where we don't have single use that would be part of our consideration of what's plumbing code Required. Thank you. We've completed the review of using Placer AI for one year, and our recommendation was not to move forward with that. But I think that was a helpful process to go through to see if that tool would be of use to the town. The board is very aware of all the efforts around transitioning the Steven Palmer building back to town ownership. The conversation continues with the school committee. I anticipate for the discussions that they will have in July about ultimately their jurisdiction of the property and that will give us some direction for future uses and kind of the true handover from the building from the current owners.

In the update, we work directly with the residents right now through Housing to Home, administering the financial assistance program. and 15 Stephen Palmer residents have found new homes and we continue to work with the remaining 13. I'm going to jump over Pollard because I have a whole agenda item on that. Initiative A is to encourage participation in Planning Board's Large House Review. The Large House Study Committee met, completed its work, members select board served on that. And so the planning board is deliberating which articles to advance to the October special town meeting and or May of 2027 town meeting. so more to come from the planning board. The Affordable Housing Trust, I think this is one of the priority items that I wish we had been able to get to before now.

So this is a priority item for the summer for us to kind of regroup on this. put in a request for technical assistance. We didn't receive that support, so we have to just pick this back up at this point. So more to come on the affordable housing trust. We completed the full evaluation with a very highly I think there's a very well-subscribed survey around the RTS service delivery models to kind of re-answer the question that pops up every five, ten somewhat years about are we keeping the RTS are we doing curbside are we doing a hybrid and I think clear direction from the board to continue on the path that we're on right now So that's concluded. A unanimous vote on the town seal at town meeting. I don't know much more to say about that. Well done to all involved.

I will say that I see the old seal right here.

So you're the second board member to make note of that. Yes. And starting in July, it'll be updated. we actually have draft guidance that's going to be going out to staff just about where does the logo go where does the seal go your agenda we will keep the seal but the new one moving forward and I think for some bigger items that aren't kind of just on paperwork things that would take funds we will swap them over as they come due naturally or as funds are available so you won't see a light switch flip except in your packet Great. Great. We're on to Initiative 12, Update the Town's Noise By-law. You had your presentation tonight. Justin did an excellent job. and Quiet Zone obviously a major priority for the board.

The update on that is the our design team continues to advance that design. We're now at 50 percent and that's been submitted to MBTA. for their review, which was part of their cooperation agreement request. of us to submit at 50 percent and I'm working to schedule time with the golf club to discuss the putting up the fence for the seasonal closure and finalize the scope for the feasibility for the culvert so that we make sure that what our consultants are going to look at in the feasibility that the golf clubs in agreement with the scope of that work. So that's the next step there. Item 14 is the Highland Avenue roadway project. So this is a redesign from Webster Street to Great Plain Ave.

and we had gotten the design kind of to a certain point to make sure we stay in the state's process the TIP process and we will be coming back to the select board in the fall we basically were on pause because we were in the queue and it's we're still in there but I think for the fall we'll come back to the board to say Do you want us to keep advancing through the TIP process, through the design phase? And we'll give you feedback of how the designs were updated from the charrettes that you all had with the team. . So item 15, parking by mobile app. Everyone always is very curious about this. We continue to beta test and there just is some glitches on the back end that we want to make sure we get right. So that's still being worked on and still targeting this summer for a launch there.

The goal 16 is the redesign of Great Plain Ave and the Envision Needham Center process. I'm working with the director of public works to give to you I think hopefully at your goal setting how we're thinking about advancing design funds to which town meeting October and May and the trade-offs of that so when you have your goal setting I think we'll look at the preliminary list of articles for October, just so you can see things in context. And I can share the DPW's perspective on timeline at that time. articles 17 and 18 are both recommendations that came out of our parking study that Stantec did in 2023 Those goals are to update our parking regulations and permit program and to look at more public-private partnerships in the center and at the heights. through agreements.

Those largely were on hold for the bulk of the year when the economic development director position was vacant. So now that we have John on board, he'll pick these items back up.

This includes parking minimums, right?

for zoning standards. So that was an additional recommendation out of the parking study that the planning board has continued to work on. They had Stantec come in and do additional work for them. and the recommendations have been presented to the planning board so they will decide what to advance. It would be through a zoning amendment.

John has been in touch with them and discussing it from an economic development lens as well.

So I'd say it's these two strategies and then that's a third. I won't speak to largely because we have the school committee and our chief information officer and Officer coming to your July meeting. So you hear a lot about IT. But we're making great progress on our consolidated IT infrastructure and our strategic plan, I will just say. Big picture, it's working incredibly well and I'm very grateful for the team that we have in IT. Item 20 is implementation of our enterprise-wide financial application software. We have a contract in place with Tyler Technologies. We have a project manager who's been hired. within the funds town meeting appropriated to help shepherd us through this change management from our current financial system. Munis will be our new ERP and implementation will be over three years.

So different modules will come live at various times in that three year period. But Lee, the finance department, and all users who have experienced some of the challenges that we've had on the resident side, on the staff side. I think this is a light at the end of the tunnel. General By-law Review Committee, as you know, brought their final report to this past May annual town meeting in terms of the full review of our general by-laws. I kept this as in process because we will bring back I will bring back to this board a request for a article to update the bylaw to implement the recommendations that the GBRC had identified. And we will do that once we have an updated bylaw in place that we can then edit appropriately. You heard tonight from the town clerk and I on voting locations.

We can check that one off the list. Thank you very much. Item 23 was a kind of a broad category around communications and community engagement and trying to help committees and staff departments have kind of similar understandings of checklists, how to do outreach, what the options available are for community engagement. And the update I want to share is that one of the top items that came out of community engagement discussions this past year was doing a twice per year town-wide mailer as opposed to individualized postcards by Initiative to be able to not create our own white noise, to be able to financially sustain what we're pushing out, and to be able to and so forth.

We're going to do two town-wide mailers at various times in the year and whatever the projects are that we really want to make sure are on those lists, we can centralize requesting that. our director of communications community engagement is going to come to your August meeting and present on that and she's working on a kind of a mock-up of that town-wide mailer to give a sense of kind of what we're thinking before we give it a try. Item 24, Communications Protocol for the Select Board. This one has not truly begun in earnest. I'm gonna reach out to some colleagues and see if anyone else has a starting point on this and I just I think want to remind folks because we haven't actually talked about this for a long time but this originally was on the agenda because

sometimes it if an issue needed an immediate response in terms of a large volume of community requests all at once or input on an issue there was questions of when should it be that the town manager issues a statement versus individual select board members versus the select board chair. The select board, you can't issue a statement unless you meet. So I think the impetus was to work through some scenarios on how we would triage those because in the moment is not the time to figure out who's issuing a statement and how and when. I think that was the impetus for the goal. Keane, Keane, Keane, Keane, Keane, Keane, Keane, Keane, Keane, to move our fleet maintenance division over with an anticipated opening in summer of 2027.

the future years will be the future phases will be really challenging to be able to fund in our capital budget. I think that came out quite a bit with the update that the deputy town manager did to the debt financing plan that he presented. So we I just say that this remains a priority, but it may be a number of years before we can find the funds. But we will keep this on the top of the list to be thinking about. implementing successor agreements. This was specific to collective bargaining agreements, contracts. We had four expiring collective bargaining agreements with our unions. They were all settled and all approved at the special town meeting in May. Item 27, find ways to increase minority and women-owned business participation in basically town procurements.

The vehicle for us to achieve this goal is through a procurement manual for our staff who are involved in procurement. The manual is still in process, but we've issued general guidance specific to 30B, which is a subset of the procurement types that we do in the town. Review and update of select board policies. You have updated your alcohol regulations. We discussed the appointment policy tonight. I already mentioned broader arts policy but display policy we still have on our list to come back to you to update your display policy because questions were raised relative to and the flag policy considerations as well.

trainings one of the requested trainings was for de-escalation and we've identified a vendor and one of the suggestions was if the select board was willing that we could open that opportunity up and have it be part of the boarding committee training in the fall that we do so that it could be available to any board or committee member for how to de-escalated conversation if it becomes tense. So I think we would move forward with that for this fall. Advancing a home rule petition, we will come back to you either late summer or early fall around a proposal for would the board want to advance a home rule petition? that would need to go first to town meeting and then to the state house to allow for digital posting of legal notices. A number of other communities has done this. This originally was added to your list when Hometown Weekly was still distributing more broadly in town. That has pivoted.

So we'll bring you back recommendations on how to advance that if you would like to and what we think the tradeoffs would be. Item 31, continued staff recruitment and retention efforts. We do this in a number of ways, but the primary focus this year is through a town-wide comprehensive compensation and classification study, and that is underway. and that will inform our collective bargaining agreements heading into fiscal year 28 and our nonrepresented staff. We've completed the passage of the town stormwater bylaw update and in July you'll take up the regulations. and finally Homestretch last page initiative 33 is to develop strategies to protect the town's tree canopy

you had a presentation from the tree committee I'll come back to you at a near-term meeting to finalize the shape of what you would want to advance and I think have the board give thought to which town meeting you'd like to advance that to October or May. and lastly way back in September 9th 2025 the board voted on the PACE commercial property assessed clean energy program and as far as I'm aware we have not had any are interested in it, but it's available should the opportunity arise for someone. Any questions?

What's the status of the last three in gray?

So those were all not to be started in this timeframe. So in the timeline where it says zero to 18 months, that's the when do we start these. So I view that as the kind of, what's coming up next. But you'll review all of these, including the ones in the gray at your retreat.

We knocked off a lot.

Or the staff did. Yeah. Yes. That's fair. That is fair.

All right. Great. Thank you. Yes. Even just reading through it.

Paulard Middle School. I generally want to make sure the board is fully up to date. We're going to be really running into the home stretch of where we are in the MSBA process. So update the team had come in to present to you at your last meeting. Since then, they are working to get answers to some of the questions that were raised. So there'll be follow up on that. the school committee voted on the 16th to recommend that the permanent public building committee submit the schematic design to the MSBA It was largely what was presented to you at your last meeting. And the PPPC School Building Committee did vote last night unanimously to approve submission of that schematic design to MSBA. So we will get that in by Thursday, which is our deadline. The total project cost estimate is the $325 million.

And with that, we're anticipating MSBA reimbursement, again, between 20% and 25%. still to be determined. Next steps, there's a community meeting on June 30th at 6pm at the Pollard. there's going to be a series of them over the summer so that's just the next one in July we hope to receive MSBA's feedback to the town on that schematic design will answer any questions they may have for them that's their preparation to determine if there's any additional information they want before advancing our schematic design to their board which would be Levy, Frail, Keane, King, Levy, Reid Dowd, Needham, Councilor in July and August. So at your July 21st meeting, you will vote on the ballot question.

And is the August 26th date when we expect to know the reimbursement amount?

I anticipate knowing I think the week prior so August 26 is the MSBA board vote but we would have been in conversation with MSBA prior to that So I don't know when they finalize, but I think we would know before the date of the vote.

Soon before that's up? Not more than a week, you're thinking?

That's my best guess, yeah. Next item is just a request for a quick vote from the board to update our list of special municipal employees. the request is just to remove from our SME list the three committees that you dissolved at your last meeting. and we'll update this list and provide it to the town clerk so we stay updated with the State Ethics Commission.

OK. Anybody have any issues, thoughts?

Madam Chair, I would move that the board vote to rescind special municipal employee designation for the following municipal employees and for all of those holding positions on the following town entities Envision Needham Center Working Group, Needham Branding and Town Seal Committee, Tree Preservation Planning Committee, and that the board vote to place the list of special municipal employees updated in accordance with its prior votes taken during this meeting on file with the town clerk and to deliver a copy to the State Ethics Commission.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Both. The motion passes.

Thank you.

and under town manager report, just one quick item that we are going to be starting construction imminently at the center at the Heights. We have a new frequently asked questions page up on the Aging Services Division website as of a couple of hours ago. But construction will begin in earnest June 29th through December 26th. There'll be some closure starting Friday. for up to 10 business days if we need those full 10 days because the heaviest demolition will be done up front. But from that point on, we anticipate being open but doing modified Programming, Scheduling, Shifting Locations. So appreciate all of our older adults being flexible with us as we improve their space.

Can we provide specific dates like on flyers in the cast to let people know when the closures will be.

Oh, yes. And there's been info sessions at the CAF. And so I'm going to be in news. You need them. And yeah, we'll get the word out.

And they have a daily there, but they've also got a newsletter and they've been sending it out that way as well. OK, great. So next thing is committee reports. And if it's all right, we'll just start and work our way down.

Josh did a nice job at the Juneteenth celebration. Wish more people were there, but the students were very impressive, and it was a nice little celebration.

Excellent. Thanks, Bill. And in addition, I attended the Recycling Day with Heidi, which was a really great event.

Yeah, it was very nice. Very nice.

Kevin? Special thank you to Heidi for covering my office hours.

It was a breeze. People are very happy to see you, Kevin.

I know the line was down the hall. And then also tomorrow, 6-24, is the 250th. University of Needham Town Meeting Voting for Independence with Wade Brann. And Dedham voted on May 27th. So we really were just keeping up with the Joneses. But 250 years ago, we did it.

Very nice.

and beat the Congressional Congress.

So there we go. Heidi and I attended the Needham Pride Rally. on Saturday the 13th, which was awesome, which is a rally at the Unitarian Church and then a march over to the Congregational Church. So that was very nice. And then on Monday the 15th, I spoke at the Needham Immigration Justice and the task force annual meeting and just described our policy of how our police should handle immigration and had a good discussion with them.

Excellent. went to Rehsemini and Pride and the office hours. I also attended, on Sunday, Yoga Day. International Yoga Day was held on Greensfield, and it was put on by ICON and Niyam. which is a new organization to me but it was outdoor yoga it was actually very super chill and awesome and I couldn't stay the whole time but I was really pleased to be there so Thank you for putting that on. And that's all I have.

So... We'll be adjourned. What's the rush? I've got to go to Fox to pick up some hooligans.

All those in favor? Aye. Thank you.

Good night.