Needham Select Board, 4/28/26

Thank you for watching!

Recording in progress

good evening everyone welcome to the select board meeting of april 28th uh 2026. um this meeting is being broadcast by the Needham channel for the town's youtube channel and via zoom and is being recorded for publication and later viewing and there's the Needham observer there's the Needham logo all right thank you um anyone else recording this evening OK. So as we always do, we're going to start with public comment. And I know there's a public comment from Bill Looney, who's going to join us here. Mr. Looney, welcome. If you could just state your name. and your address and then typically we'd like you to keep it to around three minutes if you can do that no problem uh good evening my name is bill looney i live at 213 garden street in needham

Thank you for the chance to briefly comment on the proposed development at 193 Garden Street. I'm joined by many neighbors here tonight and we strongly oppose the proposed project. We also submitted a letter to the town manager yesterday summarizing our concerns about the development. In short, the project seeks to shoehorn 10 large units onto a single family lot that backs up the conservation wetland. The project is not consistent with local needs as required under 40B. Because Needham has in excess of 10% affordable housing units, there is no requirement, there's no presumption that affordable housing needs outweigh the environmental, safety and design concerns. And as for this project, the environmental, safety and design concerns clearly outweigh the creation of three affordable housing units. The potential negative impact on the wetlands that drain into Rosemary pond is significant.

The number and size of the units in such a small area poses potential safety issues. and from a design point of view, 10 3500 square foot units will loom over the neighbors, which is wholly inconsistent with the neighbor's design character. I also note that we're concerned that the developer's presentation is severely deficient. It's not possible to reasonably consider this project until the developer shows a buildable site plan to scale with topography and wetlands delineated and addresses the environmental, safety, and design problems with the project. The project is located in a predominantly single-family neighborhood. It is not in the MBTA Community Act zone. This large proposed project is completely out of place on Garden Street. We respectfully request the Select Board vote to not support this project.

were in the alternative to slow this process down and continue the matter until more complete information is provided to the select board and to the neighbors. Thank you for the chance for our neighborhood to be heard tonight.

Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it. OK. Our next agenda item is the Astronaut Day Proclamation, which our vice chair We'll read.

I'd be happy to. This really gave me a lot of joy when I saw it in the agenda. So, whereas National Astronaut Day is celebrated annually to commemorate the first spaceflight made by an American, and whereas Rear Admiral Alan Shepard, a New Englander and naval aviator, launched from Cape Canaveral aboard Freedom 7 on May 5, 1961, and whereas Captain Sunita Williams, a Needhamite, a naval aviator, launched into space three times over her storied NASA career, and whereas Sunita Williams pushed the envelope of scientific discovery and human exploration during her 608 days of space flight, and whereas the legacies of Sunita Williams, Alan Shepard and every American astronaut serve as a guiding star for the next generation of explorers, whether they hail from Needham or across the country. Now, therefore, we, the Select Board of the Town of Needham, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, May 5th as Astronaut Day in the Town of Needham.

Nice. So moved. Do we have a second?

Second.

Excellent. Any discussion?

She also runs a good marathon.

She does. She does. All right. In that case, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Excellent. All right. The next item on our agenda is a public hearing for an Eversource grant of location at 165 Bridal Trail Road. I assume that Joanne Callender is going to be joining us online. excellent um in the meantime madam town manager is everything in order it is excellent thank you seems to be delayed for apologies. No problem.

She doesn't want to come.

Floating in between.

Yes.

Hi, Joanne.

Okay, good evening. That took an act of Congress. I've never had that difficulty before. Thank you for joining us. Okay, so yes, Eversource is seeking a grand location to install approximately 60 feet of conduit into Bridal Trail Road, and that is to upgrade the underground service at 165 Bridal Trail Road.

Okay. And the town manager has told us that everything is in order. Are there any comments from my colleagues? No. OK. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the room who's here to speak on this matter? Is there anyone online? All right, then I would welcome a motion.

Move we approve and sign a petition from Eversource Energy to install approximately 60 feet of conduit in Bridal Trail Road.

excellent all right and seconded um all those in favor aye those opposed the motion carries uh that was a really short It was like it was like less talking on the matter than getting you over here.

Yes, exactly. Thank you. Take care. Bye now.

Okay. Our next item on our agenda here is to hear from the citizen's petitioner, Jerry Rovner is are going to join us here and explain the citizens petition resolution to uphold the Constitution. So just share with us your name and your address, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Jerry Rovner. I live at 48 Cynthia Road and have for about 20 years and prior to that. just about another 20 years over at Edward L. Road over in Birds Hill. I have a couple of statements I'd like to make that may shorten the need for any questions, but obviously I'm delighted to respond to anything that you may have. Every one of you has sworn an oath of allegiance to the United States and Massachusetts constitutions before taking office. The President of the United States swore an oath of allegiance, as did all members of the Cabinet, the Congress, and Judiciary. They pledged allegiance to the Constitution.

One of the six primary pillars of the 1218 Magna Carta was no man. No man was above the law, not even the monarch. When the voters sought regress of grievances, the voters had an absolute right to petition the monarch for resolution of those grievances. Today we are faced with a series of grievances with the President's actions Many of you have attended weekly protests, some very small and some like a month ago, where we had 1,400 people on the town common. Our voices have been heard. Results are very clear if you just look a little harder than the front pages of the paper.

No longer is the government able to convince people to sell their empty warehouses to create another detention center. The government has lost on it in the Supreme Court most recently because it failed to follow the law on how to create tariffs. The article before you seeks regress of our grievances. In drafting the article 14 weeks ago, we could not have foreseen the additional issues that cropped up. It seems every day we're finding more and more articles that are causing us grief. in every community that has presented a warrant article similar to the one before it has passed.

So far, 11 communities out of 11 have passed a warrant article similar to us. None of the articles, the other 11 articles that have already been voted on are copycat articles of what we wrote or any of the other 10 have written. They're all unique. One article in one of the communities is two sentences long. Another one goes on for about five or six pages. They're all unique. We hope that the community will speak up. Because if we don't, who is going to speak up? The power of the people is stronger than the people in power. It's time to make our voices heard.

Who can vote to breach their own pledge of allegiance to the constitutions of the United States or the Commonwealth? we would hope that you would vote to support Article 14 in the special town meeting. At the very least, we would ask that on May 11, you vote to pass Article 14. I now welcome any questions that you may have.

I think it's very well worded. The petition, the warrant article, I think you frame in terms of the Constitution that every elected official has to follow the Constitution. And I think you've identified that there is a problem with people not following the Constitution. So I agree with that portion. I think the problem is greater than that, though. because as important as it is to follow the Constitution, people also have to be honest. And that was, so I did some reading beforehand, right? Patrick Henry, when he was talking about the Constitution, he actually had some criticisms about the Constitution, which led directly to the Bill of Rights. And his opinion was that the unitary executive was too powerful.

But he wrote something in that context, writing some criticism of the Constitution and foreseeing some problems they think we're having today. And so he wrote, it is on a supposition that our American governor shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded. But its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men. And so it's absolutely crucial that we follow the Constitution. But people also have to be honest. And if they're not honest, everything else falls apart, even the Constitution.

That's absolutely true, Mr. Levy. But there's also a lot of other writings that have taken place. The Constitution, believe it or not, started with the 1215 Magna Carta, which put some restrictions on the authority and the The ability of the monarch to tell the people what was going to happen rather than the people telling the monarch. If you go back a little bit, you realize that the monarch was appointed and ordained of the Lord. And when we had our revolution, The fact is that it shook up the entire world because now people began to question the authority of the monarch if he was not ordained to the Lord.

The other situation is that our Constitution was quite unique, because as you know, we've had three different branches of government, each co-equal with the other two. I don't know how one controls the honesty of a person before we vote for them. I think that there are some things that we can do. We can look at his character or her character. We can see how they've conducted themselves in the past, but I don't know how, and I'd like to hear how we conduct honesty. I wish I knew how. Well, we did the best we could with our founding fathers showing that all power in one person was an invitation to tyranny.

Kevin. Thank you for doing this and thank you for doing this petition. I appreciate it. I think it's worthwhile and it's good for Tom Meade to consider this. I always thought that like we talk about freedom and liberties then you get all the headlines but self-government is about responsibility and I think Those in office have a responsibility to follow the Constitution and those of us in this town have a responsibility to insist that they do too. So thank you for doing this.

Anybody else?

I think it is well put together and I think the resolutions are really strong, you know, but you and I have spoken a little bit and there's a lot of whereases. you know so i don't i'm hoping that town meeting can get by the a lot of where asses because what was it two weeks ago we did stand here and kathy and i raised our hands and we we pledged to that oath so we we as kevin said have to follow that oath

I remember a quote from Abraham Lincoln that said if he had more time, it would have been shorter. And that's the way we feel. It was a very difficult time for us to write this. I didn't write it myself. I had four other people. and we've spent several hours trying to cut it. You should have seen the first draft. But I think we have a choice. We can sit back and do nothing. and that's going to mean we're condoning the actions of what we don't want. I think we have to vote on something and this is the best that we can put together. So that's where we are.

I appreciate you.

I would ask in closing that the board adopt and recommend passage. But if not, then individually, I would hope you would vote in favor of this article.

I appreciate you bringing us and I appreciate the both the elevation that makes me feel like I'm back in my college philosophy class and the back to basics feel of what we're all here for so thank you and we will be taking a position on this later today

Thank you, and thank you for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to speak with you. Thanks, Jerry.

Thank you. Okay, our next agenda item. is the Community Preservation Committee warrant article discussion. And so we're going to welcome Dave Herrer, the CPC Chair, Reg Foster, the Needham Housing Authority Commissioner, and Stacey Mulroy. and Director of Parks and Rec. All right, welcome. So we're going to just go through some of the articles on which the select board had questions in our discussion in our previous meeting. So the first one we can start with is the disc golf article, which I don't remember what number that is.

Article 21.

All right. Maybe you could just tell us a little bit about the genesis of this article. I think we have had some presentations from the DISC golf Group in the past. And I guess we had some questions about the feasibility that the disc golf folks said say that they have done in the past and what we're doing this time and maybe what the differences are and then moving forward wondering if the CPC is planning on funding construction and so on. open the floor. Do you want to start?

Sure. So the disc golf community did indeed do their own feasibility study. They focused on two locations. so they looked at Town Forest and Ridge Hill they did gift us that feasibility study so I'm happy to share that with you and so The purpose for our feasibility study is to make sure that we're doing our due diligence and making sure that we need to look at additional locations, if there are any, to ensure that we pick the right location for this. Project. Town Forest and Ridge Hill are very busy locations. So part of this feasibility design is to look to see have the company that the firm that we have choose

look at different locations in town and see if there's if one of these is the best or if there's a different one from that then we would start designing the course so this request is for feasibility of location and design

Quick question. Do you explain what disc golf is? Because last night a lot of people just didn't know. They'd kind of heard about it, but not quite.

I will own that I am not a disc golf person, but disc golf is... A game using discs, round discs thrown like a frisbee in a similar way to golf. So you tee off and you have pars depending on where the goals are or the pins are and so you however many strikes or strokes it takes you to get there. Basically, it's like a game of golf with Frisbee, for lack of not the appropriate term.

Right, through a wooded area.

What's that? Through a wooded area or... Yeah, so you can have wide open, you know, there's some big giant lots where you can do frisbee, I'm sorry, disc golf, but more... more projects are going in the woods so like it's make they want it to be more difficult so like through the trees and they don't want the big wide open spaces unlike the golf community they want to make it difficult okay all right

And so when you look for the right space, are you using the design that they've already created, or are you starting from scratch.

So they offered some designs, but we would have the company work with us to see if that design fits in whatever location is chosen and so much like the action sports park when we kind of looked around town for different locations to see what was the best location and then we will build to that location or design sorry to that location

Is the 300,000 that you mentioned in here, would that vary a lot depending on the location or is it?

Yes, so it could vary immensely. So depending on the number of holes for the course, we're looking at a nine hole, but depending on location, that can change. how many T's we have to go up so it all depends on and where we need to put these T's like accessibility a lot of communities do like a community build for disc golf and so this is sort of a little a different angle than some of my colleagues have done it so um this is a number that we got from some engineering firms that you know was

Is that the high end of the range? Okay. And is that something that CPC is willing to fund? Should that?

We'll see when we get the application. This is for $50,000.

How did you arrive at the 50,000 figure?

Because my understanding is the study done by the private group was like a couple thousand.

that was again by our engineering firms different engineering firms that have done this we reached out to them and that is the quotes that we got from three or four different engineering firms that have done disc golf courses.

Okay. It seems high because we have a comparison that was done for so much less.

The study that was done initially was like a one-day study. And so I don't think it relates at all to the scope that's being proposed for this study. Can you describe the scope then? Well, number one, to look around town to identify candidate locations. Number two, to look at the various users of the locations and assess the impact of this gulf on the users. and so on. Number three, to look at the impact on the environment, on trees, on wildlife and things of that nature. And then finally, to look at the actual use, the number of people, where they might come from, and impact on parking and availability of parking.

Would you consider Parcel 74? Which other locations are you thinking of?

That is one of the locations that has come to mind. I obviously haven't engaged with any of the engineering firms that we've used. But like I said, I want to make sure that we making sure we have the best options parcel 74 did would come to mind that was certainly one of the top ones that came to mind for me i'm certainly no engineer um and Town Forest and Ridge Hill are both good locations but they are heavily populated and so making sure that if this project did pass, that we're aware of all the other user groups for the different locations, which is why Parc 74 came up.

Maybe one last question. Where in the priority list is this for Park and Rec? Because I know there are a lot of other projects that are ongoing, The Action Park, Pickleball Courts.

So those are already in design phases. So they're currently moving forward. And so the commission was choosing this one to move forward along with Elliott, which we're working with DPW on. but this was their priority for this year.

I actually know about disc golf. My daughter's boyfriend plays disc golf and we gave him a set of the special discs you use that we gave them to play disc golf. So I think it's a good project. My concern is that you start with $50,000, but then you're going to have $300,000, and you might have design also. So it's just $50,000 right now, but you're going to have the $300,000, and you've

there isn't I don't see design cost I don't know whether you've checked that at all but would be within the feasibility this $50,000 so this is $50,000 for feasibility and design so location choice plus the design of the course

So then there would only be 300,000 left, hopefully, if it was to move forward. And I just can't... Tom Forrest, I mean, you said it's very busy, but was Rich Hill on the, I didn't get to see that original.

So they're from the disc golf community, researched Town Forest and Ridge Hill.

Right. And did they think that those were good spots?

they felt that both of those locations were good locations but park and rec does thinks they're okay but wants to look at others is that what we just want to make sure we're not missing anything and that we're not adding more traffic to those areas.

And I remember, you know, I'm old now, but back in the day at Ridge Hill, there was like a fitness trail. that everyone went to and I feel like the fitness trail is going to be similar to you know you did one thing and went to the next and that's kind of what you is with disc golf so I just don't know that you're going to end up finding a better location than that. The only thing I can think of is like that parcel 74, but I don't know. that seems like hard to get to parking a lot of issues with that so I just don't know what else that is going to come up with so that those are my concerns

All right. Thank you both for that. And now we move on to Reg and Dave to talk about the preservation of Seabed's Way.

Well, that's great. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. There is the Article 22 up on the screen. So the presentation has been submitted. I'm going to assume people have read that and say our situation is that last year Town Meeting very generously awarded us 3.2 million dollars for Seabeds Way and I'm happy to announce that we are going to closing fingers crossed of course something doesn't come up um june of 2026. like tomorrow in municipal terms and so second half so you know and construction will start So mobilization. So there's a four or five month mobilization period, mostly to get the upgraded utilities in electricity because we're going

Fossil Free, and dealing with Eversource as we all know is a very long read time item that we've already started working on. We've also had an RFP out. just to give a little status report here that we got proposals last Friday for our and construction manager. We have to put out an RFP for that. And selection committee meets for the first time on Wednesday this week. and we hope to have that recommendation in another week or so and it's a GMP proposal which means when the cost proposals are open we'll really know what this sucker costs and we'll have a fixed price for doing everything. At the time we applied for the 3.2 million last year, there were two things happening.

One is that the Charles River Center came in with an absolutely amazing project that we totally 1,000% support, and so the CPC was trying to make there's room for both this, our project and their project to go forward, which I think I was a member back then, too, and I think we were successful doing that. But we didn't apply for replacing the roof because they are middle-aged roofs. and we thought okay fine we'll just put in a reserve but you have to start off with a $400,000 reserve on day one of the new entity here and then built it up over 10 or 12 years and replaced the roof then. And then we were trying to negotiate our We have solar panels. We have great solar panel roofs.

very supportive of sustainable Needham climate action roadmap and if you look at page 18 one of the goals between the baseline year and 2030 was to add 16 megawatts of solar power across all the residential and commercial buildings. We serve a commercial multi-family building. and we had to do a power purchase agreement which means that we don't front any money because we don't have the money to do the solar panels. and a third party does that and then we basically rent the roofs for the next 20 years and get a steep discount on electricity rates. and they said, sorry, I got to replace the roof for no deal.

So we went back to the CPC in the fall, last fall, for $804,000 a roof. So besides supporting sustainable Needham, which a lot of people in this room worked hard on a few years ago, not so many years ago. The other benefits are that We can do the solar. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to afford it if we don't do it now. It reduces our utility costs per year. The deal with the PPA provider at Sun Wealth is that we have to buy all the power produced from those roofs at basically 24 cents a kilowatt hour instead of the 35 cents that we have now.

And that directly translates into a for the $14,000, $15,000 a year reduction of utility costs for the 20 years and by not having to that's 300 and call it $400,000 savings in terms of today's rates and dollars for the project but by not having to do that we have a certain amount of We have the capital we can raise for the renovations. letters of agreement signed. Our ultimate permanent lender will be Mass Housing. But what this does is the savings in annual operating costs creates the ability of $180,000 more capital improvements that can be made. And we have a

A list of add alternates or actually we're doing deduct alternates. I think everybody knows what that is because we don't know what's going to come in the door. It has come in the door when we open the proposals in a week or two, the price proposals. whether we are going to have to start taking off. They're not even nice to have. They're things we want to do but they're not essential like refurbishing the balconies that are all cantilevered outside of the buildings. So for those reasons, We are here before first the CPC and now ultimately before town meeting and asking the select board to support our application, as did the FinCom a week or two ago.

Great. Thank you. That's the situation. I want to go first to Kathy because I know she's part of the TEACHA committee that's been working on all of this with you.

Thank you. So it's clear that without replacing the roofs, you can't put the solar, right? That I think we can all easily understand. I'm interested in what it does, and you've addressed some of it, but if you didn't have this, what would it do to your financing? overall. So savings you're not going to have you know so maybe help us pull that out.

So these questions have come up starting with the CPC so I'll answer a broader set of related questions. Number one is we were with our great development partners we have the Cambridge Housing Authority without whom we could never be here today two months away from closing We have just about $3 million of sustainability grants. There's one from Department of Energy. Decarbonization Grant, you might have heard of it. The town supply for this as well. And there's another one from EOHLC called Climate Ready Housing Program that has a chunk of change. This all goes back to the Affordable Housing Bill. Governor Hill, we put through in 2024. And those do not require us to put in solar roofs.

We have great exposure, south exposure, great roofs, but it's not a condition. it's not a condition of the town of Needham or our stretch energy code that we all got through last few years not for rehab buildings you know for new buildings that's something else all altogether and so we are going to go forward without the solar roofs without the solar panels on the roofs if we're not awarded or approved for this money by town meeting next month. to hit all of your questions.

So just so I understand, then, what is lost if this is not funded?

So I can't tell you now because we haven't opened up the GMP bids. and fortunately as we know interest rates went up when some of the excitement from The international excitement started up. I think we all know what we're talking about. But we got our rate locked with mass housing before that in February. And so we, you know, not suffering from that. and it was very good terms. Also our construction financing as well. We have a great architecture team and cost estimators that said we say we barely ought to be able to have enough money to and we will build everything, but we will not know until about two or three weeks from now when we can open and evaluate the GMP bids. A lot of money, enough money, or we may be cutting the ad alternates. Just can't tell you which at this point in time.

Sorry to monopolize this, but how does the financing of the roof intersect with what you're talking about, the uncertainty

So if the GMP comes out more than we have money to fund, they're actually ad-deducts. We'd be able to deduct from the scope of what the GMP bids. Four different stages of things that are increasingly painful to start. So we get down to a number where we can actually close the financing on the deal and go forward with it.

How does that interact with this though?

So maybe I didn't understand your question then.

you've got that uncertainty as to effectively how much things are going to cost versus the amount of money you've got in hand the roof doing or not doing the roof how does that have any I'm trying to understand the relationship between that uncertainty of your costs and getting the money or not getting the money for the roof and the solar.

we just don't know if the um go ahead you might want to mention the reserve for the roof well there's a reserve for the roof but i i think if i'm understanding kathy's question you know if the costs come in 10 percent more on the GMP bid than we were expecting them. We're not expecting that. Then we're going to have to cut a bunch of things beyond not redoing the roof. Okay. But I don't think I'm getting your question.

I think one of the benefits that would accrue with the roof is the housing authority would not have to put in a $400,000 reserve for the roof in the future, which is something that's required by the you know the financiers and the program and so.

See thank you Dave. He was my liaison too.

I think I heard you also say that the energy savings would open up more debt capacity. Yes. Is that true?

Yes. about 180,000 best we can estimate it here at this point.

Okay.

So those two things together, can we add those two things together and say there's $580,000 more to play with.

Yes, capital-wise.

Yes, capital if you get this funding. in energy savings and 180 in energy savings, $400 in a reserve that you don't have to have. Yes. $500,000.

But also the longer life.

I think the energy savings is a conservative estimate. I think they use like 3% increase per year, which I mean, my bill is going up a lot more than 3%. So. Okay.

Do you have any questions?

Yeah, quickly. I remember with Seabeds seeing the photos of before the renovations like this the water damage in the walls and stuff like that. Is that related to the roof?

Yes, that's why they're middle aged because we had the ice dam problems in 2015. all the water infiltration. So we redid all the roofs and seabeds, but not Cook at that time. Okay. So it's now 2025, so they're 11 years old. And expect to last, what, the 25 years? 2025 years is what they're warrantied for.

if we got a new roof is it 25 by 30 same same okay yeah so the issue is do we eat the cost of of this but sounds like maybe it's

It's a judgment call. I don't want to be in the position of saying the project won't go forward with this because it's got to go forward. will find some way, you know, to cut something out enough to make it go forward here.

Okay.

Okay. Thanks. Does the Housing Authority anticipate asking CPC to help contribute funding for Cooks and the subsequent phases of Linden?

Yes.

And when will that come?

So this project will be done construction-wise January 2028. and just tangentially, though this is not directly on your question, but the Linden Terrace project amazingly with our other great set of development departments made it into the second trip through the funding round and about a 40 percent by my estimation a chance of getting $65 million worth of tax credit funding. So we're funding by August or September of this year. So we're going, you know, on the other hand, caveat, there's a 60% chance we won't and we'll have to wait another year. But one of the factors is going to be just the bandwidth of what we can manage to answer your question.

But let's say we want to move forward, I think is really where you're going, as quickly as we can with Captain Robert Cook. It, in some respects, is in worse shape than the seabeds. When we were kind of trying to put together the two projects last year, this is what worked. It did not have new roofs. It did not get, you know, so it's kind of more run down right now. And so it's quite possible we'd be back with an application as soon as the November 1st you know application cycle now but can't tell for sure whether we're going to do that or not. I think the other question is we will need some substantial and CPA funding for that.

And the reserves will be building, you know, building up over time whether there's enough reserves there by the time we apply is going to be another factor. Dave can speak more. authoritatively to that.

No, I appreciate that answer. My thinking is, given everything you've said, it sounds like CBEDS is going to move forward with or without these funds. Those $800,000, $804,000 could be used to free up debt capacity on this project, or they could be used to free up debt capacity on Cook's or Linden. And given the high priority, you said Cook's is in worse shape than even Seabed's, I would rather save the money for those projects.

Well, I don't think we're necessarily going to be there, needed, to save it. We looked at that and said, are we robbing Peter to pay Paul? and again there's no one right answer to this and we were just saying this is our shot to get you know is fully compliant with the goals that have been set by the town in the sustainable needle climate action plan and it's one of the things that we've committed over and over again even during the process that that led to this that we would do everything in our power to do that. And so here we are asking for the money.

Thank you. I just have a question for the CPC. Dave, why did you go? What was the main driver for you in moving this forward?

Well, you know, not to repeat. Reg said, but one of the key questions that I had initially was, what was the financial benefit of this in the long run? Because on the surface, it didn't look like the net present value of the energy savings. was equal or greater than what the cost of the roof is. But I think when you add in some of the other financial benefits of the project, which Reg had I think that there is a net financial benefit to the projects and so I think that was one of our key questions and it was addressed.

And may I ask you, about every year, plus or minus, about $4 million worth of new revenues from the state and from then you know the surcharge into the CPA fund so it is being recharged as we speak and the way things these things go it would be quite ambitious. We think we can get all the funding lined up for Captain Robert Cook next fall. I said it's possible, but it's taken us two or three to get to this point. And you can't just apply overnight and get another $3 million worth of climate ready housing funding or doors. There's a whole annual cycle to that. So it is more likely that we will be before the CPC, not this fall, 2026, but more likely 2027 at the earliest,

at which point we will have you know eight million minus the mandatory allocations replenished there and you know a new funding environment there so I we the Needham Housing Authority really aren't worried about the fact that we're still going to hold up a high priority project at all. It's been our judgment. We were able to make that case to the CPC because came up there. They come up at FinCom a couple weeks ago and we're confident we're going to be able to get Cooke done. Getting these first two projects going is the hardest and remember if we are able to Getland and Terrace going in a smaller way for this project. I mean, we are a 50-50 development partner on this $65 million project. with Linden Terrace.

So we share the developer fee, which is in for the first phase at roughly $2 million. We get half of that when we complete the first phase. So there are other sources of funding that are flowing in as well.

Bill? So I just am confused a little bit, but it's an 11-year roof. And so that cannot hold solar panels because?

because the business model of a power purchase agreement type company, in this case it was Sun Wealth, there's nothing secret about it, but it's common. they don't want to be in the position of having to replace the roof. They've attached everything to the roof in year 11 or 12 of the 20 year agreement that we have with them.

so the new roof then they're not that don't have that concern so that will move forward

It's a risk that they don't want to take.

It's about $680,000 of their capital they're putting into putting those solar panels on our roofs.

Kathy, do you have another question?

No, I guess maybe I'll just run this by you. I just did a little math over here. So if the appropriation is roughly $800,000, right? and we've identified 580,000, 580, in savings, 400,000 in a reserve that we don't have to have, 180 in energy savings. That leaves a net of $220,000 for which we get The extended life of the roof, say for 10 years, plus we get the fact that we are being more green and putting solar. So if you look at it that way, I think it looks a lot more favorable. Is that a fair way to look at this?

Yeah, that's certainly one way to look at it. I'm cursed with too much knowledge because there's this very elaborate spreadsheets that you know calculate all the interactions between what you just said but it's the top down conceptually yeah i'm sorry all right dave's not what do you think if this got it

Well, no, as I said before, I think the energy savings estimate for this that's been put forth is really...

and perhaps the cost is less than $220,000.

What Dave is saying is if you're tracking this sort of thing and many of us around this table are, it could be like 60 or 70 cents per kilowatt hour shortly with all the new data centers going in. Massachusetts and the town of Needham have been criticized by certain parties as saying, you know the grid can't support that there isn't enough power generation so forth so it'll be a supply and demand thing and so we may be saving a lot more with those solar yeah i mean to put it simpler the

Cost estimate, the savings was based on a 3% annual increase in power costs. which is kind of low, I think.

I want to make sure we're getting to everyone's questions. Josh, do you have more?

I just wanted to talk about the financial return, I guess. It's a strange thing for the return because it's not coming back to the taxpayer. the housing authority is the benefit. The $380,000 over 20 years would be the savings for electricity, conservatively. If energy costs go up, they would be greater. The $400,000 for the roof contingency, how would you use that?

So like any commercial landlord, there's an OPEX, operating expenditures, P&L thing. and so to start on day one and we have a new funding source we're going from section 9 to section 8 so it's going to be basically section 8 project based vouchers which which is what unlocks the borrowing power of what we can do here and the what on day one when you close if you have an 11 or 12 year roof or boilers for that matter or anything you fill in the blank You have to have, in this case, roughly speaking, a $400,000 reserve towards replacing the roof 12 or 15 years down the road. And then you add to that reserve every year.

What Dave helped me remember is that if we can request this additional funding and achieve it with town meeting, we don't have to have that reserve on day one.

And that's my question. So if this were approved, what would you use that reserve for instead?

It would cover our other capital costs and hopefully if they're you know if there's no additional scope of the project it's already been set we have the hundred percent cds we'd probably borrow less maybe i don't know but there's a lot of ifs in that because we just don't know for probably mid-May is when we'll actually be finishing the selection process.

You have some optional add-ons too that you might want to consider.

We could, yeah. We could. Well, I'll tell you the biggest optional add-on, we got enough money and we could afford the $680,000 of stuff. We'd not do the power purchase agreement. We would actually buy the system outright and install it. And we do have a bid for that. Sorry, I'm being spamboned by here. So hypothetically, we would have enough money. We'd actually have to front $900,000 to put the solar panels on because there's still cracks credits available to us, even though we aren't a P&L. there's a mechanism for a nonprofit or a public sector entity like that to benefit the tax credit. So we have to actually come up with $900,000 upfront to by the panels ourselves.

And then that has always have been the best way to realize the most successful business case, whether you're a residential homeowner or the town of Needham or anybody else here.

and just one last thing.

So maybe we do that. I don't know.

OK, that's helpful. When you're talking about replenishing the CBC, I just want to make sure when I hear that it It's tax money. Even though it's CPC money separate from the general fund, it's still tax money. And I want to make sure that we're careful with how it's spent.

Absolutely.

In addition to which, the match is getting lower and lower and lower from the state every day.

Yeah, it is. But I would point out that most of our residents are voters and citizens of the town of Needham, and many of them lived here before they had and there are many many other people in our public housing units who are relatives of people who live in Needham who just you know highly value the ability if a senior member of the family is right there and not over in Belmont in a basement apartment, which is a real story I got once.

Thank you very, very much for this presentation and all the questions. We appreciate all the answers.

Thank you so much for the time. Appreciate it.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks.

and rub your lucky rabbit's foots or whatever it is till the fur comes off between now and the end of June, please.

Absolutely. All right, all those in favor? Aye. Those against? Motion passes. Our next item is we're going to ask Chris Heap, town council, to come and join so we can talk about the process. for the local initiative program. This is our 40B LIP program. Hello, everyone. Hi. So there's been some confusion about this process, what the steps are, and in what order those steps have to happen.

happy to try to clear that up. So I'll walk you through the process from start to finish and then happy to answer any questions. all 40B projects, whether they're LIPs or regular 40Bs, start at basically the same stage, which is that the applicant needs a Project Eligibility Letter from a subsidizing agency. The nuance with LIPS is that the subsidizing agency is EOHLC and the applicant for the Project Eligibility Letter is both the town and the developer. the two parties join and file that application together that's effectively the part of the process that we are at now the developer is looking for your support to join that application to eohlc for the project eligibility letter assuming that we do in fact join the LHLC application. The town's chief executive officer submits the application to EOHLC.

Chief Executive Officer, which is the town manager, signs the application and submits a letter of support along with it to EOHLC. And that at that point, EOHLC reviews the application and presumably issues the project eligibility letter. Those are almost always issued. once that project eligibility letter is issued that frees the applicant up to apply to the zoning board of appeals once the application for a comprehensive permit is filed with the zoning board of appeals the zba is then under have strict timelines to hear and decide the application. Once the application is filed, the ZBA has 30 days to open the public hearing. once the public hearing is opened it has 180 days to conduct the public hearing that can be extended by agreement with the applicant but the presumptive deadline to hold the public hearing is 180 days

that at that once the application is filed with the ZBA, there isn't much more involvement from the select board or the town in connection with the lip process. rather at that point the developer proceeds through the permitting process with the ZBA sort of in the ordinary course the only difference I think is that although the select board and the town manager in town aren't participating in the ZBA hearing it'll be labeled a lip and the application will carry a certain air of town support to the CBA. once the zba opens the public hearing it's going to look a lot like a regular 4db hearing process which is to say that the zba is going to review project impacts Devise conditions attempting to mitigate those impacts to work with the developer, hopefully to revise the project as needed to address impacts.

the ZBA will also review the waiver list, the quirk of 4DB practice that you don't see in other land use permitting hearings, is that the applicant will apply for a waiver of any local requirement that it can't or isn't meeting. That's requirements in the zoning bylaw, general bylaw, any local requirement that the town has on the books can in some cases be waived by the ZBA. The ZBA is

Can I ask you about that? I didn't know the ZBA can waive general bylaws.

The ZBA can waive any local requirement.

So including stormwater requirements? Yes. I'm seeing head shakes in the room.

So the ZBA, the only local requirements the ZBA can't waive are State Programs that are administered locally, which is typically order of conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act and local septic regulations that are more stringent than Title V, which probably not going to apply here. other than that any zoning general conservation so if the if a town has a local wetlands bylaw that is more stringent than the state wetlands protection act, the ZBA can waive and is often asked to waive the general bylaw that is more stringent than the Wetlands Protection Act. The ZBA can't act under the Wetlands Protection Act. So typically what will happen in a 4DB application

is if we have a general bylaw that's more stringent on wetlands, the applicant seeks relief from the ZBA under the general bylaw and then applies for an order of conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act with the Conservation Commission. So if there's a state requirement applicable to wetlands, the ZBA can't touch it. But if there's a local requirement applicable to wetlands, the applicant can ask the ZBA to waive that requirement. Does that answer your question?

It does answer it.

Yeah, so I guess what I'm understanding you to say is that the official process kicks off with approval from the select board, but that If the select board wants to support a project, it may choose to say that we need to know some of this stuff up front. yes before we give our approval so that we feel satisfied that we're making the right decision to move forward because once we move forward then that power to halt may be lost to us the green light to proceed to the zoning board of appeals has been given not in part by the select board but more so by eohlc so if an applicant wanted to proceed with a lip project it would behoove potentially the select board to get more information up front

what I would say to that is that there is no standard for when the select board should approve a LIP application and there's certainly no requirement that the select board ever must approve a LIP application this is entirely discretionary for the select board. And in the absence of a legal standard that you have to work with, I'd say that the standard is more generally is the project one that the select board believes is worthwhile and worthy of its support. and there is no you know there's no limit on the information you can or can't ask for it's just a matter of what information you think is important for you to aid in your decision making

So we could ask the developer what waivers they might be looking for.

I would think, yes. would, yes, you likely want to know what sections of the bylaws, zoning in general, the applicant would need relief from the CBA.

Okay. Catherine? Yeah. And you said that when it goes to the ZBA that they may grant these waivers. Are there any standards that they operate under? and deciding whether to grant the waivers or not.

So the CBA, I think, occupies an interesting position now that the town is over 10 percent in a town that is under 10 percent or hasn't satisfied some of the other requirements that can prevent 40B applications. The CBA is always going to be under extreme pressure to grant requested waivers lest they deny the waiver and then render the project uneconomic. in this case, because we're over the 10%, the ZBA has a greater ability than it used to to impose conditions that the developer might not be 100% happy with and to deny waivers that It doesn't want to grant. the catch there is that the CBA needs to put a marker down on that within 15 days after opening its public hearing. That's a procedural requirement for the CBA.

15 or 50?

15. So if the CBA is going to

So it's going to be a complete project.

Invoke the defense that we're over 10%. We can do what we want. It needs to do that right up front in the public hearing. Public hearing can go on from there, but it needs to notify the applicant early that that right exists.

if I could just add to I think in town council's overview you know he framed the ZBA's process kind of in the normal course and I just want to provide a little bit more context of you know a ZBA application for comp permit under a lip or generally is where all of the outreach to the town departments comes in so we would have police and fire and engineering and all of that review so I think there this is um and others. I think one of the things to rearticulate this is what information would you all need to make sure you're comfortable but that level of detail and review is what ZBA does kind of by course and by charge. So I just wanted to clarify like where those levels of detail and professional expertise come in along the way. Thank you.

I'm sorry, when did they come in?

that would be during the ZBA.

Once the application is filed with the ZBA it is required under 40B to send the application to every relevant department in town and solicit their input. The reason for that is because Under 40B. The ZBA is acting in the stead of a lot of those other departments. So they still get to comment. But yeah, they have to send it out and solicit input from everybody involved.

A question. So given that the applicant could request waivers of our conservation bylaw or even our zoning bylaw, would it be appropriate for us to ask as part of our process the planning board and the conservation commission if they have comments for us on whether to proceed.

Well, it sounds like if we gather the information and then have questions with regard to those potential changes, then we would ask, right?

I guess, responding sort of generally, I would tend to, in my experience, the material presented to the Select Board would be less voluminous than the application to the CBA would be, you know, months down the road. The information shared with the select board would almost always at this stage include preliminary site plan, elevations of the development, waiver list I think would be helpful or preliminary preliminary waiver list unit counts and that type of material but so and then have that would be expanded upon both at eohlc and then the zba application but there is no requirement that that be true in all cases and because

the applicant is looking for the select board support for a project that you have questions about I would say that the select board is well within its rights to ask for whatever information it thinks is relevant

Yeah, I wonder if we could think about not to make a project for anyone. But I wonder if it might be handy to have a checklist of sort of the norm and the less normal things that we might want to request of our LIP applicants. this isn't our primary expertise. So knowing sort of what the menu of options that are things that could be changed or could be important later on down the road when it does get to that level of expertise might be helpful. in knowing if we have to look if they're asking for any particular kind of waiver, for example.

I agree.

I kind of feel like we're playing planning board. And so, yeah, if we. Precisely. Kind of.

Yeah. Mechanism created by the state.

So if we give a green light, I mean, it's very primary binary choice, yes or no, right? If we say no, what's the next step for the applicant? What's their route?

So the applicant does not to my experience, need the select board's endorsement of a LIP application to proceed with this process. They are able to seek a project eligibility letter from the state and apply, and if they get one, apply to the ZBA for a comprehensive permit application. They would be doing so at perhaps somewhat greater risk of the CBA turning the application down outright for lack of sort of the broader town support that the applicant is seeking. But this denial of a lip application by you guys is not prohibitive of their ability to go forward okay does that answer your question yeah any other questions yeah yeah i'm struggling to how to articulate this but um

it does seem like we would really want to know if the developer was going to ask for any of these waivers you know stormwater being maybe at the top of the list and you know zoning and all these other things is that typically the developer when they come to a select board of any town for for their blessing of this. How far along are they in design? They typically know that stuff.

So even application to the ZBA for a comprehensive permit is typically more preliminary than a special permit or subdivision application is. That's because under the 40 regulations, the 40 regulations define what must be included in a comprehensive permit application. And if it's not on that list, the CBA is gonna have a hard time asking for it. the 40 regulations contemplate that the application to the ZBA is going to be a little bit more sort of rudimentary than a full blown subdivision plan, for example. So even at that stage, 40B applications tend to be a little preliminary. I think... So and I would ordinarily not expect the materials to be fully sketched out or developed at this stage.

Again, I think what I would normally expect to see at this stage in the discussion with the developer is preliminary site plan, elevations of the development, unit count, and I think a waiver list is a good ask. Beyond that, I don't think I would normally expect to see that but there is nothing prohibiting the board from asking for more than that I guess the the nature of my question was would they know enough to have the waiver list and you're saying they would

I just want to weigh in that, you know, we've done a friendly 4DB lip at Chestnut Street and then in 22, 1180 Great Plain Avenue. My sense of both of those processes is it's a bit iterative, right? The developer kind of wants to come in and do an initial like conceptual gut check. and see if you know if there's a clear no across the board from the select board well maybe that's the end of the conversation versus are they going to go back do some more work do some more work so I think for me I think that making sure the board is clear on when you feel ready to take a vote on the project is more important than what the initial amount of work is that's brought to the board on the front end. Because the applicant's investing time and energy and money. into the application as well.

I do think that stormwater is a good example. I wouldn't expect the applicant at this stage to have a fully designed stormwater system ready to go. Rather, that's something that would normally undergo vetting through the CBI hearing process. but if they're going to ask for a major waiver of a significant portion of the bylaw, that's something that you would be well served by knowing now.

just again I'm just trying to work my way through this so let's say stormwater again which is very sensitive I mean if if if we asked in the course of discussions with the developer, are you going to need a stormwater waiver? they weren't sure or they said provisionally no. I mean at that point can we essentially say we wouldn't want to approve something if you were going to ask for a waiver and that at that point If they go to the ZBA and ask for the waiver, does that send a strong message to the ZBA to not approve the waiver?

I was thinking the same thing. Could it be a conditional approval?

Right. or does it not work that way?

It doesn't work that way without adding another layer to the process which would be securing that in some form of an agreement which um isn't typically done no reason it couldn't actually be done here but but uh no the the the The vote to approve the lip should be a yes or no in almost all cases, not a conditional yes.

All right. Bill, any other questions?

No. Can I ask one high-level question? Some applicants have come to us and asked for either their support for a LIP or a friendly 4DB. What is this distinction?

There is no such thing. I think in my experience, they're using two phrases for the same thing. Okay. Lip is a friendly 4DB. Okay. Thank you.

That just denotes that we're over the 10% threshold and no longer have an obligation to accept whatever comes our way.

Yes, I've seen friendly 4DB used even in towns that are under 10% provided it's a lip and has the select board support going into the ZBA hearing process.

Okay. Thank you. Very helpful. All right. And so moving on from there, we're going to welcome up the Gardener's Nest Condominium Project with Michael Tidoldi and Robert Tidoldi and George Shunta. Okay, so fill us in. Where do you guys stand?

Okay, so since we last were before you, we held a couple of outreach sessions with the neighbors, and I would say those are our preliminary outreach sessions they were requested by the board but as you've heard this is a somewhat lengthy process and especially when it gets to the Board of Appeals stage much more public participation oriented and we would anticipate a lot more outreach at that point because at that point we you'd have more details developed and in point a lot of the things that we heard at the outreach sessions were things that were focused on sort of the specifics like drainage and specific setbacks and things like that which At this point, we don't have because it's so conceptual. But when you get further down the road, you have all the hard numbers or more of the hard numbers at that point. So we fully anticipate additional outreach at that point as this project moves forward.

So we've done that. We have been moving forward in some of the sort of background items. So for example, um the property is in proximity to a wetlands area so one of the issues we have to deal with uh as you just heard from town council you can't step you can't sort of get around the state wetlands protection act so no matter what in all events you have to go to the conservation commission for order of conditions if you're within the jurisdiction within 100 feet of the wetlands period Some of the fine points of what you might seek or try to avoid with the Conservation Commission depends upon the regulation, whether it's the state regulation or the local regulation. but before you even get to that, you need to know exactly where the wetlands line is and then how far into your property the buffer zone, the 100 foot buffer zone might come. So we are in the process of doing that. I understand the wetlands expert was out at the property recently, and so that's moving forward.

We're also still in the process of developing a survey Bay for the property. So we've been operating off of available record plans and assessors maps, things that have a certain degree of certainty. no alliteration intended there, but also are known sometimes to have some errors and not be 100% accurate. So a full in-field survey is necessary before we get to the stage of knowing exactly size, shape, Setback. Where's the different drain like the infiltrations, infiltration structures for drainage going to go all that kind of stuff. So those that's all still in process. So we are still very much at the sort of conceptual stage and working slowly towards developing all the more detailed things.

Great. So you just heard our conversation and our discussion about the checklist sort of of understanding what waivers and so on you might be expecting to apply for for this property. Is that something you can speak to now?

I certainly cannot give you a list of waivers. I can tell you most definitely there will be requests for waivers just because the concept of the development multiple buildings multiple units right off the bat requires a waiver because that's not allowed in the zone district so there will be waivers for that but then with respect to substantive dimensional waivers my hope would be that we don't have to request any or if we do to have them be very minimal but at this point until we have the survey we don't know exactly where the lot lines are we don't know we don't have the exact plan to work with. So we don't I can't even begin to formulate that.

Sure. I guess I would just say that just from this conversation previous to this one it's obvious that stormwater conservation environmental factors are very important to this group so when you return and as you continue to plan, that would all be information that we would, I think, like to have ahead of moving forward.

I think that's understood. It would also be helpful. having listened to the prior conversation, if the board does develop a list of items that the board is looking for, it would certainly be helpful for us to know what sort of targets we're trying to hit in terms of information. to be provided.

Sure. That sounds reasonable. George probably isn't going to want me to say this, but For me, there's no anticipation of setback waivers and certainly none with regarding wetlands. that we would be adhering to any of the bylaws of the wetlands and stormwater is not going to be an issue there as well. We've already done preliminary thoughts about how we're going to run chambers through and to recharge the system. So as George said, the only The nature of the project is density, so we don't have lot coverage. We'd be looking for a waiver on lot coverage and density. Those are the two things that come to mind, but anything else might be minor.

Appreciate it. Questions?

For wetlands delineation, what's the possible timeline? What's the timeframe? within a week and a half.

I've had a preliminary. My person has been out there already. She's identified everything, but wants to do some soil testing as well. My expectation at this point is the back of that rear building is going to be somewhere around 90 feet from the wetlands. We would probably have to do some sort of retaining wall that would be inside. Our expectation is to try and hold it somewhere around 75 feet, which works within the conservation

activities there. And on the outreach sessions you held, what was the The sense of the people, were they interested in this project?

It was mixed, but I think there's a lot of... Change is difficult. Change is always... I've done... I've been doing these for years. I've been doing this for almost 50 years now. I've been through zoning board so many times and the initial response from many people. It's changed. Nobody really wants it. It's where they live. And we understand that and we try to work within the neighborhood and try and be as accommodating as possible.

Bill, thoughts?

Good.

Josh, anything else?

About the neighbors, I don't want us to kind of mediate. I don't think that's our role. I would just encourage you to try to find some common ground. Constantly. Because I am going to take the neighbors' concerns seriously. into account when we take a position.

And I want to make a plea for that Red Maple in the front yard.

I will put a barrier around that. Nobody will touch that. Old tree. Nobody will touch it. Trucks won't go near it.

Yeah, save the roots.

We will work around. We've already taken that into consideration. It doesn't show necessarily on our plan right now, but that is... highly that will be protected. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. And if I can just say on the point about involvement with the neighbors and so on, so so I think as we mentioned at the prior meeting Michael did the project next door and that had a lengthy it's sometimes heated process and that's we're well aware that a lot of these projects do have that kind of a process that they go through and in part because of that that's why you do especially when you get to the ZBA stage you do a lot of outreach and it takes sometimes multiple sessions to address concerns and sometimes you have to revise and tweak as you go to make sure that you get everything nailed down. Michael's been through it on a project very much like this right next door. Once before, we anticipate a lot of the same.

As it goes, it took an extra, quite a bit of time to do. And when it was all finished, quite a few of the neighbors came up to me and thanked me. for being patient with them and that they were so happy with how it turned out. We got an award for doing that project. We saved a building that was almost 300 years old or 200 years old. and in that we also did the first 40 successful 40B in Needham in a time when the town wasn't exactly embracing it. and I think that the climate has changed a little bit. I think there's a need for this type of housing. I think it works into, it's not in the MBTA system or overlay district,

But actually, it doesn't go three stories as allowed with the MBTA. The MBTA only requires 12%. affordable, and we're proposing 30%. So we're reaching beyond that. We're trying to give more to the town than either a straightforward B would be or the MBTA overlay district would do.

All right. Well, thank you for coming in tonight and for listening to all of this. and we will look forward to hearing how things are moving forward as we get more information.

Thank you for your time.

Madam Chair, recognizing the time, I would ask that you consider taking up your public hearing first and then two short articles.

We bumped your agenda item. I don't know if he saw this.

I guess I did not know that. Sorry. In that case, never mind.

We just cannot wait to talk about debt financing.

Yeah, we're super excited. so we had on our so it's it's 7 30 now we did have on our agenda the next item was the quiet zone but if we want

We'd have to wait three minutes, which we could do.

It's a public hearing.

Because it's a public hearing. Right.

I could do some filler.

You can send again.

Yeah, that's unfortunate that we were to remove the consent. Well, it's going to take a few moments for the hallway to clear anyway. We'll take a little break. Just a moment. Yeah, okay, so that's fine. Hi, welcome. So we are moving on to our next agenda item, which is a public hearing of an application for a Class II motor vehicle dealer license for KGK Group. and if you guys could introduce yourselves and tell us the story of your business, that would be great.

My name is James McKenzie. I'm representing KGK Group. With me is Mr. Masayev here. He is one of the operators or co-owners of the business. Nice to meet you. And I can say that again? My name is Masayev. Nice to meet you. I couldn't pronounce her name. I apologize. So we are here basically seeking a class two license under section, chapter one, national laws, chapter 140, section 58. for a used car motor vehicle sales license. They already repair cars at that property and they want to have the ability to sell them as well. I've gone through all the items that were necessary. When I spoke with Ms. Hintz just at the end of last week, she advised that you people had all the documents you were requiring. So I'm hopeful that's still the case and nobody's discovered something that we don't have.

No, I understand that your application is in order.

So I just want to say that's what we're looking for, the sales license. The property was subject to a special permit issued last September. by the Zoning Board of Appeals to carry on the business that's going on there now, which is the repair of motor vehicles. And now they want to be able to start to sell those vehicles as well as they repair them. So that's basically why we're here today. We've provided a complete package of information that you have there, the application form, the CO, the articles of incorporation, a corporate vote, the bond forms there, workers' compensation affidavit is there, a employer identification number the certification is who would do the repairs if there was warranty work to be done and tax returns i think Unless I've missed something, those are the items that you people need to make your determination. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. I'm going to open it up to my colleagues. Bill, do you have any questions?

I'm good right now.

Thank you. Okay. Josh?

Thank you for all the information. I'm happy to see the ZBA. You have the special permit. Everything seems to be in order.

Yes. Yeah, it took some time, but we got that. And there were conditions, as you may have seen, and we've tried to adhere to those.

No, it was an interesting narrative in all the notes to read through it, but it sounds fine. Good luck.

no questions welcome to this new part of your business and we're glad you're here this is a public hearing so I'm just gonna ask if there's anyone in the room who's here to speak on this matter or anyone online All right.

May I make a motion? Please. That the select board vote to approve and sign a Class II motor vehicle dealer license for KGK Group, Inc. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Those opposed? The motion passes. Congratulations.

Thank you very much for your time and patience in this matter.

Good luck. Okay. Thank you. All right. So the next item on our agenda is a quiet zone update. and we're going to have we're going to hear from Karis Lustig our Director of Public Works, Chris Heap our Town Council and Katie King our Town Manager.

I think I may also ask if Dave Davidson can also join us.

Oh, yes, of course. And then you can just stay. All right. Who's kicking off?

I am. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the purpose of the update tonight on the quiet zone is that, as the board knows, we've been working with the MBTA on a cooperation agreement for the quiet zone. Levy, and we heard back from them on some of the requested edits. So I just wanted to talk holistically kind of about what we had requested from them, what we heard back, and we've gotten a few questions. So hopefully we can work through all of those. So at a very high level, the goal for the cooperation agreement and the edits that the town had requested back from the T was, We are making, if town meeting approves this project and we were to move forward to making safety changes on the infrastructure on the at the five back-grade rail crossings, we would be making as a town a major investment in MBTA assets. That would allow us to achieve the town's goal of a quiet zone. But of course, this is a complicated process given the ownership of the assets.

so the crux of the cooperation agreement is that upon conclusion of construction the MBTA would we would turn their assets back over to them and they would agree to maintain those assets and the request from the town was to clarify in this agreement that they would maintain those assets to the standard that would be necessary to stay in good standing with the quiet zone itself. So if something were to break, that is an MBTA asset that would drop us out of compliance with the quiet zone that the T is committing that they would repair it to bring us back into good standing. and so the response back from the team was that they accepted those edits. They are agreeing to that Principal, and those terms. And that's now reflected in the cooperation agreement in writing.

got back a few what I would say is in my mind some minor edits from back from the T, one of which is helpful. They outlined circumstances under which they would continue to blow the horn and specifically if the active warning systems are inoperable or unavailable. if there's a power outage, if there's issues with the town's assets or if required by the Federal Railroad Administration. Those are all things that I think, practically speaking, we knew would be the scenarios under which the train would sound again. and the Horn. So I think it's helpful to just write it explicitly in this agreement. And they've added also language to say both parties agree that they shall act in good faith to resolve any issues that may require the sounding of horns. So I think that's very in line with what we're trying to achieve with this agreement. I'd say there was one edit verbiage-wise.

We asked for the repairs and the upkeep of the assets to be timely. they changed the word to reasonable. I think this was the only thing that we had any level of discussion around. And we write agreements with the word reasonable quite often. But I think this is the only area where I am going to reach back out to you and just ask them to articulate to me what they were trying to achieve with that change in the word, just so that we have that information and that knowledge. I put that in the category of a deeper understanding is better for all of us but I don't perceive that as a deal breaker because the bulk of the rest of the agreement is what the town had been requesting and I think gives us the assurance that we need. So anything you would add?

Nothing.

OK. OK. And so the main clause there, though, still requires them to keep us at the standard, even if reasonable and timely are potentially different things. Yep.

OK. Kathy? Yeah, I had a question. Obviously, all these situations have their quirks. But at the same time, other communities have agreements, quiet zone agreements with the MBTA? I mean to one extent is this standard what we have here?

I would say it's not. So we are in touch with other communities that have quiet zones and have asked about what agreements they have. And I think I'm not aware of any other community

So the only one that I'm aware of is Chelsea. So basically, we would be the first, as far as I'm aware, post-rule community in Massachusetts. every other community that has a quiet zone effectively was sort of asked at one point in the early 1900s by the MBTA, do you want to be a quiet zone? And those communities said yes, and they just were a quiet zone. There was no...

It was that easy?

Yes. And so that regulations change over time. They were legacied in, and so New communities coming in or communities that fell out of compliance have to then upgrade their system to a standard. So my understanding is when this changed in like the late 2000s. Weston was out of compliance. Chelsea was out of compliance. Weston, I think, has brought itself back into compliance, and they've had to install some of these safety measures. and Chelsea is in the process of doing so. Chelsea is the only community that I'm aware of because their investment is so more comparable to what we're doing, not quite as big, but more comparable that has had to negotiate with the MBTA. in a process. My understanding is they came this winter to a conclusion with the MBTA on how they wanted to move forward. But we're sort of in a unique situation in that we're the first ones to start this from scratch.

and so Chelsea had been they were a community and then they didn't basically you had to upkeep everything you had. in that initial, so even if it wasn't compliant with what we're trying to put in, you had to make sure your signs were there, your gates were maintained a certain way, and if you lost a sign and you didn't put that sign back up, you would have been out of compliance and then they would make you come up to the 21st century standards.

Timely manner.

while they start honking.

Reasonable.

Reasonable.

Reasonable.

Yeah. So just for everyone's understanding, my understanding, but everyone's, are we the only community that's trying to do this from scratch that was not legacied in?

We're not the only community that has looked into this. I'm aware Franklin got through the feasibility phase of this maybe two, three years ago. I think they have four at-grade crossings within their community. due to cost they chose not to move forward with it, but they had looked into this as well. I'm not aware of anyone that has moved forward beyond the feasibility stage.

of those communities that currently have a quiet zone in Massachusetts, 100% of them are legacy systems from like 100 years ago? Yes. Okay. That is helpful to know. So for those who say that we're slow and can't get it done. That's a good comparison.

Josh, you had questions, I think.

Yeah?

Or the insurance questions.

yeah so so the town manager answered them to me privately um but maybe just for everyone's benefit i had a question about insurance because the way i think about it we are borrowing money. Actually, we are proposing to that. We're proposing to borrow money for assets that we will not ultimately own nor will we be responsible for maintaining. So should there be A catastrophe, for instance. Say there's a hurricane that causes damage to not only our system, but other MBTA systems. and the MBTA really does not have the financial capacity to do it, is there some insurance mechanism? Are these assets insured so that we have more protection over the assets that we have borrowed? And I think the answer, maybe I'll let you answer, sorry.

Well, I'll have Dave answer the insurance question, and I think it will lead into another question you raised just about overall the team maintaining its assets. So Dave, why don't you tackle the insurance?

Well, the first thing is, as a separate legal entity and established with certain powers and such, their decisions in terms of insurance is has to be global in terms of the MBTA organization, and we can't dictate their insurance requirements. An organization of that size may be self-insured even though it is a lot of money that we would be spending. and the size of their operation and the value of all their assets, it's a deductible, effectively. And to that extent, we cannot require them to purchase insurance. I am sure they have the uh there's nothing to indicate that they don't maintain that which is new and fixed Most of their issues is stated in the investment in capital reinvestment over the decades, not years, decades.

is really more the cause of the issues that the TAs have. And even in the case of Needham and with the cost that the time would incur if we move forward, of upgrading their systems. It's not because they don't work. They do work, but they would need to be upgraded to meet the requirements in order to petition to have a quiet zone. And that is something that the town is seeking to have, not the MBTA, hence why it is the town that would have to pay for that if the town moved forward.

Sorry, that last part. The town would have to pay, you're not talking about the insurance and the maintenance and the replacement costs.

No, no, no. I'm talking about the capital investment that we're going to make, then turn it over to them for ownership.

Yeah. The other question I had was about liability, and it sounds like that's murkier.

So there's nothing in this proposed agreement that would have the town assuming liability from the MBTA. There's no indemnification provision, nothing like that. The agreement is silent, and because it's silent, were not contractually undertaking any additional liability from the MBTA. I looked also through all of the Quiet Zone literature and regulations, and there's nothing in the regulations themselves that would cause that to happen automatically in the absence of an agreement to undertake it voluntarily. So I don't believe this agreement is causing us to assume any liability that wouldn't otherwise exist.

not the agreement per se, but the fact that we are pursuing the quiet zone, we are doing the designs and engineering, that has no bearing on potential liability should there be an incident.

So in the event of an incident, With a quiet zone in place, I would assume that a lawsuit would ensue and that the town and the MBTA would all be named as defendants. That litigation would be defended on the facts, who was at fault, what happened, you know, in connection with the actual incident. And I believe that that litigation would be subject to liability caps under the Mass Tort Claims Act. I'm not suggesting that there would be no lawsuit in the event of an incident, but I believe that the lawsuit would be subject to the same liability limits that we would otherwise see in other contexts of the town.

Yeah, but it's also true, I think, well, that I've heard you all say that we are undertaking a discreet increase in our level of safety equipment. So the safety equipment of a quiet zone, regardless of the horn or not, is a greater level of have more safety equipment than we currently have. Theoretically, that.

The regulations are premised on the idea that by implementing new improvements and safety measures, we are somehow bringing it to the same safety level that would exist with horns being sounded at the intersections.

If the When we hand it off to the MBTA, they're going to sign off on it. This will meet their needs and to their satisfaction that this is safe. So I wonder for liability if that protects us.

We don't get a quiet zone unless we meet all of the requirements.

Yeah, but even if they accept it, they're accepting that it is well engineered, well constructed, and safe. I believe that's fair.

Any other questions? One of the other questions was about MBTA assets. Just the definition said that they had to be on MBTA property. Are there any assets like a gate that would have to be constructed on our property?

No, so all the physical signal assets would be under the MBTA's control. Anything connected to their networking system would be under there. They don't want us touching that system because it's interconnected and there's huge liability issues with us touching that. I think the types of assets they're referring to, one of the things we need for compliance is signage. And so even like when we did the tour of the center station, for example, signage within that station, even though we're not making any gate changes and any material changes, are going to need to conform to the current requirements that the FRA has. So we were having a debate, quite frankly, about the MBTA standard, which is a blue sign, or the FRA standard, which is a yellow sign. and at the diagnostic review meeting we had to agree collectively which color sign we were going to go with. The town is required to maintain that sign in that color. same thing with like detectable warning panels on some of our stairs just you know some markings upgrades and then I think more importantly in the roads where we choose to do median

treatments in a two gate system, that that median would be within our purview to maintain. But I think I gave the example of, I think it was about a year and a half ago, I got an email from a former select board member indicating to me that they had gone out and re-striped and put bollards on all of our roads, but in their right of way. So they'd done this sort of crosshatch. Crosshatch, very busy crosshatch pattern, and Bollard. And that person did not like that pattern. And we reached out. And I think the question I got was, how can they do this on our roads? The answer is that section of road isn't our road. It's theirs. and so that would sort of be the delineation in what's in their jurisdiction versus what's in ours.

So it would only be those signs or medians that would be in our jurisdiction?

I mean, we can clarify, but I can't imagine they would want us to touch anything else. Because again, they are not allowed to operate and they're Commuter Rail if those signals don't meet safe requirements. So they are required to keep those signals running regardless of whether or not we have a quiet zone.

And then one more question. I'm sorry this wasn't in my prepared list. What is DPW's comfort level with doing this work?

So we have to interact with, you know, we do certain things every single day of the year and we do certain things one-off, building bridges. And so we're comfortable with sort of doing the, Uncommon work. Civil engineers are the ones who work on it. I will say I am happy with the team that we have right now for our consultants in terms of Benash and Ty and Bond. I've been satisfied with their relationship with the MBTA, the guidance that they have given us and the direction they've given us moving forward. and it would be a combination of DPW and one of those consultants providing onsite supervision. Ultimately, once we get to the point of construction, Keolis is also it probably MBTA will probably also have an inspector on site through the entirety of the process because again they need to ensure that every single connection most of these things are subterranean or in in boxes are to their standard and So we're likely going to have four sets of eyes on this project when the construction occurs.

Thank you.

just to close it out I will follow up with the tea and just ask the inquiry about timely versus reasonable but I think just for our knowledge but we'll move forward to ask them to sign this and we had talked about not needing this to be executed by the board before town meeting but I think if we get a signed version back we have a signed version back which I think would be helpful and provide some clarity.

Excellent. Thank you all. It's really exciting news.

Isn't blue and yellow green? Can we get a green sound?

Someone knows color theory. Madam Chair, can you continue on with my earlier statement? The two other short items are both involving this lustic. If you could take those two up, then I'll come up.

All right. Let's go to Swell Rain Gardens.

I'm going to make my presentation somewhat brief as I will be requesting that this particular article be pulled and then recommended at a future town meeting. But this was a program that came about, I think about six months ago, you had Beta Engineering here presenting on the Stormwater Master Plan. and I think their general conclusion was the town of Needham has and forever will be so desirable to live in that people will put a house everywhere and in some of the development we've had historically stormwater was not a major factor in how those houses were sited and developed and so we have an issue of too much impervious surface and not enough places for that water to go. And I think part of the initial feedback was We may even not have enough town resources in order to locate all of the areas in which we need to store stormwater, and we might need to look at private public partnerships.

So this summer I was actually at the Public Works National Conference and there was a presentation from a suburban community from Chicago about a program they were doing that was a public-private partnership they called it Ditch Your Ditch and I included some pictures of their project in that pocket but effectively taking countryside drainage which is what they had in their community and converting it from sort of not particularly aesthetically attractive grass and scrub grass area and converting it into rain gardens and bioswales. And so Needham has a program that sort of has some overlap, which is our tree setback planting program. So the town of Needham offers the ability for residents to put their name in on a wait list so that when we have funds available, we are able to plant a tree on their private property. We maintain that tree for one year. And then when that one year is up, the tree becomes the responsibility of the homeowner.

The advantage of this is it provides shade to the town with limited, you know, we don't have a lot of space to add trees into the berm. So the tree will be healthy, provide shade to our sidewalks, add more trees to the town, and limit the responsibility of our Parks and Forestry Department. this would sort of have the same concept where residents could apply to be part of this program to install bioswales and rain gardens either in the right of way or along easements, most of which have some proneness to flooding, street flooding, either during high intensity events or wetlands that might surcharge during those events. So the goal would have been to pilot this with about eight to 10 residents, create an application process, have them come in, discussed with them the commitment that we would maintain this for a year, planned it for them. And then after that year, the responsibility of maintaining that would then fall on the residents. So it was sort of an opportunity for public-private partnership.

We met with the finance committee I think three weeks ago and they were interested in the program but they had a lot of questions and our initial assumption would be let's try to get funding so we can fully develop the project and I think they were asking us to fully develop the program. and then seek funding. So that's why I'm requesting today that we have the opportunity over the summer to fully develop the program and then come back at a later date.

When you say in the right of way, do you mean on the berm? Like what people call the hell strip? Between the sidewalk and the street?

Yes, and it really depends on the street. but in some cases, the town's right of way may go 10 to 15 feet onto a person's, what they would perceive as their front yard. So you actually have some opportunities to do that in areas where if it slopes down from the sidewalk, you could actually do something what appears to be more in their front yard but is still in the town's right-of-way.

Okay. Questions? I think it's really interesting. I'm sorry we're not doing it, but I get it. I look forward to seeing it next time.

Well, it's going to come back.

Yeah. Kathy, any questions? Yeah, no, it sounds great. Same. Josh?

So we got this beta report on stormwater. It was very long, very comprehensive. I certainly could have missed it. I didn't see anything about like public-private rain, like anything about this proposal in there.

So this wasn't specifically in there. I think at the time we were even talking about does the town have like a short list of properties we would want to acquire that we could restore into basically parks that would have bioswales in them. that would be a nice thing to do from a stormwater capacity perspective, but potentially unlikely given the cost of housing and the demand for housing. So this was sort of a way to try to leverage those private properties without necessarily having to acquire additional property for the town.

I guess my thought is because it's on private property and because the owners are going to be assuming control, we don't really have control over the maintenance in the future after a year. I think because we already have this program outline from beta of all these other projects that we would like to do and unfortunately can't fund like Alderbrook, just for instance, and all the others. Let's prioritize those first. And this new project, we can come back to it later, but let's stick with the plan.

So I think the reason behind this is it's sort of a micro solution as opposed to the larger the larger recommendations from beta, which are really more macro solutions, right? So those are town-wide solutions that target large neighborhoods that had flooding that have several million dollar price tags attached to those solutions. This particular solution we were talking about, we're talking about like ten to twelve thousand dollars per garden. But I certainly understand the preference on prioritization.

Yeah, I I understand where you're coming from. I don't share that prioritization, though. This seems like not only... easier to implement and less capital intensive, but also could start kind of a thing. You know, it's something that could catch on and that I think there's a movement to try and shift people away from lawns to more plantings and this could to help move that forward. Bill, any thoughts?

I just have a question about the suggested motion because it's that the board postpone the funding of this project until a future town meeting. But wouldn't we also want to say and withdraw Article 7?

Yeah, I don't think that we need to.

I do think that is the right suggestion. So either you can vote to withdraw the article now or when you get to positions on articles, but I think

I mean, I would recommend them. I would make a motion that the board perform the funding of this project until a future town meeting and withdraw Article 7 from town meeting. Perfect.

Do we have a second? Second that. Okay. Any more discussion?

Could I make one more point? Sure. Presuming this passes, the $120,000 that we were going to fund in Article 7 I would propose that we offer an amendment to Article 26, which is the NPDES program, which is the stormwater project at Broadmeadow, so that we have to borrow less money. We can discuss that later during the discussions.

Let's do that. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? OK, the motion passes. All right. Thank you, Karis. And then you have one more, the Garden Street traffic regulation.

Just trying to see if Justin McCullough's here, because I know he's otherwise engaged in planning, I believe. The planning board's also meeting right now.

Yeah, so he was hoping that they might be able to coordinate it. But if not, I can certainly speak to this as well. This is a recommendation from the Traffic Transportation Safety Committee. They have had multiple residents come in with petitions in regards to the intersection of Garden and Great Plain Avenue. And so after doing a traffic study through our engineering division, They are making the recommendation that we prohibit left-hand turns off of Garden Street onto Great Plain Avenue.

OK, and this is because when cars on Great Plain Ave are stopped at that weird red light by the train tracks, there's no way to take a left. backing the Garden Street traffic. Not legally. Well, I mean, if there's cars in the road, yeah, well, right. That's fair. OK, so thoughts?

Was there any thought of like a timeframe, like nine to five, or did they just say it's better to do it all the time?

No, they didn't limit it. You know, as far as like 10 o'clock at night, you're probably not going to run into that same issue. I think, and I can certainly talk to the engineering division, the easier regulations are the ones that are for people to just habitualize are the ones that are the ones that are present all the time. But we could certainly talk about modifying that if that was a recommendation.

I mean, I'm not. I'm right there every day. So people are going to cut through the back of my lot now because they're going to overturn the Hoyton. and you know and come I mean Glen Doon and then they come out Glen Doon and take the left so I may set up a lemonade stand or something but they and I I don't mind that they do that because it's it's ridiculous because I see them so many times come down garden go to take the left there's two lanes so they block the whole lane they block the whole street coming the other direction so I think this is a great regulation

I'm not suggesting that you would profit off of this regulation.

No, not at all. I think he meant blocking the driveway. I hope he meant blocking the driveway.

Madam Chair.

I know.

Madam Chair, I move that the Board vote to adopt and sign the Notice of Traffic Regulation Permit number R260428, requiring that left turns be prohibited on Garden Street southbound at Great Plain Avenue.

Second. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you, Kara. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right.

Enough postponing, Dave. Come up here and tell us all about debt. Please.

Sorry.

You know, you gave me this packet last night, and it was considerably thinner than what's sitting before me now.

Yes. I second. I'd say...

I was a little surprised. Just to know, 346 pages. Yeah. That's the email attachment that we got today, right? Correct. Yes.

So Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm here to give you an update in terms of debt financing outlook and It was about a year ago that I previously reported on the outlook in terms of large projects. Of course, what's driving this or initially drove this is the Capital Plan, which includes Pollitt School and Mitchell School. Now, I just want to touch upon a couple of things of what's different with the assumptions in this report from the report from the previous year. The first and foremost is the interest rate assumption that I use for the base assessments in looking at The outlook has gone from 6.25% to 7%. And the reason that I have done that is because interest rates continue to remain higher than they have.

They've actually gone up a little. In the last few months, and I just think it is much more prudent to do these analysis, assuming a higher interest rate than assuming the same or lower interest rate. but I did maintain the three interest rate scenario which are the same rates that you saw in the previous report which was a 5.5% rate, a 6.25% rate, and a 7% rate. But for the primary scenario, the 7% rate is what I rely on. and many of the points addressed in the report are driven by that 7% assumption. Second variable from that which we discussed is the revenue assessments last year.

The primary assessment growth was based upon a 4% growth rate with general fund revenue and CPA revenue. CPA revenue grows as the levy grows and hence there's a correlation between those two factors. The other variable is the enterprise fund revenue. There's great volatility in terms of that revenue stream from year to year for, as I stated in the report previously and as I state now, It's based upon consumption, the type of seasons that we have. Are they dry? Are they wet? Regulatory Restrictions on Use. So water revenue is very volatile. So for the purposes of this, I have assumed a level dollar revenue assumption in the out years.

It's not a significant difference in terms of the impact because sewer debt and water debt, although to themselves, there are some quite hefty amounts that are coming due, particularly in the sewer. The revenue stream doesn't really materially affect the overall debt ratio. By assuming that 2% revenue growth and not assuming it, we're talking a 0.2% differential, effectively, in terms of the 10% measure. And again, the reminder of the 10% measure, that's total revenues in a year divided by the total debt service payable in that year. and that tells us what our debt service ratio is. The policy of the town is to strive to keep within 10%.

The second change, which is the other policy, which we refer to as the 3% policy, that's the general fund revenue. That's property taxes, state aid, local receipts, the recurring revenue divided by General Fund debt within the levy limit to be no more than 3%. The prior report, I had shown projects, most of them based upon the timeline that they were requested. which meant that we were exceeding the 3% debt limit for several years. What is also true is we do not exceed that 3%. That's a hard policy, as the board may recall, just at your last meeting when I had mentioned, even if total debt service was 8%. Total debt to total revenue was 8%. That doesn't allow us to go up to 4% or 5% within the levy limit.

So that's a hard ceiling. So what this report did in the analysis is we worked with the 3%. We won't exceed it, but then we showed the projects when one could reasonably assume we would be able to do those projects. In other words, how much longer are they delayed? Some of the projects that are delayed here were going to be delayed anyways. And that was clear when we were saying that we were over the 10%. But the requests come in sooner and closer together than the town's ability to finance those. So the town manager is always making judgment calls based upon certainly priorities of the select board and also priorities where it comes to health and safety that those will almost always move up to the front even if they were further back.

whereas more discretionary capital investments may be deferred for longer periods of time. This shorter reflects what that impact would be. An example of that is and one of the other changes in the report last year is the quiet zone. It was a priority to select board. The select board reemphasizes that priority enhances moving forward. The cost of that project last year in the plan was $4.5 million. Now it's $8.2 million. So that's one of the other changes from the report last year. were also further along with the Broadmeadows School Project. The Broadmeadows School Project, there were different concepts that were being bantied about. by the school building committee and by the school committee, but they have narrowed it down.

to a project that is going to be on the current Pollitt site in that the construction will be done in a two-phase, or it'll take a six-year window to complete, whereas The prior report, the assumption was that it was going to be a three-year project. The effect of that is the amount of The amount that we're borrowing each year during the construction period will be less than what we were assuming last year because it is longer before we need to borrow all the funds. it is over a longer period of time. So rather than looking at an estimated three bonds being issued over a three year period, we're looking at seven bonds being issued over a seven year period. So that had the effect of

lowering the impact of the Pollitt School project on the debt ratio in the front years but it had a higher impact in the debt ratios in the out years and actually added three extra years to when the final payment would be. Final payment would be effectively 36 years from when we started the project, whereas before it was going to be 33 years. The other factor that changed with the Broadmeadows School is the project cost estimate. that we're currently working with that's before the MSBA is for $336 million, whereas the project cost assumption last year was $311 million. The other major project that is in the plan that's slightly different but not as dramatically so is the Mitchell School. And this had some things to do with timing that were

impacted by the result of the Pollitt School project that we would be looking at four bonds rather than three bonds being issued. So again, a little Not as much being borrowed in the same period of time, but it's essentially the same dollar amount and the same construction window timeline. So with those points, briefly the revenue assumptions I talked about, the interest rate assumptions, the The reminder that nothing has changed. There's been no new debt exclusions since 2025. And as a reminder that every project that has been previously approved to be funded by debt exclusion is completed, fully bonded, and we're paying down the debt. And the debt service is reducing every year as we pay off the projects.

And nothing has changed there. In the report, on page four of the report, table two, This is, again, to reemphasize, this table is showing the debt that's currently outstanding that excludes debt. It's been borrowed. We know the interest rate. We know the repayment terms. We know what they are. And as you can see, again, You can see that it's dropping every single year. I show you both what the debt service is, what that debt service translates into on the average single family home, and what the annual change is to change from the previous year that was raised.

May I ask a question? So on this, I notice for fiscal 27, for instance, excluded debt is projected to be $8 million, which is about approximately 50% of what's in the budget for next year.

Just to be clear, it is $8,048,000 and it is in the budget.

Yes, thank you. Yes. 50% excluded, 50% within the levy for next year. In your scenarios, on average, for the peak year of debt service, how much of our debt service would be taken up by excluded debt?

Well, in the peak years, it'll be probably 70%. So comparable to when a lot of these projects were actively going on at the time, the high school and the library and the Newman School were all underway and recently borrowed the debt service. excluded debt service made up a significant portion of the debt budget, and hence why every year, even though the amount of debt service at the 3% level is increasing every year, the debt budget overall is declining and it's declining because excluded debt is dropping off because it started at such a high level it's now come down. Thank you. Again, as a reminder, the projects that have already been approved but not fully borrowed as of the time that I was doing this report,

Some of these things are going to change in just a few weeks when I come before the board on the sale of a bond anticipation note. But that is on page five. Most of these projects are still active. There's activity happening. They have not closed out, whether the projects under the control of Public Works or the PBBC. they have not been released with the one exception of the RTS property improvements which is actually on the annual town meeting want to be rescinded. Again, as I do every single time, if it's been approved, I assume it's going to be spent and it's going to be 100% of the money is going to be spent. So that means 100% of the money will be borrowed in the cost. Many times, not 100% of the project, the original budget is expended. So there's always a portion that gets

that would get rescinded as we know from time to time town meeting is asked to rescind debt that of course would mean that the tax impacts or the the impact on the debt ratios and stuff will be less because we did not actually borrow as much as the plan is assuming.

I want to make sure I'm reading the table correctly. So the first line, library renovation, young adult area, that was finished. I mean, that was opened a week and a half ago. But it seems to indicate that we didn't borrow anything.

We're borrowing it all and coming in before the board in just about four weeks for you to approve the bond anticipation note. We don't borrow on a daily basis. There's not a line of credit the municipalities have. What you do is you borrow from time to time and during those times that and during the project, you can sort of self-fund, which means you're using your own internal cash flow to cover the payment of the bills. but you're going to make yourself whole before the end of the fiscal year. That's why every year I'm always coming before the board in May or early June for you to approve a bond anticipation note. So we borrow all the money that we have expended, as well as I meet with the project managers at DPW. building design and construction to look at what the cash flow requirements will be for another three to six months.

And I make sure that we borrow that as Well, so that we'll be prepared for our next borrowing, which this band that we will do will mature in November and we'll be doing a replacement band or perhaps even to Bond as we get closer, we'll have a better sense, which makes more sense in October of 2026. Thank you. and but for those examples uh some of the things that are different is like the Claxton field renovation at this time last year You would have saw that it had a balance of $3.6 million. Same situation. We knew a lot of activity. We had borrowed that in a bond anticipation note, and we actually bonded it in October of 25. The sewer project that was approved in 2024 by Town Meeting for $13 million.

That was at $13 million at this time last year, and now it's $9.3 million. RTU, the at the rooftop units at Broadmeadow and Elliott School. Same situation. This is a project. that last year at this time, we still had just under $7 million in bond authorization. We're now down to $1.8 million in bond authorization. and so forth. So these all changed because back last year those were the amounts that I was anticipating being fully expended and the interest rates would be six and a quarter percent. The bond, as you will recall, the top rate was a 5% interest rate. So those are some of the things that affect

The extra capacity that we have, even though it is getting tighter, that developed in one year because the assumptions made last year were conservative as we continue to be conservative. Thank you. The next page where I talk about the Pollitt School in greater detail, but again, all the narrative there is effectively saying what I just said. It's a six-year project rather than a three-year project. It's a $336 million project rather than the 331 Project. The reimbursement rate assumption is slightly higher. It was less crystal clear what it is that would or would not be eligible. So I had used a 20% of total project.

for the assumptions for an MSB reimbursement. We now know that effectively we're looking at a 25% reimbursement rate in the eligible construction costs. But it didn't make a major difference in the total dollars estimated the MSBA will be paying. Whatever the MSBA pays, we don't have to borrow. that number went from 62.3 million to 64.7 million dollars, so just a few million dollars more. and that was driven by two factors. A little better sense in terms of what portion of the project may be eligible and the fact is the project cost estimate that we're working with is $336 million rather than $311 million. On page six, I do show the comparisons of Projects in that table, Table 4, Columns A and B.

Column A is showing what the future overall debt ratio, total debt service to total revenue will be for that which is already bonded. and those projects already approved, not yet to be bonded. Those are the estimates. Column B is showing the same thing, but just for the 3% projects that fall under the 3% scenario or the general fund projects. S. Column C and D are the same measures, the 10% grouping, the 3% grouping by adding in three capital projects that are recommended for funding at the annual town meeting and special town meeting, specifically stormwater. Stormwater actually comes under the 10% measure.

The Quiet Zone, which comes under the 3% measure, and the High School HVAC project, which also comes under the 3%. So this shows how those projects at those authorizations would impact the debt ratios based upon a 7% interest rate in those revenue assumptions.

But just to comment on this table, in the out years, I view this as unrealistic. We're going to be borrowing more.

Yes.

This assumes no additional monitoring.

Correct. This is just building so people understand how we get there and building is OK. What we have on the books now, we have to pay this. No way you're going to get out of it. The second most difficult would be to default and not pay the contractors for things that they're building. So we're probably going to have to borrow that. The next one is we know we're definitely asking town meeting to approve three projects to be financed by debt. So what will those impacts be? and then as we go deeper into the report we start bringing in out years and and other things that are in the plan that may or may not be recommended and that's how I build the report one step at a time. Thank you. The other thing that is shown here is the debt impact of the Pollitt Middle School. This is on page seven, which I expanded.

The information to make it easier based upon comments that I received back from the boards previously, but is showing what the impact would be for the $336 million project, what the estimated debt service would be per year, what that translates into to the average single-family home. and the reason I'm showing the cents whereas usually I always do the whole dollar amounts is because I'm also showing the annual change and if you don't do the cents because of rounding people would say well the math doesn't work because in reality it's rounding up or down, but the annual change is also rounding up and down, so you get to see the pennies. and then I am showing that you can take your own current tax bill you have your tax assessment and if you just want to see well what's the impact of this project on my tax bill

you can multiply that assessment by what's known as the mill rate and that would be the estimate of what the additional tax would be on your property today for each of these out years.

And when you say additional, so it's just for Pollard?

Just for the Pollard School, correct. One step at a time.

This is additional.

Yes, this is that up and over what you're already paying. For instance, the projects that are already bonded, the $8 million, that's already in your tax bill. You're paying it today. Pollitt School is not in your tax bill if it were to be approved by the town and approved by the voters and it comes in at the the project is $336 million, to which the state would pay $64.7 million of the project, the balance being $271 million. that $271 million is estimated to have these impacts over the 36-year period.

Ask a question about this. So the mill rate, if you're trying to understand the impact on your own taxes, you multiply this mill rate against what specifically that's on your taxes?

Your assessed value.

Your assessed value? Yes.

Okay. Yep. Effectively, the mill rate is another definition of the tax rate. And when everything gets added together, the town meeting appropriations for the operations and for other Financial Warrant Articles and our debt service obligations and debt, then it's rounded to the nearest cent and that's through the tax classification process that the Select Board does every single year.

And this would be annual. You would come up with an annual number.

Yes, these are estimated. The actual amounts will be what actually has to be raised on each one.

But it's not quarterly.

No, no, this is the annual. So in this case, that in FY2028 with an estimated debt service of $1,107,000, The average single-family home this year is $1,540,000. $1,541,061. You multiply that by .0661, you get $101.94. If your home value was $2 million, you would multiply that by that same number. If your home was valued at $900,000, you would multiply it by that number to get what that additional tax would be.

And so the table is showing for that average home, the peak year of additional costs for Pollard would be $2,366 in 2034.

That is correct. That's correct.

Could I just note that as we're planning for the fall, we're exploring an online calculator? that other communities have used. So just people won't hopefully need to look at mill rates and such.

That's helpful.

and to the point I untable on table six on page eight, I do the comparison to what the, in the whole dollars this time, the comparison what the average single family home impact would be for the Pollitt School project as we understand it to be now to that which we thought it was going to be in 2025. The difference being that the peak year last year was going to be 2032 with an impact of $2,040. The peak year now is 2034 at a peak cost of $2,366. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, what you're looking at is the first five years

the project that's actually now before us will have less of an impact on the have a higher impact on the average single family home tax bill than we thought it was going to have last year, but it will have a higher impact on the average single family home from 2033 out to the 2060s.

OK. And even though it says Pollard at $336 million and Pollard at $311, that still includes the 25%?

Yes, just reminding so people don't get lost. I didn't want to throw the two different numbers that it's 271. People get lost, so I just remain with the same number, but the borrowing amounts, which then the tables, you can add up all the borrowing amounts, you'll see it equals $271 million. Now when you lay in on top of what is going before town meeting, for the spring. And now you add in the Pollock School, Table 7 now shows what the impact is going to be to the 10%. and to the 3% ratio. Pollitt School does not impact the 3%, but it does impact the 10%. And in this case,

We would be exceeding, it's estimated we'll be exceeding the 10% target for three years, fiscal 2032 through 2034. that's three years less than we were looking at last year at this time the last year the report was showing that we were going to be five years above uh ten percent and again this is just the fact that we're having a slower ratcheting up of the borrowing. So it takes a little longer to start getting up to the higher debt service ratios.

And so just to clarify, the previous report forecast that we were above the 3% at the current schedule because the schedule's been at change, I think, is that table 9? Table 8, excuse me.

Yes.

Because the schedule of projected projects has been pushed out for most of those projects. That's what enables us to be under the 3%.

Correct. Which is, of course, our practice. There are projects that have been pushed off over the decades because of the 3%.

So like the theatrical lighting and sound at the high school, which was originally proposed for May 2027 approval, would be pushed to May 2031.

That's correct. And again, the important thing, not as originally recommended, as requested. Some of these projects weren't even recommended as to be funded on capital. this is identifying projects that there's been an interest in and would likely be financed by debt and hence are included. So that's the other aspect is looking at the projects. Any project that's on this list that's funded by cash, obviously, may not be delayed. But projects, certainly once you start talking about projects of four million and above, The idea that you're going to be funding it by cash, entirely by cash, is just not practical. It's more the lower cost projects.

In that Table 8, as noted, there are several projects that will need to be pushed out. Most notably, the projects that affected the greatest is the public works projects. But for instance, we still keep the replacement of the aerial ladder in the fire engine in the HVAC upgrades for the High Rock School on the year requested for those items. as they involve health and safety issues. So again, they always take priority over other things such as such as Perry Park improvements. The other thing is projects that have already been designed. We tried to see about funding those earlier than projects that have not been designed.

and certainly that was a point that the finance committee had brought up in terms of some of its recommendations with projects as their concern is to make sure that we can still pay for and so forth fund the projects that we've designed. And we ourselves have taken that same approach. Thank you. items in here, particularly public works. We're looking at pushing some of these projects off as long as six or seven years. Under one of the alternative scenarios, assuming interest rates of 2.5%, I'm sorry, a revenue growth rate of 2.5%, for projects within the 3%, that has a very serious impact that pushes.

And I did build those tables based upon what would have to be pushed out. We looked at things like the DBW project being pushed out 10 years. So but that is less likely that revenue growth rate is less likely. But again, it is an analytics that we looked at to get a sense of, you know, what is the span that we're really looking at before some of these projects can be undertaken.

Can I add to that? I just want to make sure that the board knows this, but just if anyone else is watching. this report is a snapshot in time in trying to give us a sense of the choices within the three percent that we would have to deal with regardless of what happens with the Pollard right because the the report assumes we will fully expend the 3%, but we won't go over it. And so what are the choices within that? And the point I just want to make clear is, every single year we will still do our capital budget planning again and the five year capital improvement plan. So what's listed here is Dave trying to portray where the puzzle pieces could fit today based on what we know today and the assumptions that he's just gone through but next year we will have the projects in front of us and make those trade-offs that you all do every year when you're voting the capital budget.

So I think this is illustrative of the trade-offs that we make each year within the capital process. but I don't want somebody to say oh are we deciding today what year these projects are going but that's didn't add to any confusion.

And Dave, just to be clear, when you refer to public works, you're talking about the capital of the public works buildings and the infrastructure, not like the projects that we see DPW performing every day. as construction season starts. That's not done from, that's not- Correct.

And actually there are not too many projects at DPW does every day that's funded by debt, except for in the water and sewer operations, which actually are not impacted by this. That comes under the 10%.

Just want to make it clear because I see them on this. I mean, I see them listed this way on the chart, but nobody else in the room is looking at the charts.

I just want to make it clear.

Can I ask a question? about that table we were talking table uh seven so that's just assuming pollard and currently approved projects i think the in the i don't know if this is the appendix but but in the uh the tables towards the end, that shows in the out years assumed future spending as well?

Yes.

Okay. so what i saw is that we were i think you the town manager mentioned as well we were at that three percent with all those assumed spending levels and so i'm just i'm wondering about um debt capacity or Is there any room if there's an emergency? I guess if there's an emergency, we just have to change priorities and shift something different, right?

That's correct. The other thing is in those tables, which I'll get to, I show the years that there's They're built based upon using 3%. And I'm showing what 3% of the estimated revenue is. And there is added capacity in there that's just assumed to be borrowed for something I don't know that we're going to be borrowing for. But some of these projects have to be pushed off because it's fully used. But in every year, there's still some capacity, because nothing works perfectly into the 3%. So the key is, I don't go over 3%.

Thank you.

but the debt budget is a mathematical formula of 3%. Again, restating the projects that fall that are in the out years that may be borrowed that fall under the 10% measure. and the one, Stormwater, which is before town meeting this year, Pollitt School. Charles River Water Treatment Plant, Cookbridge Sewer Pump Station, Moore Sewer Main Replacements, Water Supply Development, Watertank at Birds Hill in the Mitchell School feasibility study. The The next thing that I want to present to you is on page 18, just to remind the board. Table 10.

Looking back in the past, the town has exceeded 10% in the past. and the town knew it was going in every single time when I would do a forecast like this. We knew we were good. it was possible and likely it would exceed the 10% so it was known moving forward but it was deemed that the project was necessary to be done and inevitably every time that push it above the 10% was a debt excluded project which meant the voters also agreed that they saw the need needed to be addressed and that they were willing to pay even more taxes to make it happen. and as you can see, there were a number of years that we were over the 10%, not much. I can tell you also the reports of those time were also showing that we were gonna be in the, 13, 14% ratios when we're...

you know five years removed from when we actually hit those years and just the number that sticks out because people think uh don't uh or won't I don't remember. Some people weren't even here. In 2007, when it was 23.8%, that was an actually known number, but that was a situation where we had done many school projects, but the old school building authority, which doesn't exist anymore, it's been replaced by the, of the Massachusetts School Building Authority. Similar names, different entities. The current entity is run by the State Treasurer's Office. The previous one was run by the Department of Education. They used to work on a reimbursement process that you would incur the debt and then they would make payments to you. the demand on the state was so great they couldn't keep up with the backlog.

So that's why the system was completely restructured, why no new projects were being accepted. The State Treasurer at the time came up with the concept to dedicate one penny of the sales tax as a revenue stream. they did a lot of improvements the legislative passed it went in effect and became very successful the model was changed that they pay you all at once they don't this the state doesn't want to pay interest cost So it's become a better program from that standpoint. The reimbursement rates are not as high as they used to be. But in 2007, there were many schools, the Broadmeadows School, the Elliott School, the high school had projects, but we had not received our payments. The state made some lump sum payments to us. We had a choice of thank you for the money, continue paying the debt, which would have been higher, or we could pay down all the money at once, bands, not bonded, and actually resulted in a lower cost.

Although it was a 23.8% debt service ratio, almost none of that was paid for the taxpayers of Needham through their property tax bills. It was paid by taxpayers in their income tax.

Thank you.

and then getting to the big table, which this is all about on page 19, table 11. This is now layered in everything. This is layered in what we currently have for debt, what we know we'll be borrowing soon because they're already approved. what is being presented to town meeting for in the spring and the Pollitt School in October and all those future projects based upon the timelines that stated in table eight. as well as the contingency with the assumption that we are going to reserve 3% of general fund revenue and use it for debt service. So every year that'll be a 3% number. So I don't need to have a table to show that. it's understood that we'll have a minimum water debt service of $1.6 million a year. That's what it currently is at.

It is forecast to go higher than that, up almost to $2 million. But the assumption is it will always be at least $1.6 million, basically level dollar. hence level dollar assumption on the revenue estimate. And the sewer, the same situation. It's assumed that minimum would be $1.5 million will be the annual debt service. There are years that it's much higher. One year you could go up to as high as $4 million, but then there are many years that drop down. The actual debt service is less than 1.5 million dollars but for the purpose of that we're assuming that so those are the three contingency amounts built into this plan as well as the two debt service projects, the Pollitt School and the Mitchell School. These are what the ratios would be looking like based upon a 7% interest rate and based upon a 4% revenue growth rate.

and I'm comparing what this report now is showing with all the differences I talked about at the very beginning to what the report was showing last year at this time. As you can see, there's some weakness. The peak percentages are slightly less than they were last year at this time. The amount of time that we're over 10% is fairly comparable. It might be one year less. and this is under the different scenarios where I'm showing you the impact is what if all the interest rates are 7%? in the revenue grows at 4%. What if interest rates are 6.25% and it's a 4% revenue growth, a 5.5% interest rate, and a 4% revenue growth rate? do those same three things again at a 5.5% revenue growth rate.

And I do those same three interest rate assumptions at a 2.5% interest revenue growth rate assumption. And that's, as you can see, why the numbers differ and how they differ from last year.

average resident will care most about the chart with the average single family home tax impact of pollard so i want to note that our Deputy Town Manager did a debt financing report this time last year based on the $311 million and the assumptions he stated. This compares that with the $336 at some updated assumptions. Schematic Design is underway and the School Building Committee will vote the final schematic design in June to submit to the MSBA. They are endeavoring to bring the 336 Dowd of course as much as they can and we will have an updated cost estimate aligned with the voted schematic design in June. So there will not be another 300 plus page document at that time but we will update that average single family home tax impact so right now I think I just want to voice that

I imagine it might be frustrating that number bounces around because people talk about the project and what it's going to mean for them. But this is just part of the iterative process where we're trying to give updates along the way. And that means inherently that the number is bouncing around. there will be an updated figure in June the final agreed-upon project a budget and scope with the MSBA will not be until the end of August so that would be the kind of the final Check and Point. So just to give folks a sense of updates to come and that this is part of the regular process. And it can be complicated. So I'm so grateful for Dave.

Yeah, Dave, I mean, this is obviously a lot of work, but I just want to compliment you on this report because Often it's very challenging for those of us without a finance background to follow what is written up, even though it's entirely comprehensible to those who do this is written like so well and in such plain English that I even I could understand this. And it's just really appreciated to not have to struggle through the document as well as struggling through the numbers. It's just really, really well done. And so I appreciate the approach of building Layers Upon Layers, so that you're bringing everyone along. It's a masterpiece. Thank you.

Thank you. And to the town manager's point, we will have an update in terms of estimates after we have the schematic design figure. and certainly once we know what the MSBA is agreeing to in the funding agreement, Those will be the numbers that will actually get advertised everywhere in terms of what that would mean as a tax impact on residents.

I have a question about the timeline. You said that we would not know the final number until August. I recall that we are scheduled to have a vote on placing an override question in July prior to that. So we won't have the numbers?

You will not, and the ballot question does not reference a project number. So it's the same process like with Sunita Williams, similar. So we will not have.

But the description about the ballot question when we get to the polls will have more information, like not on the ballot, but the supplementary information. Is that true?

The ballot question is straightforward. Basically, shall the principal and the interest thereon be excluded from the provisions of Proposition 2 1⁄2, yes or no? All the information that's presented in terms of hearings, board discussions, that material will certainly be put out there. I anticipate that if the town's moving forward, there will also be a campaign, and the campaign would be putting out materials that they would obtain through the public records process in order to do their public advocacy. And again, as the town manager said, every time, that's how it works. Town Meeting will be voting what the authorization will be before the election as well. It'll be just a few weeks before, but certainly there will be a lot of discussion leading up to. We just don't show up to town meetings.

That's the conversation. Finance Committee begins its hearings. The Select Board will and undoubtedly be discussing it meeting after meeting up until town meeting. And then in the end, the voters make the decision.

I want to echo Heidi's comments about the document. It really is incredibly helpful and has everything that I know I was looking for. and it really gives people a clear idea that this project can be financed and what the costs are. It would be delaying several other projects. and what the costs are to individual taxpayers. In terms of the delay, DPW, as you mentioned, is the clear... I don't know if you've had a chance to speak with Karis about what operational impacts that might have.

Well, Caris is certainly well aware that there was going to be implications, but she was aware of that, nonwithstanding discussions in the last few months, because It was always understood when we were first taking the phased approach that it is probably not going to happen as soon as we hoped. That's why we had to prioritize what we did. The key was the fleet center because in that case, that specifically is those are employees that work in a poorly – Levy, ventilated. There's a building that's dated and can't handle the heavy equipment that it uses and therefore that was the first part that was taken on because those are people that work all day. The next phase is

will also help the employees, but more of those employees are out on the field, so they're not impacted by the building conditions as much during the day as the individuals that work in the fleet division. So hence that's partly how the prioritization of the different phases was done.

Thank you.

other questions thoughts just thank you it's incredible very very helpful thank you thank you that's just another thank you unanimous thank you really amazing recommended

Okay, so we've already done our rain swale and traffic regulation. So we are moving on to the town manager and position on warrant articles.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just walk through the ones that you have not already taken positions on earlier in the meeting. You voted to withdraw Article 7, appropriate for Swell, Rain, Garden Program. I will notify the moderator of that change. The next is , Article 11, Appropriate for Opioid Programming. I had shared a memo, but have the answer if there's any remaining questions.

Do we have any remaining questions, folks?

This is, sorry, because I'm presenting this. This is to continue the existing program to fund the, it used to be peer recovery, now it has a different name. and it's supplemental funding to get through the fiscal year.

Yes, and in addition to the peer recovery coach, we used some of the early funding to create an opioid strategic plan. So this would allow us to move forward with the strategies embedded in that. So educational programs, yeah.

and I think you said that this is not just funding to get through the year but to get on the same schedule as because this was previously funded as a special in the fall.

We had been on a not regularly on the May cycle. So we're endeavoring to always have the requests come through when we're handling everything else. So we're sort of lining this up now. Yes. And it'll always be annual.

The last one was May.

I believe so. And it was a little staggered before that.

All right. If there are no more questions, are we ready to vote this?

I would move that the board vote to support Article 11 in the Annual Town Meeting Warrant.

Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Okay. Motion passes.

um next article is 21 appropriate appropriate for disc golf um what you heard early no one chair yes

I'd like to speak in favor of this one. I think that getting people outside and Exercising is just so important for public health and quality of life. and I think the numbers here in the scheme of things are small. So I think sometimes when we're looking at all these big things, to find a way that will meaningfully improve people's lives for relatively small dollars, I'm in favor of. And I just think health and wellness and getting outside is really important and you know for a lot of people this is a way to do it the other thing i would say is it is so very accessible because all you need to buy is i know they call it a disc a frisbee you just need to buy a frisbee

you can play and different ages can play so to me this is you know even if and it sounds like the 300 000 is an upper limit you could we could always depending on this space you know design something a little bit more modest so I personally am in favor of this.

Anyone else? I just am having a hard time with the 50... I know it's only 50,000 and it's coming from CPA and it's just... I agree with everything Kathy says, but I... with the presentation that the disc golf already made unfortunately i've not seen that report that i wish parker rec could work with that and work with that to find a spot, maybe work with them more. So I'm a little torn on this presentation.

I'm also on the fence. I think that it's worthwhile. I don't understand the How 50,000 was arrived at. Maybe in the grand scheme of things, it's a lot of money, but it seems like something that could be done for less money. it may be something that could be advanced without an appropriation today. So we can just, I mean, really as a community discuss where we want it. I mean, we've already heard various pros and cons about Ridgehill, about the town forest. We haven't heard 74. That's an interesting location. We could advance this. topic without necessarily an appropriation today with an appropriation forthcoming at a later date.

Yeah, but you don't have the conversation unless you have the funding, at least money behind it, and someone to actually and professionally look at this and really put out the options. I'm fine with it. And I think Chris Gerstle yesterday was talking about Park and Rec is constantly trying to balance user groups and open space. And I think this sort of, it fits up with, you know, this is the road they hoe and I'm okay with it.

Yeah, I'm not clear how you would move it forward without funding. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

To decide on a location. because we did this with the Active Recreation Working Group. There was a committee and we discussed locations for dog parks. We went through all that.

It resulted in a feasibility study for those.

What was the appropriation for that? I don't remember.

I can't remember. Was that internal? It was similar.

For the Action Sports Park, I don't. I'll pull up the time management report while you're discussing.

Feasibility is usually what? Like 10% of the total project cost. And that project cost is considerably more.

I guess I would add that the $50,000 does include the design.

Yeah, feasibility.

So I mean, it's figuring out where and the design. And I guess as I was hearing it, part of the figuring out where is to understand you know how the properties are used now etc what would be the impact environmental etc so it it didn't sound like something that people sitting around a table could just figure out. And that because it includes the design as well, then that would present a project with a budget that could be voted on again for the next step.

The appropriation for Action Sports Park and Pickleball was $300,000 and it was feasibility with design.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I guess I feel like this is the normal sort of step that we go through. And it's certainly something, if we were looking to fund this project, on the rare occasions when we skip this step, finance committee asks us to go back and do it again. So I just I guess I feel like this is a necessary part of the project and fairly recent. I mean, I hear you. It's a lot of money, but

Do we know why the FinCom voted not to adopt?

When I was there, what I heard is that they were concerned that this was not narrow enough, that this is to study a broad range of options. and that they would prefer to have it narrower.

It seems like they've narrowed it to essentially three. So I'm happy to move this forward.

Madam Chair, I move that the Select Board vote to approve Article 21.

Second. Okay. Any other comments? OK, all those in favor? Aye. Those against?

I'm going to be aye.

You're aye, OK.

I'll vote for it also. It's not a hill I'm going to die on.

We're letting, you know, town meeting is deciding.

This is recommended.

Yeah, we're recommending. Right. OK, so sorry. Are you an aye or a nay? No, I'm in favor.

This is another. I'm an aye. It's not a hill I'm going to die on. But if we want to be serious about More discipline in the numbers. $50,000 is not large in the grand scheme, but understanding why it's that number I think is important.

Sure. Okay, so it looks like the next one is Article 22.

thoughts? Madam Chair, I'm getting used to being way over on the end here, getting noticed. I would also want to speak in favor of this one. I think this is complicated because we have a roof that is halfway through its useful life and that has to be acknowledged. And the fact is that they can go forward without this. That is what they've said. However, I still feel and I think that the CPC voiced this, that it is a good return. And Josh, you made the point that the money's not coming back to the town and that's absolutely true. But in terms of the NHA and their project and trying to, I think the whole,

the whole game with the nha is leverage you know so if we can spend some money and it enables them to get more money this is how you know they build their financing across and so i think that this is um and investment that has some leverage that I think is attractive. So the fact that not having $400,000 just sitting there in a reserve, that is attractive to me because that's just money that is stuck right so that's that's one thing the savings you know conservatively estimated are also attractive, especially since I think that they might climb way higher than what has been estimated there. And then we are also getting an extension of the roof life.

you know again we'd love to have it basically old but you know it's halfway through and we're getting a green project so to me it all adds up I mean it would be neater and cleaner if the thing was at the if the roof was at the end of its life or if they absolutely needed this. But I still find that this is worthy of going forward.

yeah i agree i think it's also community good and societal good to have put solar up um so i i see the it's a judgment call on do we um eat the cost of a 12 year old roof and I'm okay. I guess it's worth doing it.

Thank you. Josh?

I'm going to speak against this. I think I made most of my points earlier. I completely agree with Cathy that leverage is the game. But I think that it can be leveraged on any of the other projects we know are going to be coming back. and those other projects are going to enable more housing. The building of new units that new people can live in and for me that is a better good. so to speak, than this proposal. And it is a large dollar amount. So we're talking $50,000 on the last one. This is $800. So this is something that I think we should reconsider.

I'm in favor of it because I do think the return of investment is worth it. I don't love that we're doing a 12-year-old roof, but the return of the investment in solar I think is worth it.

Yeah. I guess I feel the same way. It would be nice if it were an easier decision that didn't have so much nuance. To your point, Josh, about saving it for a future project, I think there's merit there. This is the project in front of us now. and we don't, I mean, while we assume the next project is coming and we assume that they're going to be asking, we don't know when that is happening and we don't know what the world is going to look like at that point. If there's something worthwhile, and Justified to spend it on now. I feel like inflation being what it is, we know what we're going to get here and we don't know what we might get in the future. So since there's a good project in front of us, that would be my choice to fund that project.

so um madam chair we both of the board vote to support article uh 22 in the annual town meeting warrant second okay all those in favor aye and those against nay

Okay.

Could it be appropriate to talk about Article 26 of the NPDES? So what I suggested earlier, the $120,000 for the Swale Gardens, the intent of that was to help with water infiltration and environmental The reason why I would suggest putting that $120,000 free cash here is because it's a related project for water mitigation and it would further reduce the amount of debt borrowed. We just heard from the debt financing plan that that is, I mean, we are looking to borrow a lot of money in the future, and I think any amount less that we can borrow helps free up that capacity for anything else.

I guess I would ask for the opinion of the town manager and the deputy town manager.

I guess a few ways to think about it, because we had fully committed through the articles the free cash that was certified. There would be nothing out remaining for free cash if you needed to appropriate something in October. So I think that's one way to Think about it.

So usually Freecash is not certified by October.

Oh, sorry. Yes, do you want to come?

Yes. That is correct. The money won't be available when it rolls back in time for October. I and it does make sense to use that in order to reduce because we've been trying to do that with the plan that when the free cash got certified and it was higher then what we built the plan on that we tried to take some of the debt burden off. I would just uh recommend to the board that perhaps maybe use it towards the high school project instead rather than uh the stormwater because this is a much more complex uh we are are going to see if we can get low interest or zero interest loans. It's going to be supported by the stabilization fund. So for all those reasons,

if the board was so inclined to reconsider your support on the high school and because we're already using multiple funding sources for that project Including free cash, we just bump up the amount of free cash by $120,000 and then thereby reduce the amount of debt by $120,000.

I think that sounds very reasonable.

I have a sort of procedural question. When we decide to withdraw an article in general that has a dollar amount attached to it, do we typically as a board say where we want that money to go or do we sort of like that you know this whole question about how things are financed what percent by debt versus free cash is that something the select board usually Ways in on?

You're the one committee and it's your capital plan.

But I mean, in practice, do we do that? When you've withdrawn in prior years, have we placed those funds elsewhere? Yes. I'm trying to remember.

Well, generally when it's a withdrawal, many of them often haven't been financial articles. They've been more non-financial sort of articles. Articles that were... in the past that were financial, we generally knew sooner in the process and then reallocated those dollars. The only thing that we have not done in the past is on the night of town meeting when it's a last-minute decision, try to scramble to figure out could we repurpose those funds. But before getting to town meeting, it has been done in the past.

So for Tommy, for Article 28, the high school, HVAC, do we amend it? Or is through an amendment going?

It would be a motion to amend not subject to unanimous consent.

I guess my question is, Article 28 is the HVAC for the high school and it's all listed like you said, and right now free cash is $51,940. So you're just saying we'd up that to 171 and then the barring would be lowered.

Exactly. And that's what the motion to amend would be saying strike and is that something we would do now or would we do it We'll take care of the drafting of the motion. We know if that's what the board votes to do here, we'll certainly get the language drafted and let the moderator know that it's coming. the main motion still would stand then there would be an immediate motion to amend but tonight we have to make a motion to amend article 26 though

Not 26.

Article 28. Yes, so you're giving us a town manager guidance to do this.

I would move that respect to Article 28, the sources of funding be increased by $120,000 for free cash and reducing the amount of borrowing by the same amount.

I would second that motion.

Okay, any other discussion? All right, all those in favor? Aye. And none against, correct? Okay, so 5-0 to amend Article 28. Okay, so now we're moving on to

I think articles 38, 39, and 40 related to 888 Great Plain Avenue. The board received a letter today from the abutting church as well.

Right. So indicating in that letter indicated that they are willing to work with the petitioner for back Vehicle Access.

It sounded like early conversations, but that they were supportive of the idea if they could come to agreement.

So work in progress still.

and I don't last time when we talked about this I think the petitioners were going to get us information about how especially article 40 would affect other parcels in the districts We didn't see that from them. So article 40 is to change dimensional requirements in the entire district, not just for that parcel. So I was just curious how this would affect and other parcels in the district.

Oh, OK. The Pinellas zoning, correct?

Not Pinellas.

they were going to bring over the dimensional requirements from the Pinellas zoning, I thought.

Oh, but it would apply to the center business district.

So it's like an existing overlay that they were going to bring over?

To the Needham Center. And yeah, so how does that affect other parcels in the Needham Center overlay district? I don't know.

Also, I think... I have a note here. I don't remember where it came from, but I do remember hearing it that they were going to be amending for accuracy because the district that they reference is incorrect.

they are in touch with town council about that amendment. Your question was it about the setback to a residential lot? My understanding from the petitioners at last night and looking at the language here is that wherever this scenario occurs so a commercial district next to a residential with the wider setback that they could apply for a special permit. approval to waive it to the lower down. So my sense is that that could apply to other parcels in the center overlay, but it's not an automatic grant that the setback would be reduced.

it would be upon further approval of the planning board oh that is right that's what they said yeah is it not also only applying to mixed-use buildings as i read it for mixed-use buildings with a special permit.

Where do you read that? Under number two, it says for mixed-use buildings.

Two and three. So it sounds like it would apply elsewhere, but only to mixed use and only with a special permit.

Yeah, my understanding is it would apply elsewhere, but the Planning Board would always be able to understand it in the context of that particular parcel.

But specifically for mixed use.

I just reiterate, I don't like the piecemeal nature of zoning per single parcel, so I'm not going to be supporting these articles.

Okay, anyone else?

Yeah, I guess I would offer a couple things. I had a few hesitations about this that have been relieved. over time. So one hesitation I had was in general that this is a citizen's petition and that didn't come from the planning board and I wasn't thrilled with that but I think since the planning board has voted to support it, that makes me feel better about it. Also that they waited. because they thought it was going to be in MBTA communities, et cetera. So that was one hesitation I have, just the fact that it's a citizen's petition. another major hesitation I had was and it's not solved but I think they're really moving in the right direction was having underground parking that exits right onto Great Plain across that sidewalk there where there's just a lot of foot traffic and a lot of kids so

you know I think they really are making a good faith effort and making some progress to have it exit on the rear which to me is very important for this from a safety standpoint. So those were my major worries and objections that I think I'm feeling better about. So I'm feeling supportive of it at this point because I think mixed use in the downtown is it's a good thing.

Kevin? You know, it strikes me as strange. The Citizens Petition has some holes in it. And I always, like they never had a hearing. Like we had a problem. I thought it was sometimes strange to do a plastic band. with Susan's petition and saying like, how has this been vetted? There was no, we didn't have it. We tried to even do a hearing. So I regret that that part's missing. But overall, I think, I'm going to quote Adam Block, good zoning is good zoning. And planning board feels confident that this is good zoning. I think I'd support it on that. I don't love how it got here, but

yeah i'll just throw out there though that this project would require a special permit and therefore would have a public hearing in the planning board process this is just the zoning no no i get it the project is something else

Project is a project. This is just a zoning. And, you know, it is sort of the center of the town, downtown. And I think it's, I would have loved to have seen just the planning board do it. But I guess they didn't.

Yeah, I agree with that. I do think though that while it would be great if the planning board had chosen to rezone the entire block because that was their intention. I mean that I think it's my understanding that the reason that they there were reasons that they couldn't make that happen and this petitioner who has owned this property for some time waited as long as they could or felt that they could to move forward with this I will note that there are other properties that have been quite successful. And everyone's very happy that they're here. Boston Children's Hospital, North Hill among them. So everyone would be more comfortable if this was a planning board, if the planning board were the petitioner. but I still support this project. Josh, you've mentioned yours. Bill, do you have?

I would support the project as well. I don't want to go down the line, but I think we all agree we don't love the way that it came into its position, but this was, and with Cathy, some of the concerns I had were alleviated. you know I've heard from people they don't love spot zoning but this where this location is is there's no other single-family homes around it really there's not going to be a single-family home built that this this is a good use for it and it and with the special permit they're still going to have to go in front of the planning board there will be public hearings they will get to talk about where the entrances and exits are and all everything about it so i think this is is going to be a good project and it will make the downtown better

Okay. So if we're ready then, does someone want to make a motion? Can we move all three or do we have to do them?

I'm happy to move on. Madam Chair, I move that the Board vote to support Articles 38, 39, and 40 in the Annual Town Meeting Warrant.

Second.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed? Nay. Okay. right and then we come to the article 41 the citizens petition direction to the select board regarding envision project vision redesign project

Madam Chair, could I say my opinion on this is entirely dependent upon the select board's position or We haven't really had a chance before tonight clearly states if we have a position. And so I guess I'm hoping that we could give a clear position on where we stand regarding vision. If we do, then I would just say that this should be tabled. There's no reason for this motion to be before a town meeting because we have given a clear position. And the alternative, if we're not able to, that is the reason for this. I mean, I think people want clarity. So my preference is really for us to give clarity tonight.

Sure. I would just say I think my discomfort with this entire project has been that uh people i feel have not been willing to maintain an open mind and listen to what options exist it's due diligence on the part of the town to examine all of the options and there has been I understand there's discomfort with the idea, but there has been, in my mind, a rush to judgment. The Envision the committee has their last meeting tomorrow night and they're going to be making their presentation to us as planned in our next meeting. So without having heard that plan, I'm not willing to weigh in because I have worked very hard to maintain an open mind and I want to hear what the options are and what the assessment of the committee has been. So I don't have an opinion to share except to say that it

I'm not really interested in this petition.

Yeah. I appreciate that people want clarity, but I think we have to honor the process. We have a committee out there that's been working for a very long time to study this issue. They're having the last meeting and we should listen to what the committee that we appointed to study says about this. The other issue, I think, is we live and dive at the agenda. And here we are on the agenda talking about a citizen's petition, but it shouldn't be a segue to talk about a very large project they're doing in the downtown. So I wouldn't discuss that. I don't think that's... I think we have to let the process be the process and do the process. I get it. We like to open the Christmas gifts the night before, but I think we still have to wait a bit longer.

and I'm sorry to say that but I think we have to honor that that committee has put a lot of work in and they deserve to have I think as a final deliberation and their say without us piling on and making a predetermined decision.

Cathy. I've taken a clear position on this publicly that I don't support narrowing the roadway in Great Plain. So what I would support is some version of the four lane plan, which is essentially the configuration that we have. So either, you know, either I guess I'm sort of in the same position as Josh that either that means for me, either that means that the board makes a clear statement in favor of that which I just said or then I would probably support this citizen's petition. I really value the work that the committee has done and I think the committee has done great work and we have seen that work as it's gone along. And I guess I would go back for myself back to a year ago when we had a large public hearing upstairs that

Something like Needham Center really is so visible to everyone in the town. Everyone in the town has strong and passionate feelings about it. And so I've never been comfortable with the idea of making major changes to Needham Center. if they did not have broad public support. I think the committee did a very good job putting together a survey. The survey got very high participation. I think we have an answer on that as to what the public support is and the public supports some version of a four-lane configuration. So, you know, based on the principle that I start with that a major change like this needs broad public support, I don't see the public support for the kind of major change that we're contemplating, which does not take away from the excellent work of the committee. I guess I view this, this is non-binding.

this article and so it is it's another temperature taking this time at the temperature taking of town meeting you know to me the survey is enough but I also get there's a lot of anxiety out there, and there is a feeling that people want this just settled and behind them. I hope so.

I would reiterate a lot of what Kathy said. I really believe in the four-lane plan, that that's the best plan. The survey has shown it. and I still I totally agree I respect the work of the committee and I'm looking forward to still having them come and this is as you said a non-binding resolution and again I don't love citizens petitions but you know if we were taking a vote I would probably lean towards supporting this petition just because of what I believe in.

Sure. So I think we have two very public statements. These guys have said as much during the campaign. I'm not interested in making a decision before the presentation. It sounds like Kevin isn't either but you could.

I agree with my colleagues, Kevin and Bill, excuse me, that this is we've had a lot of public input already from from the public hearing on may 13th 2025 from the Forum on February 4th, 2026, and from the survey. And so I certainly would not support anything, any lanes less than four on Great Plain Ave as it's structured now. I mean, my feeling is that the project has gotten so controversial that it's really worth just taking another look at because there's no reason There's no reason to continue this controversy. I almost feel like it should be shelved for a time so that we can kind of take a step back and reexamine it. But I mean, I guess I'm glad to hear that there's a majority of the board that would not go support a two-lane plan.

So does somebody want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that the select board support article 41 in the annual town meeting warrant.

Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

And those against? Nay. I think that might be one of my very first nay votes. Goodness. All right. OK, so we're going to move on then to Article 42. The Citizens Petition Amends General By-law Section 2.1.3. who wants to kick this off.

Sure. Well, that's a good way of saying it. I probably kicked this off when I discussed this at the May 13, 2025 forum about Envision, when I discussed the contracts and how I learned about them. I learned about them because they were, assuming there was only one contract, what was the scope? Just wanting to learn more because honestly, up until that point, hadn't been paying close attention to Envision. So that's how I sought to learn about it. And in expressing that I was surprised to learn that there were more, I think there is an opportunity for the Select Board to be more informed about what's going on in a more proactive way. And so I do support this.

Kevin? You know, I find this problematic in a way. I think there's a philosophical issue and a practical one. Practically, I think when we get notifications to Tom Manger about Scope and Change Contracts, and then even I think the bigger issues, change orders. I re-get the email and it's like, okay, good to know. And like, it's in my head. If I have questions about it, I'll ask questions. Very often, I'm aware of the event that's happening. I know what's going on. In the case of InVision, it's like, yes, we're going to switch to, this is going to be a traffic study. And there was the engineering cost of doing the extra iterations. I think...

The practical part is, I am not an auditor. And if I were to get even more or work or change orders, I don't keep separate books about what the town's doing. I'm not up at night with an Excel document putting in numbers. If I was, I would have a staff do it for me. And we could call them the town staff. and I think they would do what I would want them to do. And then I also think philosophically, we're asking what do we think democracy is and i think it is elected officials making sort of the guidelines and the direction of where the town's going i don't think it's me to sniff what's happening at the staff level to see that they're doing the change orders.

And not all change orders are about money. Many of them are just we're changing something, we're doing something else. If a contract is now at $500,000, do I hear every change order? And that'd be... It's... In some respects, it's sort of like the issue of virtue. A little is great. too much is excess. And I think this is sort of unnecessary. And finally, I'm not sure there was a problem before. I think the system with FinCom and with Select Board, I think there isn't a crying need to like, we need to see everything that's in every change order on a contract that's over 500,000. So that's my two cents, which I think is now four cents.

I would generally agree with what Kevin was saying. I think that, first of all, if the emails, they would go to Dislike Board and FinCom, we could have asked for that. We didn't ask for that. It's coming as a citizen's petition. The second thing is I don't think, I think what it does on a practical basis does not produce more transparency. It's just a greater number of emails to the Select Board and the FinCom about certain contracts, which I think is a system that was not broken. I would say in the league night last night in the room that I was in, precincts D and E, What resonated with people here was the comparison with other towns and the limits that other towns had. But I guess I would

suggest that you know every town is different in terms of the relationship between its select board and its town manager and we do have a strong town manager form of government here and I and I think it serves us very well. I think we have a great town manager who has hired great staff and I think part of the reason for that is to have the freedom to not be micromanaged at every moment by the select board digging deep into some things that we should be at the policy level I think. I've had conversations with members of select boards in other towns and I am glad we don't work the way they work. I'll just put it that way without naming any names of those towns. So this is a system that we've had ever since our town manager system has been created. I think it serves us well. I think it is appropriate for the system that we have here. It is not broken and we did not ask for this.

Bill?

I guess we could, you know, I'm torn on this again. You know, I haven't been around that long, so I'm learning a lot still. And I think I know we could still find out if there are change orders, and I'm sure that the public could still find out. because they found out these numbers. One thing that was brought up actually in my precinct to HI&J was the towns that they were comparing. They said, what about the Wellesleys? What about the towns that are more, they felt more closely aligned with us. So I thought that wasn't interesting and I don't know whether they'll have that when they present at town meeting but I just don't really see what was broken that you need to have this. So I would probably not support this at this point in time.

Yeah, I guess I feel the same. The town manager is the town CEO. This is a professional organization. We have a large budget. as we move forward into the future that budget will increase. The choice was made by town meeting and the vote of the town residents. on the ballot to establish a strong town manager form of government, which has served us really well. I recognize that there are folks who are unhappy with recent decision-making, especially related to Envision, but I think that that disappointment resides here with this elect board and doesn't provide a good enough reason to change This Rule, which really is about

expanding the capacity of the town manager to do the projects that the select board and the residents prioritize. So I would say that because it's my opinion that you know we can say that it's not so many it's just an email but it really does shift the priority of the town manager to an administrative Burden, rather than the high level planning that is really her central role. I'm not in favor of this. We all can get this information. immediately, as can FinCom. And so I would not support this article.

Madam Chair, I move that the Board vote to not support Article 42. in the annual town meeting warrant.

Is there a second?

Secondly.

All right. All those in, well, any more discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. No. One opposed. Okay. All right.

So that's it for the annual.

Article 14 is the only one remaining, the citizens petition. All right.

Article 14, the citizens.

Yes.

Yes, we were all in favor. Okay, so citizens petition resolution in support of democracy and calling for a return to the constitutional principles that are the foundation of this republic. This is the presentation we saw, we heard from Jerry Rovner earlier tonight.

Yes, we should support it.

Madam Chair, I'm going to be consistent with the way I am on all these type of petitions, which is I would advocate that we do not take a position. I think this is a matter of conscience for the individual town meeting members as to whether they agree with this or not. I think it has served us well. when there are national issues that are not relating solely to Needham or international issues that are not relating solely to Needham. I feel more comfortable when the select board does not take a position and allow town meeting members to vote their conscience. And if town meeting chooses to support it, It will support it. If they don't, it won't. But for the select board to weigh in, I find is inappropriate.

I can't disagree with that. And I get it, not all seasons of petitions are the same. But I think this one is a little different. And we are speaking about sort of an existential threat to our republic. And are we going to ask people in our government to abide by their constitutional rules? and not just the President, but the House and the Senate. So I think we can very much, it's definitely when the town means purview to talk about the health of the country. In 1776, 250 years ago, not on July 4th, but we can have early on July 24th, town meeting voted to vote for independence from Great Britain. It was possibly treasonous to take that vote.

And it's kind of strange that we were kind of, do we really want to wash our hands? 250 years later and say, well, maybe it should be a vote of conscience or leave it up to them. We shouldn't take an opinion. I actually think we should really take an opinion on this. i think we are leaders in the community and we should behave like it at this point so i would definitely say we should take a position i would hope that before it by the way i guess i'd just like to

clarified that I think it is within the purview of town meetings to take a position on this. I'm not saying it isn't within the purview of town meeting. Right. I guess I am saying I don't think it's within the purview of the select board. And I agree with you. Town Meeting has taken these kinds of votes in the Civil War, in the Revolutionary War. I mean, I think it's no problem with Town Meeting doing it. There is a partisan aspect to this in the whereases that For me, again, as a nonpartisan Executive body gives me pause.

I think though we are leaders in this community and we should be able to sort of take a stand on this one. As for the issue of it being partisan I don't like the argument of equivalency, sort of the statement of a pox in both the houses. There is a problem. with a major political party not following up on or seemingly finding the Constitution to be optional. I mean, it is the elephant in the room, and I have no problem saying that there's an elephant. Oh my God, it is the elephant, literally and physically. But I'm okay with... with saying that we can take a stand and we don't have to pretend that there's, I think if we say a pox in both the houses or that there's equivalency,

is ultimately a pessimistic argument that we can't do anything about it. It's just the way it is. And I think that's really damaging to the political discourse in this country if that's the feeling.

Thank you both.

Bill. These first two meetings have been really fun, let me tell you. I came in leaning towards, but I'm listening to Kathy, what she says. I do feel... It does feel a little bit political to me, unfortunately, and I don't think we want to get political, so I'm not... opposed to going with no position. And I think they did too much to, like I said, when he was here, there's too many whereases, which simply just saying, you know, be resolved. Like he said, one town did two lines. I think we would have been better off with that. I'm either no position or in favour, so I haven't made up that final mind. Sorry to keep you here at 9.45 like that.

We've got more stuff on the agenda. Josh?

I'm in favor of this. I think as I was kind of alluding to before, if we're going to make a statement, we should Let me say it differently. If there's a statement going before town meeting, we should take a position on it. That's how I feel. Some of the resolutions, I think, are important for us to take a position on. Be it resolved that town meeting affirm that no person, including the President of the United States, is above the law, and that all public officials are bound by their oath to uphold and faithfully execute the Constitution of the United States. That would apply to us too. It does apply to us. So yes, we should affirm that. I am not optimistic that this will have any impact but I believe in the words so I will support it.

Um, yeah. I do find this one tough because there are so many things that we're asked to weigh in on that I feel are not appropriate and not the purview of the select board. But this situation does affect the town. it has a direct effect on the town in many many ways in tone policy and in budget and so Having taken these oaths, I feel comfortable holding others to the same. So I am willing to support this. even though there is a bit of a gray area. But I spoke these words, and I think that we all

do a little bit of suffering on behalf of fulfilling that oath. And so I think this is just this is appropriate.

Madam Chair, I would move that the Select Board vote to recommend adoption of Article 14.

Second.

OK. Those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

I'm not sure how I'm voting because I'm not in favor of it. I'm also not against it. I prefer that we have no position, so I would like it recorded that way. Okay. That's fair. I guess I'll abstain. But we can understand that you've taken that position. I'm not saying I'm against it.

Okay, so that means we've gone through all of the articles. Yay us. And now we can go on. to talk about Executive Session Minutes release notices.

Under the Select Board's policy regarding Executive Session Minutes, I do a periodic review throughout the year or also following a and the public records request or a request under the open meeting law for executive session minutes to determine which ones need to be and I have done a review and I am announcing the minutes the executive session minutes that are now released. Those minutes are a full release of executive session minutes from February 25th, 2025, March 11th, 2025, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy, Levy,

Johnson, Announcing a partial release of executive session minutes of March 24th, 2026, which you just approved on consent in your meeting today.

Town Manager's Report.

I only have one item and that is to no I have two items one is just to make everyone aware the North Hill memorandum of agreement that you previously voted on We found a technical correction that needed to be made in one of the whereases. We referenced that the current zoning allows 476 dwelling units per acre. it does not and a very astute reader of the MOA flagged this. So it should read and it does now read that the zoning allows 476 dwellings and in parentheses eight units per acre. to make sure we have a clean executed copy. You don't need to revote. You don't need to resign. The chair has initialed a corrected version and that will be the version we'll use moving forward. So thank you for that.

And just town meeting members are aware but final materials on the town meeting web page go up end of day Friday. That's the deadline. So it's actively being updated all this week as materials are ready. and we will answer any questions that come in.

Thank you. that wasn't a statement um okay committee reports uh Bill you're off the hook here

Can I give one quick thing?

Do you have a committee report?

I don't have a committee, but just a little bit outside. Today being asked to sign the astronaut day, I just want to report that Sunita Williams will be attending the 4th of July parade.

Very exciting. That's awesome. Okay. Thank you. That gives everyone something to look forward to. Josh?

Trees meeting tomorrow night.

Trees meeting tomorrow night. Yeah. Kevin?

um speaking of the other quiet zone i went to the public library they had the uh that they had the ribbon cutting for the teen lair, the teen room. And it was a good crowd, it was good. also went to the plugged in thank you party on Sunday at VFW and those people can pull in a crowd. It was packed. and so many people. They've given so much to the town. They're moving off their location off Chestnut Street, Freemans and into Framingham, but that'll be in February. But they've done so much for this town and it was amazing to see sort of the students they've helped and the alumni. So it was a good group. and that's all I got. Oh, and by the way, last Saturday, on the 18th, or the 19th, we did the Neame-Darlington Walk. It went great. Everyone made it.

It was fantastic. Yeah. Really good event. Kathy? I do not have any. All right. Well, I will just note that I held office hours here on the 22nd, and topics ranged from NHA appointments to the quiet zone to the noise bylaw. which will be on our agenda moving forward. Also want to just say thank you to the League of Women Voters for holding the warrant meeting last night and hopefully whether it was in person or online town meeting members and members of the community were able to understand the warrant better we've been looking at it and talk about it and kind of shorthand in these meetings but it takes a lot of work to get there and so it's It's really good reading. You should get into it.

And that, I think, is it, except to say that the ribbon cutting at the new teen room, which is like in no circumstances should be described as a lair because it's like bright and airy and lovely I just want to say thanks and congratulations to all the library staff and the library trustees and the PPBC and of course the community who worked so hard to make that come together. All right.

No, I'm about to live right there. Let's have a big shout out to town meeting as well. They supported the community and they support, we support you. And that was, that came through a lot.

So thank you.

All right. So, um, I'm going to move that the select board enter executive session pursuant to exception seven, Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A7, to comply with or act under the authority of any general or special law or federal grant and aid requirements Namely, Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Sections 22A, F, and G for the purposes of reviewing and approving executive session minutes and reviewing executive session minutes to determine whether continued nondisclosure is warranted. and not to return to open session at the conclusion of the executive session. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Oh, right. Roll call. Roll call. Bill?

Aye. Josh? Yes. Kevin? Aye.

Kevin? Yes. You're both yes. Good night.