May 2024 ATM & STM Questions and Answers

The following are questions from Town Meeting Members or other members of the community and answers from the Town regarding Town Meeting and Special Town Meeting warrant articles. 

Unless otherwise noted, answers are provided by own Staff on behalf of the petitioning body. 

ATM Articles 3 & 4 - FUND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT – NIPEA & FUND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT – ITWA

Question: These articles deal with the Collective Bargaining Agreements for the NIPEA and ITWA units, respectively. Both memoranda in support of these articles refer to updates to the grievance and arbitration provisions of the respective contracts. Please explain what those updates involve.

Answer: The updates remove the Personnel Board from the grievance process now that the Charter has been changed to remove the Board from daily activities.  The newly constituted Human Resources Advisory Committee will play a strategic, advisory role.  

ATM Article 11 - APPROPRIATE FOR FIRE ALARM WIRE REMOVAL

Question: If the wiring is no longer in use, is there a fiscal reason to spend ~$200K to remove all the wiring now instead of removing on an as needed basis (ie. whenever a pole is removed or relocated)? 

Answer: The fiscal advantages of removing the wire as a project are:

• The Town currently has two staff members certified and licensed (outside of their firefighting professions) to do this work. They are both eligible for retirement and training more staff will come at an additional cost. 
• The Town has a bucket truck required to do this work. It is old and if it goes out of service, the Town would need to source another vehicle to do the work at an additional cost.
• When an individual wire is removed, there is a contractual minimum of 4 hours overtime required and this will increase annually, incentivizing timely removal.
• The pricing provided is for the work to be done by Town employees at FY2025 rates and multiple wires will be removed for what it costs to remove a single wire on an individual basis. The efficiency in removing the whole 13 circuits as one project is financially beneficial due to economies of scale.

ATM Article 12 - APPROPRIATE FOR  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSOLIDATION

Question: The information supporting the budget proposal breaks out the Municipal Information Technology item as a separate item from the overall school budget. p.23, line 22, but does not distinguish between salary and wages, on the one hand, and expense, on the other. While I recognize the schools budget is a single line item, line 22 deals with municipal related expenses. What is the break down between salary and wages on the one hand (note; there are only 6 FTEs involved) and expenses? Going forward will the municipal related expenses  continue to be broken out and why aren’t all the technology expenses, both school and municipal, broken out as distinct categories of budgetary expense?

Answer: The Finance Committee opted to present the Budget as a single line rather than breaking it out because, although the budget is separate appropriation line, it is under the jurisdiction of the School Department which per state law Town Meeting can only appropriate bottom line numbers, not allocations.

However, the breakdown of the amount was calculated as follows:

• Salary                               $   578,228
• Expense                           $1,208,755
• Operating Capital        $   117,300
• Budget                 $1,904,283

ATM Articles 14 & 15 - APPROPRIATE THE FY2025 SEWER & WATER ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGETS

Question: What are Retained Earnings amounts for Water and Sewer?

Answer: Sewer and water retained earnings were certified on May 1, 2024 by the Department of Revenue.  Water retained earnings $3,984,163 and sewer retained earning $1,668,641.

ATM Article 21 - APPROPRIATE FOR HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS COURTS 

Question: This article appropriates funding for NHS tennis court repair from a variety of sources, including the Athletic Facility Stabilization fund. Why isn't it funded entirely from the Athletic Facility Stabilization fund? 

Answer: This project was funded from numerous funding sources due to the inability to pay for the full project from the Athletic Facility Stabilization Fund alone. Since the project’s genesis, request for CPA funding was a planned funding source. 

Question: Will there be a backboard installed at the tennis courts? (If no, do we have a backboard anywhere?)

Answer: A backboard is not part of the proposed project. A backboard currently exists at the Mills Field tennis courts. 

ATM Article 23 - APPROPRIATE FOR DEFAZIO COMPLEX FENCING

Question: When were the current fences installed? 

Answer: The current fence was installed during the Field of Dreams project in 2009.

Question: Can the Town add a walking trail?  Will upgrading the fence prevent us from making changes to the park? 

Answer: This project would just replace the existing fencing. No other work is part of this project. There are no proposals for a walking trail at DeFazio in the current five-year Capital Plan.  

ATM Article 25 - APPROPRIATE FOR GENERAL FUND CASH CAPITAL

Question: Why is the appropriation for EV chargers so high? Is it the cost of chargers or the cost to run electric lines to them? Will there be more than one Level 3 EV charger?  Will there be additional public chargers purchased with these funds?

Answer: This request factors in the cost of the electric vehicle chargers in addition to the electric work that will be required to make the chargers functional. At Newman, the Level 3 chargers (also known as DC Fast Chargers), will have the capability to convert alternating current (AC) from the grid to direct current (DC) for the battery to store. This enables them to charge a vehicle more quickly, which will be needed to accommodate the bus route schedule for the schools and charge the large batteries required for the electric buses in a timely manner. However, this also means that the Level 3 chargers are more expensive due to this internal conversion capability. This request also includes the cost for the electrical work to make the chargers functional (e.g., conduit, transformer, cables, trenching, excavation), which will include the electric infrastructure required for future electrification of the bus fleet.

The Town will purchase and install additional chargers if outside funding is received for either of these projects. While funding is prioritized for Newman chargers for electric buses first, depending on availability of remaining funds, additional chargers purchased will be used for a combination of fleet and public charging. Additional charger locations are currently being explored to identify the best candidates.

ATM Article 30 - APPROPRIATE FOR QUIET ZONE PROJECT

Question: If the first proposed Quiet Zone on Great Plain Avenue doesn’t work, does the Town then spend more funds to a second Quiet Zone Design? Are traffic impacts included in this design scope?

Answer: The funds being requested are sufficient for cover all scenarios and additional funds for design would not be required. Traffic impacts will be included in the design scope. This phase of the Quiet Zone design does not include the golf course crossing.

ATM Article 31 - APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE

Question: Has the Town considered using lighter colored asphalt in paving and sidewalks to lower the heat?

Answer: The Town is always evaluating new techniques and materials that are effective in the New England area. The current funding is based on traditional methods. 

ATM Article 33 - APPROPRIATE FOR SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT

Question: What is the anticipated timeline of the entire projected (all phases)?

Answer: Phase 1 is currently underway using ARPA funds. Phase 2 will be bid in FY2025 and constructed next the construction season. This requires MBTA permitting that is outside of the Town’s control. It is anticipated that this phase will take multiple construction seasons. Phases 3 and 4 were not built into the 5-year capital plan and will be done when funding and work capacity is available.

ATM Article 42 - AMEND GENERAL BY-LAWS – LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT

Question:   How is a homeowner protected from having their home included in a historic district against their will?

Answer – Provided by Town Staff on Behalf of the Select Board: Massachusetts General Law does not require that a property owner agree before their property may become a historic district, but both state-defined best practices and a rigorous public process will effectively prevent any scenario in which property is entered involuntarily.  

Massachusetts Historical Commission best practice is to establish districts only when every property owner in the proposed district is supportive of the effort. To this end, the Commission recommends that local Historic District Commission advance non-contiguous districts in the event that a property owner(s) does not wish to have their property added to a multi-property proposed district. Failure of a local Historic District Commission to gain full support of all property owners in the proposed district would be noted negatively by the Massachusetts Historical Commission in both its feedback on the local commission’s draft documents and addressed in a required public meeting.

Further, a public process with numerous points for property owners to provide input – to include a desire to not be included in a proposed district – exists to prevent involuntary inclusion. These opportunities exist throughout the process to ensure that property owners have the chance to voice concerns and request removal from the district if their opinion changes over time. The opportunities include:

• Meetings of the Historic District Commission to discuss a proposed plan.
• Meetings of the Massachusetts Historic Commission and Needham Planning Board, which would provide feedback in open session.
• A mandatory public hearing held by the Historic District Commission.
• Town Meeting, where a 2/3 majority of Town Meeting is required for approval of a proposed district.

Together, the rigorous public process and established best practices will practically prohibit involuntary inclusion in a proposed historic district.

Question: The article details the restrictions and governance procedures for the historic district. Do the homes within the district already have historical status? What are the benefits and burdens of declaring a historic district, particularly if the houses already have historic designations, as experienced by the town of Needham and the homeowners of the residences within the district? Are the current homeowners in favor of the historic district?

Answer: The Jonathan Kingsbury House at 3 Rosemary Street is currently listed on both the Massachusetts Historic Commission and Needham Historic Commission registries. By incorporating a property into a historic district, it is further protected from destruction beyond what the designation of a “historic property” can provide. Currently, historic properties in Needham may be torn-down, so long as the owner petitions the Historical Commission and waits out a six-month demolition delay. By incorporating a property into a historic district, demolition and alteration to historically significant exterior features of the property may be prevented by a Historic District Commission. The current property owners of 3 Rosemary Street (the only parcel in the proposed district) are fully supportive of the proposed district, to the extent of volunteering their home to be the first proposed district in Needham. One of the property owners served on the Single Parcel Historic District Study Committee which developed the proposal for the district.

STM Article 2 - APPROPRIATE FOR TOWN-OWNED LAND SURVEYS

Question: What will the Town owned land survey funds be used for and what have we done lately (We can get this from the TM Report).

Answer: Current projects include:

• Dedham Avenue Parking Lot
• Vesta Park
• Hatfield Park
• 12 Acre Wooded Lot Northeast of Ridge Hill
• Wooded Area Great Plain Ave and Harris Ave
• Wooded Area between May St and Glendoon Ave
• Wooded Area at Birch St and West St.

Future projects may include:

• 463 Charles River Street (Ridge Hill Property)-236.1 ac
• 0 Noyes St (Noyes Park) at Central- 0.24 ac
• 0 Webster Street (Thorpe Park) at West/Hunnewell-0.4 ac
• Wooded Lot in front of 478 Charles River Street (0 Charles River Street)~29.7 ac
• 914 Charles River (Water Treatment Facility)- 67 Ac
• 0 Dwight Road (Field and Parking lot)-4.5 ac
• 120 Broadmeadow (School)- 11.2 ac
• 0 Linden Street (drainage easement)- 0.02 ac