A change in approach by the Federal Highway Administration has prompted the town to forgo a $320,000 grant it planned to use for the Envision Needham Center project.
The Select Board voted at its Dec. 16 meeting to decline the Safe Streets for All grant which would have funded a pilot to test a potential redesign of the downtown road layout.
“It was intended to be a demonstration grant and pilot road safety changes,” Town Manager Katie King told the board. “We heard from federal highway that they were changing the condition of the grant and that we had to revise our scope by the end of this calendar year to remove any items that involved any reduction in vehicle capacity, including any lane reductions.”
King conveyed those changes to the Select Board in a Dec. 2 email and recommended the town decline the grant. “These funds would now only be available to pilot the four-lane option. Given that the four-lane option aligns closely with existing conditions, a pilot would not be necessary or recommended,” she wrote.
The grant was received in 2024 by the Department of Public Works and was going to be used last summer to pilot narrowing Great Plain Avenue from four lanes to two between Linden and Warren streets. But objections were raised by downtown merchants concerned it would negatively affect business and the pilot was paused. The grant was then put on hold to allow the Envision Needham Center Working Group to consider and refine more options for the redesign and gather public feedback.
Of three models currently under consideration, two include lane reductions. The board agreed the option without lane reductions is so similar to the existing four-lane configuration a pilot would have little benefit.
“It’s unnecessary,” said board member Kevin Keane, who is on the Envision Working Group. “At Envision Needham meetings there was consensus that the four-lane is the plan that wouldn’t need a pilot.”
Director of public works Carys Lustig told the Observer she agrees with the decision to decline the grant. “When we look at the different options, there’s no real need to pilot the four-lane option because the change to our traffic pattern isn’t that much.”
She said state funding could be available if there is interest in pilots for the other options. “I think if the three-lane plan or the two-lane plan are recommended we still have the ability to do a demonstration program. We could seek additional funding from the state, which has not changed any of their requirements,” she said.
The working group is planning to gather townwide feedback in February.
Public process discussion
Before the Select Board took its vote on the grant, Marianne Cooley addressed the other members.
“I just wanted to ask which of my colleagues forwarded a work product to somewhere else before it had had a chance to be fully kind of fleshed out so that it could be discussed,” said Cooley. “And I’d like to understand why.” She said she was taken aback to learn that King’s email to the board had been shared publicly before the board discussed it.
Member Josh Levy responded, “Someone asked me for the document, so I gave it to them. It’s a public record. They requested it.”
Cooley wondered how someone knew about the document to be able to ask for it. She said public record requests go through a process involving the town counsel. King explained the protocol, including the role of the town clerk as the records access officer for the town.
“I talk to people and people ask me what’s going on in town and I mentioned the town manager recommended that the grant be declined. So this is not secret. I don’t think any of these communications are secret,” said Levy.
“Nobody’s suggesting that they’re secret,” said board chair Heidi Frail. “They’re suggesting that there’s a process that one goes through when one is distributing public records. We don’t just share email unilaterally. We don’t work for ourselves, we work for the town,” she said.
“If there’s a procedure that I’m unaware of, please let me know,” said Levy.
“It was just surprising to see it published on Facebook by a member of the town,” said Cooley. “It is really sort of something that undermines a trust, I think.” She explained this was an incomplete “work product memo” the board had not yet discussed. “I just was shocked by it.”
“We’re all public officials and we all have, there’s an expectation that all of what we do is in public and it doesn’t mean that I send every single document unsolicited to everyone, because I don’t do that,” said Levy.
He reiterated that he was asked about Envision. “I guess I don’t understand. Maybe I interact with members of the public differently than other people. If someone asked you what’s going on with Envision that would seem very relevant to share,” he said.
“Actually, I usually try to share what I’m aware of from what’s happened at public meetings,” said Cooley. “And I also try to share what I’m on record saying at public meetings. Those are kind of the angles that I think about. This wouldn’t have fit either of those yet. I wanted to mention it because it took me aback,” she said. “I just am not sure I’ve ever seen that happen in my entire tenure so I was taken aback.”
Save as PDF