Uh, we have a quorum and we only have one item on the agenda. Well, that's not true. We have additional business as well, but I don't anticipate any additional business. So, first up, first of all, welcome to the uh meeting of October 23rd, 2025
uh meeting of the conservation commission, which has been noticed in accordance with the open meeting law. Um, as a matter of formality, we uh ask anyone to participate, ask questions, uh um make comments. Uh we simply ask that you identify yourself for the record. Uh
we are being recorded and we also introduce ourselves. Uh my name is John Kieran. I'm a member of the commission. Uh Steve, let me just read across the top. Steve, >> my name is Steve Ibis. I'm conservation agent in Milton. >> Philip
>> Philip Driscoll, conservation clerk. >> Tom, >> uh Tom Palmer, commission member. >> Hans Vinling, commission member. Kelly Bosworth, commission member. Arthur
>> Arthur Doyle, commission member >> and Wendy. >> Good evening. I'm Wendy Garpo, one of the commissioners. >> All right. So, we go right to number one on the agenda, and that is a motion uh which I will propose. Um, and I have
sent a text of the of the uh proposed motion out, and we'll open it up to discussion. Uh but the motion that I'm going to make uh is that we pass a resolution in support of uh article six which will is on the warrant for the
town meeting the special town meeting uh scheduled to begin on October 27th which is next Monday uh at the high school. And the motion is that um that we approve this language, be it resolved that the Milton Conservation Commission
recommends that the town vote to approve article six as printed in the warrant. And then uh everybody has been given a copy of the warrant. Tom, thank you very much for sending that around last week. Um, and you can see from the warrant and
the recommend I'm sorry, the the warrant article uh and then the recommendation of the uh warrant committee uh it it essentially tracks the language and I'm reading from the recommendation of the warrant committee that says recommended that the town vote to approve the
article as printed in the warrant. So our motion would be essentially the same. Um I I will at some point uh ask uh Sean Oor who's chair of the school building committee to weigh in and give us an update. But essentially the
background and put in context this motion uh in annual town meeting in spring of 2023. Town meeting voted to um approve a land swap uh by which and I'm going to sort of round some numbers here. The conservation commission gave
to the school department 2.8 eight acres on Guile Road for the uh an area of land suitable for the construction of the new middle school. Um in exchange for that 2.8 acres, uh the conservation commission received in return
approximately 75 a little bit more than 75 acres of open space, including some 44 acres at Pope's Pond. Uh we've got about three acres on Heric Drive, one acre on School Street, uh four and a half to five acres at the intersection
of Highland Street and Canton Avenue. We've got about 7 acres off of Randolph Avenue uh next to the access road to the uh the old landfill. Um and that in some total issues about 75 acres of open land that we received that transfer has been
made um uh so that we actually are now the you know deed owner of that uh of that land. However, going back to article 31 of the uh annual at the annual town meeting for 2023,
there was a reverter clause uh not for the whole land swap and I going to underline that because um in the description or it's called a comment in the article it it says that uh if we
don't vote to support the land swap then that I'm Sorry. If we don't vote to approve the extension of time for the town to receive funding from the state through the uh building assistance administration uh which which Sean I'll
ask Sean to explain. Uh we need to extend the time from 2028 until 2033 to make sure that we the town gets the funding. If we didn't make that extension, there is a revert clause in
the 2023 article that says that if the funding is not uh received and the project up and running by uh April of 2028, then that 2.8 acres would come back from the school department to the conservation commission. Um there is
another part to the reverta clause that involves the park department land also off of Guile Road. Um it's essentially across the existing street that runs from Brooksfield down the hill towards Blue Hills Parkway. Um so those two
parcels would revert uh some 4 acres back to the park department and 2.8 acres back to the conservation commission but it will not void just for clarity it will not void the entire swab. So that that's 75 acres of open space that we received um that's that's
no that's not going anywhere. That still belongs to the conservation commission. But the point of the article is to ensure that the town has the opportunity to receive funding from the state. And uh Sean, I'd ask you to comment as to
what that funding looks like and what the financial impact on the town will be with and also without that funding. >> Yeah, thanks Mr. Chair. So, uh, you know, just for the record, Sean Aor, town meeting member, precinct 8, uh,
chair of the school building committee. Um, so in December of last year, the town was invited, uh, by the Mass School Building Authority to participate in um, their program, which, you know, guarant provides reimbursement for eligible
costs of the construction of a new school. Um, you know, prior to that, you know, we've been around for a little over six years, and each year we've submitted to MSBA our statement of interest, which is basically a description of the overcrowding and, you
know, our request to remedy that by constructing new facilities. Um, each year that we submitted, we were not chosen. And the one differential I believe uh that we were chosen this past year is that we actually had land you
know to construct the schools. So it was a big differentiator uh just in my opinion. So you know I appreciate all the work that went into it. Once we got in uh accepted to that it essentially for our project hit a a reset button to put it a simple way. Um you know
previously to this as the commission is probably aware we were working towards a schematic design. We had a anticipated project cost of that schematic design at Gal Road. Uh but once we entered into the agreement with MSBA into this
program, uh we had to stop that and basically reset and we're in the point now of uh completing MSBA has a set of modules that we have to complete and the we're completing module one right now about to transition into module two. Uh
module two is essentially what they call forming a project team where we onboard uh op an owner's project manager and an architect to basically start the uh design all over again. So as I said it was like a reset button for the previous
effort that we were doing. Um because of that it it it it dragged out our timeline a little bit. So that reset button has kind of set us back a little over about two years and a half to two years. Um, and then what we've done is
we've looked at previously completed MSVA projects that are similar to ours and the associated timelines with those and each one of them either bring us directly to the time where that reverter clause would kick in or well beyond it. So there's there wasn't really any gray
area as we looked at MSBA. Um so with it the project that as we did it previously had a dollar value of 173 million MSVA has quoted that the Milton's reimbursement rate is 45% of what's
called eligible costs. So the makeup of the overall project there are certain costs that are eligible for reimbursement. There certain costs that are ineligible. Um, previously when we had our owner's project manager on, um, the call it the effective rate or the
diluted rate is about 28%. So when you apply 28% to $173 million project, it roughly equates out to about 48 million of reimburseed cost that the town would realize as we enter the MSBA
program. So long-winded answer, Mr. Chair, but I hope that answers it for you. So it looks like the financial swing is about $48 million that if not for state reimbursement would end up in the lap of the taxpayers of Milton.
>> Correct. >> All right. And uh this this article is is designed uh in your simple words not in your simple words but in simple words. How would you describe it? The purpose of the extension.
>> The purpose of the extension. So for us, you know, as as I mentioned, the my the deciding the deciding factor I think MSBA saw was that we have land available. So, you know, it's it's it's a doable project. Uh my concern would be
is if the reverta clause would were to hold as is today, we would enter into this process with MSBA work on a design at Cal Road and not be able to get through the hurdles or the additional modules to get to the point
of a project funding vote because we'd be tied down MSBA's timelines. um as a perfect example of how slow the process works. Module one they they provided a schedule duration of 270 days
that allow us to uh complete module one. We completed it in 90 days and that was July end of July or yeah end of June I believe beginning of July. We just had our meeting with MSBA this past week. So
all that time we've just been sitting waiting. you know what I mean? And now we're hoping to get a uh vote to transition to module 2 uh ideally in October. We're finding out it's not going to be till February. So, you know,
more of these timelines from working, you know, with the state agency is just dragging everything out. So my my concern is if we do not have the reverter clause, we'll go down a path with the MSBA and then at some point the
project would have to get changed because the land would not be there anymore and then essentially we'd have to go try to find land for this project and further delay it even more and maybe at that point sacrifice that that that uh funding option that we have from MSBA.
>> Understood. Uh, any questions from commission members? >> I have one. >> Go ahead, Don. >> Um, the clause goes until 2033.
The new date is 2033. >> Yep. >> That's eight years from now, right? >> Correct. What prevents us or town meeting from voting this
a year from now, two, three, four years from now when we might have a better idea about whether we actually need a school or whether this is the right place for a school. >> So I think you know just my read on it. So the need for a school is acknowledged
by MSBA. They've looked at our enrollment. They've looked at our statement of interest and have essentially put money up, if you want to call it that, of about $45 million to, you know, fund this project. So, I think the the need for a school is well
documented and agreed to by not only members of the town, but also members of state. um the location for the school. Again, you know, this article isn't there to to re litigate or rebate the land swap. I
think it's that was already decided by the town. It was signed by the governor. It's it was done. I think the point of this article is essentially a reverter clause as it applies to the new schedule that were kind of held to by MSBA.
I I don't think you answered my question, but I thank you for giving it a go. I really don't see why this this uh article couldn't be voted at a later time when
this project has come into more focus. Um if you want to push it out to 20 33, I just eight years is a long time. um a lot could change in eight years. So
it just seems to me that it's not might not be what people call ripe. The question is not ripe in my mind. But um that's only my opinion.
So the the one thing I'd ask is, you know, the timelines that I presented at Warren Committee showed the date for just getting to a single funding vote beyond that 2028 deadline that's there. Uh as you're probably aware from the
previous school building project where um the reimbursement rate was actually higher than the 45% that we're talking about now. It took over three votes. I believe to get the funding passed. So even though we're we're we're you know
looking at a schedule just to get to the first vote, I think the anticipation is this is going to take multiple votes by the time it gets out there due to just the elevated costs that we're looking at. So if we're that's you know from the data that we have now that's published
by MSBA that's kind of why we think it's now should be it at the beginning of the project not later. >> All right, one more question. You said >> that the town is behind this. Now, isn't it so that the uh taxpayers and
residents of the town will at some point get to vote on whether they want to spend however 150 million whatever it is. Uh and that vote hasn't occurred yet, has it? Right. the town voters of the town
have not approved a cost or a location or anything for this school. Right. >> So, a clarification that they haven't been given the opportunity to vote on that. So, >> all right. So, you said the town was behind it. In my view, the town is
behind it when the town votes for it. And has the town voted for it yet? >> We're representative by a town meeting that has representatives throughout the entire town. twothirds of >> a town meeting and can't spend the money. The voters have to spend the money.
>> Understood. And again, we're not at the point where we've had the opportunity as a town or the entire public to vote on it. The only >> All right. Do you see that? Do you then see why I say do you then see why I say that the town being behind it
>> needs to be kind of that needs to be defined more precisely because the voters who will pay for it have not voted on >> correctly >> okay >> correct again they have not had the opportunity we we had requested it from
the select board we had put essentially everything that was asked for in front of the select board last year to allow ow the town to vote on it and the select board did not allow the town to vote on it. So the opportunity for that does not fall in the school building committee. So we have been
working to do that to get in front of the town to get an answer to that. So my point is a representative town meeting that makes the decisions for the town right now is kind of the you know how our government operates here in the town has voted to support this.
>> Yeah. But we're going in circles. What I'm saying is the voters will approve the money and they have not done and you agree with me about that. So >> they have not done it because they have not had the opportunity, sir. >> All right. Well, you I I don't know
myself how they will vote, but I would say that until that happens, this project doesn't happen. Right. Tom, isn't it true though that as described by Sean and as as we
understand it, the town's going to have to expend a lot of money to build a school and it's going to require an override. >> Wait a minute, John. Wait a minute. Wait a minute, John. You say the town has to build a school. I'm the town as much as you are and I haven't been convinced
yet. When I will vote, I'll have to think that over. But the town has to build a school depending on the decision of the town. It's not something that comes from above. It's our decision. And uh
>> I I think we're have to decide whether to build a school or not. >> We have to decide where to build a school. >> Okay, Tom. >> So yeah, >> Tom, I think you're conflating two issues. The town meeting voted this land swap to build a school. That's
done. I'm talking about that. >> Okay, Tom, now you let me speak. That's one issue that's been resolved by town meeting by a twothirds vote. The second issue that I was addressing is
the override. So the question before the town now is do we ask for an override for X number of dollars to build a school which you said it hasn't happened yet or do we ask for that the citizens to support
a school to be built for X minus $48 million >> there is there is an identifiable issue you won't talk to >> you're not going to talk over me the issue is whether or not the vote to the
town is going to be for x number of dollars to build the school or is it going to be x minus $48 million that we the taxpayers of Milton can secure a benefit from the the Massachusetts school building administration.
It's a 48 million swing. Tom, >> isn't there a third option? John, you said we have to build a school. Who is who who is going to convince me of that? I'm not convinced. >> Apparently none, but we're we're all
riding on the vote of the town meeting and we are a representative town meeting. Uh that's in our charter and it's been that way since the pilgrims landed. And >> what I said to begin with I said to begin with the town has to vote on this
and they have not. >> Okay. Uh any other comments or questions? Yeah. One one more remark. Um, >> sure. >> You see the sign behind me that's backward? That's a sign on the land that we're talking about. And that's the land
that we, the conservation commission, pledged to conserve and protect. And in return for doing that, the money was made available to buy it from uh state
and federal funds. So we are the same commission. We are the heirs of the commissioners in 1978 that pledge to protect this land and now we've been encouraged to
unprotect it. And uh I didn't find that argument persuasive before and I don't find it persuasive now because I do not want to undo the work that our predecessors do. Now we
have heard a lot about how wonderful the swab is and how much land we're going to get. I'm just I think a lot of people know why that never persuaded me. I spoke 20 minutes at town meeting about that a couple of years ago. My argument
was namely all this land we're supposedly getting is unbuildable wetlands and so forth or various reasons why it's unlikely to be developed. So that what we are getting is sort of a fool's gold in my opinion. We're not
really getting real value. And that's why I made the argument that the swap passed, but EOEA did not approve it. And it will be at some time I think found to be unlawful because the fair market
value of what's coming out of article 97 is much less than what's going in because of the difference in values u decided by development value namely hopes
>> based on whose math Tom based on whose math? hopes. >> Show me, show me the assessment of the land and the value of the land relative to the two acres. Show me the actual math. >> Do you want me to do that? I'll do that for you right now. It has some
>> No, it's Tom. It's going to be it's it's going to be the same argument that you made and you're going to use the same numbers that you presented at town meeting and they wereed then >> and they're unsupported now and the town has voted. The legislature has approved
the swap. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has approved the swap. The governor signed the legisl Oh, I'm sorry. It's not. So, >> we're going to wait. We're going to do some factchecking here. We're to do some
factchecking. The legislature voted >> Yes. >> overwhelmingly to support the land swap on a home rule petition and the governor signed that bill. It is the law of the commonwealth. >> It was never approved by EOEA and that's
a um something that they could have received but did not. And if as it goes forward and uh questions are raised about these lack of for instance appraisals that were convincing
these these things will be perhaps litigated perhaps not but it will be shown that the swap does not conform to the new rule about open space namely that fair market value must be
equivalent between the land going out of article 97 seven and the land coming in now here at >> Tom. You're gonna you're going to be out of order pretty soon because there's a motion on the floor that is is up for discussion.
>> I'd ask you today to find your remarks to to the motion. >> Yeah. Well, >> not to the argument that you lost two years ago. Um, I I'm just trying to state my reaction to certain claims that
are made that I don't believe are valid. So, that's why I'm speaking up. At any rate, I don't believe anything I said tonight is not so, and I'd be glad to talk about it further, but if you would
like me not to talk anymore, I'll be glad to do that as well. I just felt like I as a member of this board, I need to state my position and my uh uh reaction to the proposal. And yes,
I'm I don't imagine I'm going to vote yes on this. And if you have any questions about why I'm not, I'll be glad to answer them. But as I say, I don't really feel this is a good deal either for conservation or for the town
in general. So that's where I am. >> All right. So the record is clear. I am not limiting your speech on the motion. >> That's right. I'm I don't I don't have any problem, John, with your um
allowance of me to speak. >> All right. Any other comments, questions? Now, Steve, y'all have to help me out with this because I can only see the uh nine screens in front of me. I don't see anybody else participating
>> other than commission members and and agents. >> I don't Sean Or >> I don't see anyone else on this on the screen >> myself. I'm just I just want to make sure that there's no other comments.
>> All right. So, the motion has been made and that is that be it resolved that the Milton Conservation Commission recommends that the town vote to um uh approve article 6 as printed in the warrant. We've all got copies of the warrant and uh uh before I ask for a
second, I would also point out that I think it would behoove all of us to be familiar with our own guidelines uh and bylaws. And section nine of the bylaws says that we shall weigh the public interest um a as part of our duty part
of our mandate to protect the resources that we also look to other social benefits and values and public good and I think section nine I think is appropriately considered under these circumstances. So the motion's been made. I ask for a second.
>> Second. >> Thank you Charlie. Is there any discussion >> hearing? None. Hans, how do you vote? >> I vote yes. >> Arthur, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Uh Charlie, how do you vote?
>> Yes. >> Wendy, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Tom, how do you vote? >> No. >> And I, John Cannon, vote yes. The motion carries. That's the end of the one point of the agenda. The other next on the agenda is
additional business. I have none. >> Anyone have one? >> John, I did have something really quick to bring up. >> Sure. >> Um it's it is unrelated to this. Um Steve, can you let me have the screen really quick? >> Uh yes, you can have the screen right
now. Go ahead. I believe >> trying. It's not there yet. >> Okay. >> If you can't do it, I can just run through verbally. It's fine. >> Sure. One one moment. Let me see. I I did it the other day uh pretty easily.
>> Much time. >> Share. Um, they change the Zoom methods all the time. >> That's okay, Steve. I can just run through it quickly verbally. Um, >> okay.
>> Just it's this is just something I'm working on. Um, that I thought would be uh of interest to the commission. Um, it's relative to energy projects. So, you know, I'm I work on these kind of projects. the mass energy facility
sighting board was um directed under um the 2024 climate act to to streamline the permitting process. Um they've since promulgated new regulations that haven't been approved yet. Um that will happen
um March 1st, 2026, but right now we're we're coming into a comment period. What is I think a value to the commission is something called consolidated local permitting. So um for uh energy
generation projects like solar or wind, solar is probably the most likely or even battery storage, those are the type of things we could see in Milton. Uh it also applies to transmission line projects. So if there's a new transmission line proposed that goes through Milton, it would also fall under
um the important thing is that um under the consolidated local permitting process. Um the uh towns are are that are affected would be required to issue a single permit that so basically if you the
zoning requirement wetlands requirement those sort of things that aren't typically don't fall under uh the energy facility sighting board the town would have to have a single consolidated permit and it would have to be issued within 12 months. Um the uh DOER is
going to be issuing guidance on how that happens, but um you know, some towns that are that have been very active in energy projects are already familiar with it. But um the I do know that the different energy companies in the area are um proposing a lot of upgrade work
and it's entirely possible that we might see in the future um projects that do affect the town of Milton. So I do think it is worthwhile to follow that. No, I I agree and I I think we actually
uh took a look at from the 25,000 foot level last June or July uh because the MACC had um issued some publications suggesting that conservation commission support this streamlining of the U of
the permitting process because part of the legislation proposed uh was also designed to expedite and to facilitate the restoration of wetlands. U and I think it was on our July agenda. It could have been the June agenda. Uh and it's all part of the same package.
Um and I and I understand it may limit the conservation commission's role because of streamlining the the energy sighting uh proposals, but it seems to make sense from a logical perspective to to speed up the process from five to six
years down to hopefully less than a year. Is that is that correct? >> Yes. That's my >> Yes, that's that's the intent and and hopefully it is a a positive um outcome, but it it will change the way that you know 351 towns in Massachusetts
do this to you know one way. So um I'll uh I'll share more as it as it continues to evolve. that that would be really helpful and uh and I think that MACC is is uh paying very close attention to this and at least thus far
has been very supportive of it. >> Yes. >> Good news. All right. Anything else under additional business? >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I may tie into what Hans was speaking about. Uh Hans might
be good to tie in with the chair of the climate action planning committee in Milton, Alex Hasha. That would be a very good dovetailing on this issue with that body as well. Okay, Tom, if you I mean Arthur, if you
have any suggestions on on who to contact you, happy to. >> Yeah, >> that's good. And Hans, please keep us informed at our our meetings as to what's going on and what progress is being made. >> Sure.
>> Okay. Thanks. Hearing nothing else for additional business. Uh is there a motion to adjourn? >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Um, second. >> Second. >> Thanks, Charlie. Any discussion? Hearing
none. Uh, voice vote. Hans, >> I vote yes. >> Arthur, >> yes. >> Charlie, >> yes. >> Wendy, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> And I vote yes as well. Thank you. Uh,
we are adjourned. Thanks all.