The meeting began with a presentation from the town farm committee, focusing on affordable housing. The committee, led by Morgan, has been active since January. Morgan discussed the committee’s efforts to engage various stakeholders and highlighted the need for affordable housing in Milton. However, significant disagreements arose concerning the proposed scale of housing at a site in question. Concerns were expressed regarding the understanding of terms such as “60% of AMI” (average median income), which relate to the socioeconomic implications for potential residents. Morgan emphasized the educational process the committee underwent to understand these factors and acknowledged that the current proposal might not adequately serve lower-income residents.

The committee’s report recommended further exploration into the demographics targeted by the housing, proposing a mix of unit sizes to accommodate diverse family structures. A reduction in the number of proposed units was suggested, although consensus on the exact number remains undetermined. The Select Board was left to deliberate on this issue further. The conversation also touched on an existing Request for Proposals (RFP), discussing the possibility of engaging with the remaining developer to adjust the number of units proposed. Concerns about infrastructure, particularly the narrow access road and potential traffic impact, were also raised.

The meeting then addressed the Neponet River’s pollution issues. The river, impacted by significant contamination, has been under study to understand pollution levels, with the EPA working on four remediation options. Among these, the removal of the Tileston and Hollingsworth Dam emerged as a favored solution due to the extent of contamination. However, uncertainty regarding funding for the cleanup persists, with indications that numerous companies have contributed to the pollution over decades. The EPA has recommended option four for remediation, emphasizing that the other options might not fully address contamination and could require additional efforts later. The board acknowledged the implications of dam removal on water flow and potential flooding, with past incidents causing concern.

Further discussion highlighted the contamination of marshland adjacent to the river and the need for ongoing monitoring post-cleanup. The conversation also underscored the importance of community engagement in future decisions regarding the river’s use, with suggestions for recreational enhancements like boat ramps and picnic areas. A letter was drafted to support the EPA’s preferred alternative, highlighting the potential use of a nearby paper mill site for staging cleanup activities.

Turning to fiscal matters, the board discussed the need for anti-bias training for town employees and elected officials. A consensus emerged on the necessity of such training, with a focus on understanding diverse perspectives. The Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association (Maya) was proposed as a provider for a basic training program. The Equity and Justice Committee was suggested as a resource for further exploration of training options.

The meeting also reviewed the town’s fiscal year-end status, with updates from Mr. Milano regarding the budget pressures linked to employee benefits and increased costs from winter snow and ice removal. An update on the Milton Budget Coordination Committee’s charge and membership was provided, with changes made to include one resident each from the Select Board and the School Committee.

In addition, discussions centered on a proposed contract with Capital Strategic Solutions for a financial and operational review. While the firm had submitted a proposal, it was not included in the meeting packet. The engagement aims to provide an in-depth review of town and school operations, with a focus on recommendations for improvements. Concerns about the timeline for the project, expected to take three to six months, were raised, emphasizing the need for school buy-in.

Lastly, the board addressed the future of the old East Milton fire station. An appeal was made to consider selling the station to secure additional funding for a new fire station project. The old station, built in the early 1950s, faces accessibility issues and no longer meets national response time standards. The board discussed potential uses for the old station, including community feedback and a public vetting process.