Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford committee trims CIP to seven projects for fiscal 2026; swing‑bridge faces rising cost and local match questions
Summary
Committee members identified seven projects to rank for fiscal 2026 and flagged rising construction costs on the swing bridge project, prompting discussion about federal/state match, local appropriation language and design certainty before town meeting.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Milford Capital Improvements Planning Committee identified seven projects that will be the focus of its ranking and recommended funding discussions for fiscal 2026, and members raised concerns about rising construction costs on the swing bridge that may increase the town’s local match.
Camille Pattison, who led the meeting, told the committee that “I think we have 7 projects that are actually we're pressing funding for this year.” The seven projects singled out for ranking include a DPW roof repair/maintenance project, a swing‑bridge replacement project, vehicle and equipment replacements for DPW (including a truck and a Caterpillar loader), a forestry truck for the Fire Department, a proposed CTE (career and technical education) renovation for the school district, and a South Street parking lot/127 Elm matter that requires direction from town leadership.
Members cautioned that the swing‑bridge project — which previously had large state involvement — is facing higher costs driven by rising raw‑material and construction prices. Pattison said the town now “anticipate[s], like, a 50% increase in project costs” and emphasized the need for a solid final design and a realistic estimate before placing a warrant article on the floor. The committee discussed that the state Department of Transportation (DOT) earlier classified part of the swing‑bridge funding as bridge funds and that the local match has historically been presented in warrant articles as the town’s share of a larger total appropriation.
Pattison and other members discussed how the town should present the appropriation: the full project total must be posted in the warrant so voters see the gross cost, but voters are responsible only for the town’s local share. The committee urged staff to secure a final design and a clear cost estimate prior to town meeting to avoid returning with supplemental requests.
The committee also heard that the DPW has applied to a Volkswagen grant program that could cover roughly 70% of a replacement truck, which would reduce the town’s local obligation if the grant is awarded. Members said they will still rank the truck project but noted the potential grant could change its priority on the final warrant.
Committee members asked that school representatives — identified in the packet as Christy Musha (school superintendent) and Sam Belcourt (CDE director) — present the district’s CTE proposal at the Saturday session so the committee can better evaluate scope and potential external funding. The district’s current CIP entry listed a request of $3,600,000 for a CTE upgrade; the committee flagged that the scale and possible state funding levels for such projects had changed since earlier statewide programs were available.
The discussion was directional and preparatory; no appropriation was made at the meeting. The committee directed staff to prepare updated financial tables and project descriptions for the June follow‑up meeting so members can complete formal rankings.
