Milford selectmen and MAC Base representatives opened a July 9 work session to review a proposed rewrite of the Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) that governs the regional MAC Base dispatch service and its funding.

The group said the current IMA—based on language that dates back decades—does not reflect the system’s recent changes in ownership, property holdings and technology. Participants prioritized clearer rules for capital versus operating costs, revised customer-pricing rules, and more explicit vote and ownership language in the agreement.

Why it matters: the IMA determines how three member towns share operating costs, how capital improvements get funded and who holds votes on MAC Base governance. Milford currently pays roughly 71% of operating costs while owning about 33% of the system, a discrepancy speakers repeatedly raised as a rationale for rewriting the agreement.

Discussion highlights

- Scope of rewrite and history: Participants said the older IMA was written when MAC Base owned multiple radio sites and large amounts of equipment. Over time sites and equipment have been sold or transferred and the agreement has not been substantially modernized, leaving “vague” language about facilities, capital funding and voting rights.

- Voting and governance: The draft IMA retains a provision (cited in the meeting from the draft, page 3, section 4, paragraph b) that gives Milford’s representative two votes on matters before the governing board; other members receive one vote. Attendees discussed whether vote weight should continue to be tied to historical thresholds or to majority payers (for example, a party paying more than 50% of bills). The draft’s language and its application drew repeated requests for clearer definitions.

- Capital versus operating budgets: The group discussed creating a separate capital budget line or capital improvement fund distinct from operating expenses so MAC Base could plan and encumber funds for multi-year projects (for example, a $105,000 furniture purchase discussed during the session). Participants noted current practice is to “encumber” unused operational funds at year end for projects, but that practice depends on each member’s willingness to leave surplus funds with MAC Base rather than have towns reclaim them.

- Customer pricing and service categories: The draft proposes differentiating members (voting) from non-voting customers. Attendees discussed removing a distinct DPW charge from customer pricing (described as an ancillary service) and shifting the pricing formula to weight police calls more heavily than fire or EMS. A working example discussed in the session would set police at roughly 50% of a customer fee and split the remainder between fire and EMS (25% and 25%). The draft also includes a longstanding reduction for non-voting customers (a 7.5% discount in the draft); participants debated whether that percentage is still appropriate and suggested a lower reduction (one speaker proposed 5%).

- Customers and population math: Staff explained that customer populations are added into the population-based formula and that bringing on customers can reduce members’ percentages by increasing the combined population base. Customers are charged before members in the draft billing flow, which alters the final member assessment.

Agreed work plan and directions

Attendees agreed on four primary action items to advance before joint meetings with the select boards of member towns: (1) define a capital-expenditure breakdown and how capital costs will be apportioned; (2) construct the operating budget to include a distinct capital-expenditure line; (3) better define MAC Base facilities and assets in the IMA text; and (4) restructure customer-pricing percentages and the non-voting discount language. Participants also directed staff to clean up formatting issues in the draft (several speakers said the document should be retyped to remove legacy formatting) and to produce specific language and spreadsheets showing proposed percentage outcomes for review.

Next steps and schedule

The board set a page-by-page approach for subsequent work sessions, starting with pages 1–2 at the next meeting. Participants discussed meeting with all select boards once the board-level language and key bullet points are agreed so towns can avoid repeated “battle” discussions at town select board meetings. Several speakers emphasized the importance of addressing the surplus/encumbrance issue and the legal question of whether funds held by MAC Base can be retained across years without individual towns reclaiming them.

Formal action

The only formal motion recorded in the transcript was to adjourn the work session; the motion passed by voice vote.

Ending

Board members thanked staff for drafting the updated IMA language and agreed to continue incremental, page-by-page revisions at the next work session so the draft can be reviewed with each member town’s select board before a final IMA is circulated for signatures.