The Milford Budget Advisory Committee on Jan. 7 reviewed a proposed 2025 municipal operating budget of $19,300,099 and gave preliminary advisory votes on a slate of warrant articles that town officials will present at upcoming hearings.

Troy Neff, Milford's finance director, told the committee the revised 2025 budget proposal represents a 5.69% increase over the 2024 operating budget of $18,261,680 and that the town's default budget for 2025 calculates to $18,729,002.81. "As of right now, the proposed revised 2025 budget is $19,300,099," Neff said during the session.

The nut of the meeting was an item-by-item review of warrant articles the board of selectmen had approved for presentation to voters. Committee members were asked to record a preliminary, nonbinding vote on each article to give the selectmen a sense of the committee's recommendations ahead of the town's budget-and-bond hearings and the deliberative session.

Committee members discussed both large, state-matched capital projects and smaller, town-funded items. Among the articles the committee considered were: a $1,000,000 authorization (via bond) for the water department to provide matching funds for federal grant opportunities; a $250,000 appropriation and authorization to bond up to $225,000 for construction of a new lower-level restroom at the Wadley Memorial Library (described by staff as also providing warming-station capacity); operating budget votes for water and wastewater departments; a state-funded rehabilitation for a historic pedestrian swing bridge (estimated $700,000, with the state covering 80%); a dump truck lease-purchase; town road reconstruction; an article to hire three full-time firefighters; and a proposal to establish a revolving fund for ambulance replacements and related equipment.

The committee recorded preliminary advisory votes on each warrant item. Most articles drew unanimous preliminary support from the committee; a handful (notably the article proposing three full-time firefighters and the ambulance revolving fund) drew abstentions and additional questions from members. Committee members stressed that these were advisory, pre-deliberative votes to inform the selectmen and staff and not the final town votes.

The committee also discussed how the default budget is calculated and how that figure is used in voter materials. Several members said they worried the default number can appear misleading to residents if voters do not see the contractual adjustments and required increases that were factored into the default figure. Neff and other staff explained the default budget equals last year's operating budget plus contractual and other mandated increases; it does not include one-time purchases or cost-of-living adjustments that the selectmen may add in a proposed budget.

The meeting included extended operational and policy questions about public-works infrastructure (water main breaks, replacement of aged pipes) and library facility uses. Committee members asked about implementation timing, capital-reserve balances, and the process for petition warrant articles.

Ending: The committee completed preliminary votes and assigned members to write the warrant-article descriptions the committee will circulate to voters. Committee members and staff agreed to follow up with additional details requested during the meeting before the next session.