Budget committee debates ambulance replacement revolving fund as long-term financing option

The Milford Budget Advisory Committee on Jan. 14 discussed Warrant Article language to create a revolving fund for ambulance replacement and related equipment, focusing on whether anticipated ambulance revenue should be reserved for capital purchases rather than flowing into the town’s general fund.

Committee members and several town staff described the proposal as a way to smooth large, intermittent capital requests. Discussion participants said the ambulance service generates substantial recurring revenue—committee discussion cited annual transport revenue in the range of $800,000 to $900,000—and that the revolving fund proposal would divert an estimated $140,000 a year into a restricted account to be used for ambulance replacement. Proponents argued that putting anticipated revenue aside would reduce the need for large single-year warrant articles and avoid interest expenses associated with borrowing.

Opponents and some selectmen raised two main concerns: first, that moving anticipated revenue out of the general fund reduces the pool of money available for other town operations, which could indirectly affect tax burden or require trade-offs elsewhere in the budget; second, that voters and residents may perceive the transfer as removing offsetting revenue and thus increasing taxpayer cost for other services. Committee members also discussed the town’s history with capital reserve accounts and whether revolving funds would work better for Milford’s pattern of voter turnout and past capital funding decisions.

The committee reviewed implementation details raised by staff: the proposal would require a warrant vote to create the non‑lapsing account, anticipated revenue would be credited annually, and expenditures would still be subject to voter approval when required. Members debated whether the revolving fund would be financed from ‘‘anticipated’’ or ‘‘unanticipated’’ revenue in different scenarios, and how transparency of the earmarked funds would be communicated to voters.

Committee members said the item had previously been recorded on an earlier advisory tally as 6-0-3 (a preliminary committee score reported to the committee), but no final committee vote was taken at the Jan. 14 meeting. Members agreed to continue the discussion, incorporate clarifying language in their write‑up, and resolve remaining questions before deliberative session.

Ending

Committee members asked staff for additional clarifications on projected annual receipts and on the precise warrant wording to ensure voters understand the effect of diverting anticipated ambulance revenue into a restricted account. The article will return to the committee for finalization ahead of the deliberative session.