Council reviews capital wish list: drainage, firehouse, senior center, airport and recreation projects

Milford City Council spent a large portion of its April 15 work session reviewing capital‑project wish‑list items and assigning preliminary priorities for the FY 2025–26 tentative budget.

Drainage and stormwater: Council revisited a drainage master plan study as a prerequisite to larger drainage projects. Staff recalled a prior capital improvement plan that listed a master plan estimate of about $70,000; staff said that, historically, the Capital Improvement Board (CIB) could match 50% of a master plan study but that funding for actual construction would require other sources. Councilors also discussed a specific drainage project on 600 North at Main Street. Staff said UDOT had offered to help with culverts across the highway; the project was described as being on hold pending easements and advanced development decisions. The meeting record included two closely stated cost figures for that work in different places in the discussion (one speaker said $180,160 and later a total of $188,000 was referenced). Staff said the city would likely carry general‑fund costs and that state contributions would depend on the final bid and agreement.

Old fire station and shop lot: Councilors reviewed a plan to remodel the old fire station, with line items discussed for an asphalt parking lot ($24,235), new doors and garage openings (multiple doors, a rough total figure for a set of doors was discussed as $25,000 for four doors), installing five new floors (itemized at $16,002.38 in the packet), paint and siding, and a Connex storage container (cited purchase price $3,850; the container had been purchased to avoid an expected tariff increase). Councilors agreed to prioritize some exterior work (doors, siding, painting) and to stagger other items as funding allows. For the broader shop/yard area, councilors asked staff to develop a multi‑year plan (a five‑year staging approach was suggested) rather than make an immediate decision on curb and gutter.

Senior center: The council reviewed a bid to asphalt beneath a carport at the senior center (bid cited at $4,233) to replace crumbly concrete that crews reported was deteriorating from salt use; the council categorized that as a capital improvement to be paid from the general fund. Councilors also discussed tile replacement and kitchen cabinet/countertop upgrades at the senior center and agreed to obtain updated bids for the next budget year.

Airport and hangars: The council placed runway and hanger roofing work in a lower priority category (discussed as a “3”) while staff look for suitable materials and options; one staffer said an existing product intended for interior bays is not suitable for roofs and recommended further investigation.

Recreation and concession stand awning: A bid for an awning at the Red Complex concession stand came in at $4,750. During procurement staff discovered the contractor ordered a different profile of metal than expected (the meeting trace shows an itemized material cost difference of $1,400 for the originally expected metal versus $3,600 for the alternate material). Councilors discussed whether to proceed with the higher‑rib material (more expensive but more labor efficient) and whether the purchased metal (already delivered to a staff member) could be reused for other shading or carport needs across the complex. Councilors asked staff to confirm with the contractor whether the $4,750 bid would need a change order if the material specification changed.

Other items: councilors discussed vehicle and equipment needs (sander/salt supplies, chip seal/road maintenance), the industrial park project (to proceed on grant funding), sidewalk rehabilitation and tree‑root damage on Main Street (staff relayed an expert recommendation that problem trees ultimately may need removal for permanent repairs), an annexation policy and amortization plan (Sunrise quote mentioned at $6,000), and a zoning ordinance review for which the city applied for UDOT funding (figure cited at $26,000). Council also discussed whether to continue a $10,000 contribution to county economic‑development efforts after a county staff departure; no final decision was recorded.

Councilors emphasized that most capital items will require bidding and that some projects are contingent on outside approvals (UDOT, easements, or grant awards). Several projects were designated as high, medium or low priority but no formal appropriation was made at the work session.