Milford Aldermen Approve Annual Hazard Mitigation Progress Report after Rejecting Amendment to Remove TBD Projects
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
After a lengthy debate over projects listed as 'TBD' and potential funding exposure, the Board of Aldermen rejected an amendment to redact unspecified items and then approved the City's Community Rating System annual progress report; roll call recorded 11-4 in favor of the final report.
The Milford Board of Aldermen approved the City's Community Rating System (CRS) annual progress report after an extended debate over items listed with undetermined funding sources.
Alderman Wynne Smith (speaker 2) objected to approving the tracker as presented, saying the document included large, undefined cost items and repeatedly warned against potential fiscal exposure. "I will never do that. That is irresponsible to do for the city of Milford," Smith said, citing what he summarized as about "$89,629,135" in potential funding shown on the spreadsheet and arguing for line-by-line votes on projects that require city money.
City staff and the city attorney repeatedly told the board the vote under consideration was to acknowledge and submit an annual progress report required by the city's federally approved hazard mitigation plan and the FEMA Community Rating System, not to authorize city funding. Mary Rose Colombo, the Inland Wetlands Agent and Hazard Mitigation contact, explained the reporting cadence and purpose: the spreadsheet is updated twice yearly and the annual submission helps maintain the city's CRS rating and improve competitiveness for grants. "This spreadsheet does not obligate the city to funding any of these projects," she said.
Aldermen debated a proposed amendment that would have removed item 12 and items N46 through N58 (the projects marked "TBD") from attachment 8b before voting on the remaining items. Supporters argued removing TBD items would let the board approve only projects with known funding and give clearer fiscal oversight. Opponents said removing those entries would reduce transparency, hurt future grant competitiveness, and undermine the purpose of the status report. Mayor Smith and others said listing projects with TBD funding helps the city pursue outside grants and does not commit the city to pay without subsequent board approval.
The amendment to redact the TBD items was defeated in a roll call (11 no, 4 yes). The board then proceeded to vote on the underlying annual progress report. A roll call of the final motion recorded 11 yes and 4 no; the board moved to accept the CRS annual progress report and authorized the mayor and designated staff to take steps necessary to effectuate the program, including required submissions to FEMA.
The board also reserved the right to review and approve funding should any particular project later require city funds. Several aldermen said they would insist on line-item presentations and specific funding plans when any single project came forward for implementation.
The vote maintains Milford's administrative compliance with FEMA and preserves its Community Rating System reporting, which staff said currently yields a 5% discount on flood insurance policies for Milford residents.
What happens next: the city will finalize required submissions tied to the CRS by the Feb. 1 deadline and staff will continue to update the hazard mitigation action tracker for annual review. Any project that requires municipal funding is expected to return to the Board for separate approval.