Notes from the Board of Aldermen (Aug. 5 & Sept. 9, 2024)
Cybersecurity, Annual Action Plan, Bonding Refinancing, Annual Report (2023-2024), School Facilities Assessment, and Vape Shop Prohibition
First and foremost, apologies for the delay on the happenings in local government. I promised to provide updates in the spirit of transparency — but my time to sit down and write has been limited over the past few weeks between my work obligations and travel (also for work!). Then I thought best to combine the report.
Excuses aside, ultimately, both the Milford Board of Aldermen meetings on Aug. 5 and Sept. 9 were relatively uncontroversial; however, as always, there are topics to highlight and even a recent study on Milford’s schools I’d like to point out (in case you dear reader haven’t already heard). Without further ado, let’s dive in!
August 5
During Public Comment, which after the Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Cal, opens the meeting, there were several Milford residents who raised the alarm on the erosion on Wildermere Beach’s shoreline, asking for assistance — to “consider all possibilities” as one citizen put it — to protect the beach and homes along the coastline. In the months since, I have no update on the situation, but will report in this newsletter once I do.
There were several appointments to the Conservation Commission, the Council of Aging, the Sewer Commission and the Civil Service Commission. The first two required no approval from the Board of Aldermen, but the last two did; and they were unanimously approved. Your new representatives on those commissions are:
Sarah Lilley: Conservation Commission
Mary Lou Bevvino: Council of Aging
Thomas Buzelle: Sewer Commission
Antonia Dituri: Civil Service Commission
The next item concerned a proposed agreement between the South Central Regional Council of Governments (SCROG) and the City of Milford for the Regional Cybersecurity and Protection Program. Per the contract, on behalf of SCROG, Novus Insight, Inc., — an independent contractor — would assess the city’s cybersecurity deficiencies and provide solutions to our IT Department. For the report, the City of Milford would owe $33,200.00, but the costs would be covered by the American Rescue Plan Act (or ARPA funds). Unlike other contracts presented to the Board of Aldermen during my tenure, this was not a “take it or leave it” scenario, and the City of Milford is not obligated financially to fix any of the problems Novus discovers. However, in this digital age and massive data breaches, I thought prudent to vote for the agreement to see how we can protect the City (and even the costs associated with, God forbid, if our system suffered a data breach). My colleagues thought likewise. It was unanimously approved.
The Board of Aldermen also unanimously approved a grant contract that would allow the City Clerk’s office to digitize, preserve and improve access to historic documents for the public. The total cost is $7,500, primarily for consultants/vendors and equipment.
The bulk of the evening considered the City of Milford’s FY 2024 Annual Action Plan, and accept the annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Award of $536,043 for the program year beginning October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. This amount, per the resolution, was advised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Here is the breakdown of what the grant monies would fund:
Grant Planning and Administration: $108,732.00
Beth El Center, No-Freeze Emergency Center: $19,049.00
Beth El Center Community Kitchen: $19,000
Boys & Girls Club, Teen Center After-School Staff: $10,000
Literacy Volunteers of S.C., Program Coordinator: $5,000.00
Milford Transit District, Disable/Elderly Van Transport: $10,000.00
Department of Human Services, Rent & Mortgage Assistance: $15,000.00
Rape Crisis Center of Milford, Inc., Victims Services: $3,500.00
DPW, Public Improvements, ADA Curb & Sidewalk: $76,762.00
Milford Redevelopment Housing Partnership, Hardware Alarm Panels: $75,000.00
Single Family Residential Repair Program: $75,000.00
Housing Program Administration: $29,000.00
Multi-Family Residential Repair Program: $60,000.00
Homeownership Program: $30,000
One area in particular that raised my attention was under “Housing Strategy” with a goal stating, “Create more affordable housing options in the City of Milford for renters and homeowners.” Since affordable housing is an issue in Milford (and municipalities across Connecticut), I asked what this goal meant — and I was told by Julie Nash, director of Economic and Community Development, that it referred to 13 livable areas at the Beth El Shelter. With this assurance, I voted for the grant. The action plan was unanimously approved.
Watch the full meeting below.
September 9
The meeting’s Public Comment period mostly concentrated on the Aqua Jet Swim Club utilization of the McCann Natatorium (a public pool), located behind the Milford Academy. The program’s supporters are upset that the Milford Recreation Department is not only raising rates, but also decreasing their time allotment to use the pool.
In an email exchange to the Board of Aldermen prior to the meeting, Lauren McCann — the club’s manager — wrote (in part):
“This past June, the city of Milford decided against renewing the operating agreement with the Aqua Jet Swim Club. The recreation department has indicated that they want to take over our Adult Fitness Swim portion of our program. To clarify the Aqua Jet Swim Club is made up of three programs. The Adult Fitness Swim, one on one, lessons and, the competitive swim team. …
In an email to me, the recreation department proposed the exact hourly rate and number hours of what Amity Regional Aquatic Club (ARAC) pays to the town of Orange. ARAC has about 150 competitive swimmers. We only have approximately 30 competitive swimmers. So, by increasing the hourly rate to $31/hour and taking away our all our Adult Fitness Swim and lessons, they are dismantling our program that has flourished for over 37 years at the McCann Natatorium. The recreation department has said that if we want more hours, they would be available to us at $75 per hour.”
The Recreation Department, meanwhile, is raising rates to cover operating costs and wants to include more programming in the McCann Natatorium, which, technically, is in their right since it is a public pool. As of writing this, I have not received a resolution to the issue.
In regular business, there were several appointments, two of which needed the Board of Aldermen’s approval:
Coreen Edwards: Milford Redevelopment and Housing Partnership
Suzanne DiBiase: Constable
Pasquale Civitella: Constable
While a large portion of the September 9 meeting was dedicated to Executive Session, the rest covered a ‘Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Up to $45 million for the Costs Associated with City of Milford General Obligation Refunding Bonds.’ These mostly focused on bonds from 2014. In total, all in, Milford is bonded for $169.4 million.
Refinancing bonds isn’t exactly like refinancing a home; however, when I asked Finance Director Peter Erodici via email (prior to the meeting) about the interest rates and savings, he told me:
“The interest rates in 2014 were about 3.42% and they are now about 2.8%. Generally, rates have come down 50-100 basis points since June 2024,” and that “Expected savings are about $1.6 million (emphasis mine). We will try to put as much savings as we can into the next budget year FY26 with the remainder over the course of the refunding bonds term and some in FY25.”
He added, “The refunding bonds will pay off most or all of the remaining principal on the previous bond issues. The term of the refunding bonds will not be 20 years. The term on refunding bonds can range from about 6 to 10 years, for example.”
Mayor Tony Giannattasio also assured me that by refinancing, “The City will realize a savings” for the long term, which, in turn, will “help with reducing the bond debt budget line item” in next year’s budget.
In the end, I voted for refinancing in order to save Milford’s taxpayers money and set us up for a more stable budgeting process in the spring of 2025.
Watch the full meeting below.
Annual Report (2023-2024)
On Sept. 9, the Board of Aldermen received the City of Milford’s Annual Report (2023-2024), where Mayor Giannattasio outlined FY24 Preliminary figures, including:
Total Estimated Revenues: $258,499,543
Total Estimated Expenditures: $251,033,408
Cash Advance to FY24-25: $5,000,000
Operational Results: $2,466,135
The last amount is reportedly “due, in part, to better than expected tax collections and revenues. Surplus revenues were offset by lower than expected fee and/or other income,” according to the report.
Milford Board of Education Facilities Discussion
This has not been discussed at any Board of Aldermen meeting, but, while you are here (if you still are), it’s worth noting that the Milford Board of Education, on Sept. 9, received a report that the school system needs about $475 million in improvements over the next 20 years, according to Bureau Veritas, a consultant.
In response, Superintendent Dr. Anna Cutaia said, “This report, along with the building capacity and utilization study done last fall, enrollment projections, future academic programming needs, and our five-year district goals, will help inform the steps we will take in developing a long range facilities plan that will support the comprehensive programming we envision for our district and continue to be a pride of our community.”
This figure, even spaced out over 20 years, is highly large, veering toward the ridiculously expensive for Milford taxpayers. Without inflation, supply chain issues and general labor costs, this equals to $23.75 million per year. Yet in the Board of Education’s initial adopted budget, the Facilities line came to $4,793,280 — or 9.91% of the total expenditures. Yes, the City of Milford could bond these expenses (i.e., spread them out over time), but this tally is unaffordable as is, especially with declining enrollment.
If our schools need this magnitude of repairs to provide modern educational needs, perhaps it would be more cost effective to close down and/or combine schools into a brand new facility (for comparison, Platt Technical High School’s new building cost approximately $123 million). Regardless, following this report, it might be time to consider the third rail discussion no one wants to have.
Vape Shop Prohibition
The Milford Planning and Zoning Board has approved a regulation banning the “further expansion of vape shops in the city,” according to the Milford Patch.
In a statement, Mayor Giannattasio said:
“Over the last several weeks, I’ve heard from an overwhelming number of residents, business owners, and community leaders regarding the proliferation of vape shops in the city. In response to this outpouring of concern, I submitted a regulation proposal on behalf of the citizens of Milford to prohibit additional vape shops in the city to the Planning and Zoning Board. There are currently 15 vape shops in the city and these products all too often end up in the hands of our children.
On Tuesday evening, the Planning and Zoning Board voted to adopt the resolution prohibiting additional vape shops from opening in Milford. This is a win for the people of Milford who have expressed concern about the health and safety of our children and preserving the character of our historic downtown.
I want to express my thanks and appreciation to Planning and Zoning Board members, John Agnese, Etan Hirsch, Mark Macchio, Joseph Alling, Bryan Anderson, and Marc Zahariades for listening to the community, supporting public health, and working in a bipartisan manner to adopt a prohibition on vape shops.”
What do I think about this move?
Obviously, this was made in light of the smoke shop in downtown Milford, across the street from Cafe Atlantique. While I don’t care for smoke shops (since I don’t smoke), as a proponent of free market economics, I’m always cautious about outright bans because it could be a slippery slope.
If there are added security concerns or even aesthetic/character concerns, those are things to consider — or even the location of these shops. But on the latter, Milford has the apartment monstrosities/developments right downtown, which I think are worse than the smoke shop in terms of defacing the city’s colonial heritage/smalltown charm, yet still, they are being constructed.
And what other business could be banned in Milford down the line? If we’re afraid of promoting vices, then why not prohibit liquor stores again? Smoking products already have numerous health warning labels, we can only do so much — people, in the end, have free will. Now if that free will infringes on other’s inalienable rights, then we can/should consider a ban. I don’t know if this is warranted.
To borrow from when Mike Bloomberg wanted to ban large sodas in New York City, no one likes a “nanny” state. There are also multiple stopgaps before an outright ban, and it mostly starts in the home, friend groups and smaller communities. But even after that, there can be drug prevention programs or even developing new policing strategies.
Yes, there is a fair argument about government shepherding people toward the ultimate Good (or the “summum bonum” to quote St. Thomas Aquinas) — but there needs to be a shared idea of what the “Good” means. If that’s protecting kids’ health (which is a good), that is a responsibility that first falls to the parents and/or guardians, not the government.
Government’s role is secure people’s rights. If these shops are infringing on those rights, then again that’s a case to be made — which I’m not seeing/hearing right now. Plus, if people don’t frequent those shops, then they’ll die out and move elsewhere.
Again, I am not fond of the smoke shops or kids using them. As a proponent of limited government, my caution is how this ban could be utilized in the future and if will we see actual health results. I could be wrong, but this is my initial view on the ban.
If you have read this far, my apologies for the ramblings. As always, feel free to contact me at afowler@milfordct.gov.