From left are Milford Town Council members Joellen Free, clerk/treasurer; Dan Cochran; Bob Cockburn; Doug Ruch, president.

MILFORD — In spite of two wastewater rate hikes in the last six years, Milford’s utility remains in the red, a fact which prompted its town council to pass a motion commissioning a rate study by Umbaugh and Associates at a cost of $6,500. The vote was 2 to 1, with member Dan Cochran voting against, and came after a vigorous debate that shed light on how the council’s past attempts to appease taxpayers is partially to blame for its current budget woes.

The discussion began with Umbaugh’s Ross Hagen presenting a comparison between Milford’s rates and those of 121 towns of similar size. The findings — from 2016, “a little bit stale,” according to Hagen — were based on an average consumption of 4,000 gallons per month and showed Milford’s current water rate to be roughly $2 below the average at $24.85 compared to $26.50. Milford’s wastewater rate, on the other hand, was 30 cents below the average, at $43.12 to $43.44.

The question asked by Cochran and residents in attendance (in spite of a flier distributed to attendees requesting they not assert themselves into council discussions except during public input) was if Umbaugh’s previous rate study for the town had been incorrect, considering wastewater’s continued struggle. “Was your study wrong?” Cochran asked. “Why would it work this time, since it didn’t work last time?”

Another question, asked by Milford resident Ken Long, was why the town needed to spend $6,500 when it could use the information readily available and do the work itself. “Why pay someone to tell you what you already know?” he queried.

Hagen responded he “hadn’t looked at the actual results” of the previous rate hike, saying unanticipated capital expenditures and inflation over the time the rates were phased in may be to blame.

In fact, the council did vote to phase-in the hike to soften the blow on residents. More interesting, however, was a point raised by Jay Rigdon, town attorney, who reminded the council it had not followed the study’s recommendations fully. The study actually called for an average rate of $45.85 per 4,000 gallons, not the $43.12 implemented, again, to cushion the blow to residents.

It is also generally agreed previous councils are also to blame — the town went more than 10 years without raising rates at all, in spite of an infrastructure, according to Utilities Superintendent Steven Marquart, more than 100 years old in places.

As for why an outside study had to be paid for, Rigdon said, “Go talk to the Utility Regulatory Commission.” Municipalities must justify their budgets and cannot do so based on their own numbers.

State rules also govern how the town budgets various funds. Council President Doug Ruch explored a number of possible ways to move money to utilities from other funds; however, Rigdon doubted such efforts in “creating a cushion” could be justified to the State Board of Accounts, which demands funds be used for a “particular project with a particular purpose.”

Town Clerk Joellen Free cited an example of such a move: CEDIT fund money was used to pay for the water tower restoration. Hagen added the rate study could also research such “scenarios.”

“We don’t know the answer until we do the study,” Ruch concluded, while admitting, “I hate to do it this quick.”

Cochran nevertheless voted against. “I sit here and question where are we spending the money.”