LIVERMORE – Voters will have 55 warrant articles to consider and a proposed $1.1 million municipal budget before them at the annual town meeting at 7 p.m. June 12 at the Livermore Elementary School gym.

The proposed fiscal 2009 budget is $13,027 less than this year’s budget, but more money will be needed through taxation to cover expenses due to the lack of carryover budget funds that are traditionally used to help reduce the tax commitment.

In addition, expenses were exceeded this year due to rising cost of fuel, a long winter and unanticipated but necessary road work, said Kurt Schaub, Livermore’s administrative assistant.

To cover this year’s budget, $959,728 in taxes were raised. Under the proposed budget, $1,026,386 is needed from taxes for town government operating expenses, which reflects an increase of about $66,600, according to a town budget summary.

The increase exceeds the state’s recommended growth factor cap for the town, which is set at $40,500.

In order to exceed that amount, voters will be asked to approve an article that lets the town exceed the cap by $26,157, the document shows.

By the time additional fuel costs, school costs and county taxes are added up there is no way a tax increase could be avoided, Schaub said.

The existing tax rate is $13.95 per $1,000 of property valuation, and he anticipates the rate could rise by $1 to cover the increased expenses.

Also Thursday, voters will be asked to consider raising $25,000 for a valuation update, which is half the amount that is needed. The other $25,000 would be raised in the fiscal 2010 budget.

The valuation update would improve the fairness of property taxes and extend the life of a full revaluation done about five years ago, Schaub said.

Voters will also consider adopting a 158-page comprehensive plan.

“Because of the far-reaching state requirements, certain elements of the plan do not sit well with residents and, for that matter, members of our Comprehensive Planning Committee,” Schaub said. “The most contentious element, not surprisingly, is future land use planning.”

The Comprehensive Planning Committee worked hard to balance the state’s requirements with the town’s objectives, Schaub said.

“In doing so, they stress that none of the plan’s elements, especially with regard to land use, has the authority of an ordinance,” he said. “All future efforts in this will require town meeting action.”

The benefit to having an updated comprehensive plan is it provides guidance to the boards and committees and opens the door to grant opportunities, Schaub said.

“Most federal programs now require evidence that funding will be used for projects deemed consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan,” he said. “Thus, if approved, the plan can have financial benefits, but the tools within it must be used with care.”