Scofield hearing considers transfer of $40,000 from utility fund to general fund; residents raise concerns about mine revenue

Scofield held a public hearing June 9 to consider transferring $40,000 from the towns utility fund into the general fund for fiscal year 2026. The hearing was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Melissa Holloway.

Town staff explained the transfer would move revenue generated by the utility enterprise fund (water and sewer) into the general fund to cover costs that state law requires to be paid from the general fund, including the town hall, the school, park maintenance and street lighting. Staff said the transfer is a long-standing mechanism towns use to fund general-fund operations that the utility enterprise generates revenue to support.

The transfer was described as a way to reduce pressure on property taxes by using enterprise revenue for non-utility functions and to simplify accounting for payroll, benefits, legal services, insurance, buildings and maintenance, and collection costs for utility accounts.

Residents who spoke at the hearing raised questions about the towns reliance on mine-related utility revenue. The town receives utility income from a sewer contract to haul wastewater from the mine into the towns system; speakers said that contract and employment at the mine have increased the utility fund balance in recent years. One resident noted the mine workforce had grown from 430 to about 450 and argued that if mine-related revenue stopped, the town would need to raise water and sewer rates to cover the shortfall. "Your only option is to make up the shortfall with water and sewer rates," said Harvey Kelston, a resident who identified himself during the meeting.

Other public commenters and council members asked whether expenditures could be cut in the general fund to reduce or avoid the transfer. Staff and council members said most general-fund outlays are for necessities and routine maintenance: monthly street-light costs of about $410, park fence painting, building signs and equipment upkeep. Staff noted some planned projects, such as an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp at the town building, would be relatively costly because of concrete work.

Speakers also discussed the towns limited volunteer pool and the difficulty of finding residents to perform maintenance tasks. Council compensation was discussed: council pay was described as $400 per quarter (historically $60 per quarter), and some council members said the time commitment has grown while the pool of volunteers has shrunk. One resident suggested compiling a list of tasks for volunteers willing to help, but council members said scheduling and availability (many workers cannot attend weekday evening meetings) limit volunteer participation.

The hearing closed after a council member moved to end public comment; the council voice-voted in favor and the hearing was formally closed at 6:30 p.m. The record shows only that the hearing was closed by motion; the transcript does not record a final council decision on approving or denying the proposed $40,000 transfer.

The town staff repeatedly referenced compliance with state law as the legal basis for using an enterprise fund transfer to support general-fund obligations and said they had confirmed the procedure with the county finance office.

Next steps: the hearing closure does not constitute approval of the transfer. The council may consider the transfer in a subsequent meeting or adopt a formal motion at a later agenda item; the transcript provided for this hearing contains no final vote on moving the $40,000 into the general fund.