Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents question fuel‑surcharge repayment term and $1.24 million cemetery irrigation payment
Summary
At a town-hall public comment session, a resident questioned the city’s decision to use a long repayment term for fuel-surcharge financing and to pay $1,236,130.14 for a cemetery line from water funds; staff said the fuel site is a street asset and the cemetery pipe is a water department main.
At a Pocatello town hall public comment period, resident Heather Disilcone questioned the city’s treatment of two capital costs: a fuel‑site financing arrangement she described as a $2,600,000 loan with a 50‑year repayment term, and a December payment of about $1.236 million from water funds to replace a cemetery irrigation line.
“I reserve the remainder of my time,” Disilcone said, and asked council members to explain why a fuel-surcharge repayment for a $2,600,000 loan was set at a 50‑year repayment term when the recorded approval showed a 30‑year term, and why $1,236,130.14 for the Mountain View Cemetery irrigation-line replacement was paid from water enterprise funds rather than other sources.
Tom Kirkman, director of public services, replied that the fuel site is a street department asset and not a traditional interfund loan. Kirkman said staff presented financing and depreciation as two separate line items; both amounts are transferred back to the street fund, and the combined payoff period is effectively 28 years. “We… split it up to be half and half,” Kirkman said, and he said the city needs to recoup roughly $80,000 a year under the financing plan and that the city recouped about $84,000 last year.
On the cemetery irrigation payment, Kirkman said the water department had a main distribution line that runs through the cemetery and that replacing the main line was part of the water department’s replacement study. He said the city advanced the water-main work to avoid tearing up newly paved cemetery roads; the replacement used a “pipe‑bursting” method. Kirkman said he could not confirm whether the line is solely used for irrigation and emphasized that the pipe is a water-department asset.
No new council votes were taken during the town hall; the discussion recapped prior budget and contract decisions that Disilcone asked council members to explain.
Clarifying numerical details mentioned during the exchange included Disilcone’s reference to a $2,600,000 figure for the fuel financing discussion and Kirkman’s statement that the cemetery contractor was paid $1,236,130.14 to Allied Underground Technology (payment referenced by the speaker). Kirkman also said the combined financing/depreciation approach means the practical payoff is about 28 years and that the city’s annual recoup target on the fuel-surcharge item is roughly $80,000 per year (about $84,000 recouped last year).
