Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scofield holds public hearing on proposed water-rate increases to qualify for rural funding
Summary
At a Feb. 9 public hearing, Scofield officials discussed raising the monthly base rate to $35, adding $0.25 to each tier, and applying a 2.5% annual increase over seven years to improve eligibility for rural water financing; the council closed the hearing without adopting rates.
Scofield held a public hearing Feb. 9 to consider proposed changes to monthly water user rates intended to improve the town’s eligibility for low-interest rural water financing. Speakers outlined a proposal to raise the monthly base rate to $35 and to add $0.25 to each tiered rate, coupled with a 2.5% annual increase for up to seven years.
Speaker 1 (not identified) described the consultant’s recommendation, saying the changes would make the town “qualify us to get some funding” and laying out the proposed tier adjustments: “So that would make tier 1 a dollar 75 rather than a dollar 50. Tier 2, $2.75 rather than $2.50. Tier 3, $3.25 instead of 3 dollars. And tier 4, $3.75 instead of $3.50.” The speaker also framed the need as practical: aging lines and sizable water and sewer projects often require millions in financing.
Another council member, Speaker 2, recalled a more aggressive figure recommended by a federal adviser, saying, “If I remember correctly, she had recommended, up to $70 a month, mainly stating that if we reach out for grants, you have to show that the town has earnestly been sending money aside.” Members contrasted that USDA example — which was described during the hearing as using statewide median household income and producing very high monthly-cost examples — with rural water program metrics that use an Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI)-based standard and may require a lower threshold.
Council members discussed mechanics and timing. Speaker 1 presented example calculations showing a 2.5% annual increase would move the base from the cited current rate (spoken as $23 during the hearing) to roughly $35.87 in the first year and to about $41 by the seventh year; members debated whether a fixed-dollar annual increase might be easier for bookkeeping. Several speakers also said the town’s ability to secure favorable financing could depend on local revenue sources, including continued operations at the Skylight Mine, which participants said has been subsidizing some costs.
No final action on the rate proposal was taken at the hearing. Speaker 3 made a motion to close the public hearing on the water rates and Speaker 1 seconded; a vocal “Aye” vote closed the hearing at 06:55. The council did not adopt any ordinance or formal rate change during the meeting; members indicated rates could be revisited if circumstances change.
Next steps: the council may return the proposal for amendment or formal adoption at a later meeting after staff refines the rate schedule and bookkeeping approach and after clarifying eligibility thresholds for rural water or USDA funding.
