County Council - Session - Regular Meeting

So I think we're ready to get started. We're still waiting for one counselor to join us remotely, but we'll get going in the meantime. So I want to welcome everybody to the June 9th, 2026 County Council regular session. And just a little bit on the procedure. The procedure is the same as it's been for many years now. It's going to be in hybrid format with council presenters and public participation in person or on Zoom. I just thank everybody for being in person here tonight in council chambers. So virtual attendees can participate by computer or other device. We also do have phone lines. So we'll be taking public comments tonight on items that are not on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting here shortly. And then we'll have comments on agenda items as we go through the items during the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Royale will look for virtual attendees that use the raise your hand feature. or if they're on the phone line, they use star 9. And we're going to ask that people limit their comments to three minutes or as otherwise directed, and make sure that you state your name before making comments. We also ask that virtual commenters include their name on Zoom so they can be properly addressed. We also ask that comments be addressed to the chair and be focused on the topic being considered. Our goal is to complete the meeting no later than 10 PM tonight, and we'll check our progress around 9 with this goal in mind. So now on to the first item, which is opening in roll call. So we have one councillor on Zoom. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councillor Wrighty?

I'm here.

Councillor Regard?

Here.

Councillor Hunt? Here. Councillor Cole?

Here.

Councilor Haberman?

Here.

Councilor Neal-Clinton?

Here.

Councilor Herman?

Here.

We, um, I'm sorry, uh, all councilors present except for Councilor Hand.

Okay, let the record show that we have, uh, five counselors here in person. We have counselors, have them in, you know, Clinton call Brady and Rieger. And we also have counselor Herman online. So we're on to item number two now. So it's the pledge of allegiance. So if you're please stand, if you're willing and able and join us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, so now we're on to item number three, which is statements regarding the closed session. So there's a counselor willing to read this statement into the record. Counselor Cole?

Following statement should be included in the minutes. The matters discussed in the closed session of County Council held on June 9th, 2026, that began at 4 p.m., was limited only to the topics specified in the notice of the closed session, and no action was taken on any matter in the closed session. We request that this statement be included in the minutes.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Cole. So now we're on to public comment. As I mentioned a couple A minute or two ago. So if there's any public comment for items that are not on tonight's agenda. Okay, not, I think we do have one comment. So please, we have somebody in person here. Please come up and just state your name. And then we'll get the timer up for three minutes for you. Okay.

Thank you, Chairman Reidy. My name is Greg Mello. I'm the director of the Los Alamos Study Group. I'm grateful to speak with all of you here this evening. And I'm hoping that in the future we'll be able to have an agenda item that will cover some of what I'm about to say so that we can have more interaction. I want to speak about We at the Los Alamos Study Group are concerned about the council going to Washington and lobbying for NNSA programs and hiring people to assist with this and injecting itself into the policy-making process in Washington. The county makes a great deal of money from the design and development of weapons of mass destruction and now the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. These are very controversial topics and there's, we think, a strong conflict of interest at the federal level with the county. I want to say that last Thursday the House Armed Services Committee passed out a bill which would increase the total pit production requirement to 180 pits per year, 180, for a combination of this site and the Savannah River site by the year 2050. This is a large number we have never seen before, and the 2050 date allows enough time for Triad or a successor contractor to build another nuclear facility here at the lab. So there could well be another PF4 or comparable facility here by 2050. As I think I've mentioned before, we are in a different political environment than we have been What was normal in the 90s and less gradually less normal is now very abnormal in that there are no negotiations going on as required under international law, specifically Article 6 of the NPT. We want to prove Peggy Pond Church wrong when she said that Los Alamos was the worst thing that ever happened to New Mexico. So what to do? Foster public discussions. I mean, I want to encourage you to think big. Fact-finding trips to our erstwhile enemies, Russia and China. There was a sister city relationship with Sarov. There should be, again, this type of citizen diplomacy since the formal diplomacy from the State Department has broken down so badly. It is a legal requirement of federal government. There were exchange programs. Some of the people who have served on the council were part of those exchange programs in the past and felt very strongly and positively about them. And one thing that I do not understand is whether the actual manufacturer of plutonium pits is exempt from gross receipts tax or the extent to which it is exempt under the state's manufacturing exemption. Okay, I think your time is up. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. I look forward to speaking with you again.

Okay, so I think we do have another public comment coming up.

Chair Reddy, before the next public comment, I wanted to note that Councillor Hand has joined the meeting. Okay, great. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Wrighty, members of the council. I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce a new member of the community development in Los Alamos County teams. Standing next to me is Max Kudiakoff. He is our recently hired economic development administrator. We're super, super excited to finally get him in the building. And Once he gets through this week's car wash of trainings, we hope to get him moving on a number of our high priority economic development projects. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Max to say a few things.

Yeah, absolutely. Good evening, everybody. Thank you so much for welcoming me to the county. I'm really excited to be here and really grateful for this opportunity. So I'm really, really excited to work on everything economic development related. So thank you.

Okay, thank you both. So looking forward to talking to you further. Let's see, are there any other public comment here in chambers? Mr. Real, can you check online to see if there's any public comment?

If you're online, and you'd like to make a public comment, please raise your hand. Not seeing any chair.

Okay. So I think we're on to item number five, which is approval of the agenda. Is there a council? Sorry, making a motion on the agenda.

I move we approve tonight's agenda as presented. Second.

Okay. So we have a motion by council. I have been second by councilor call. Okay. I'm not seeing any discussion. So I think can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Rieger?

Yes.

Counselor Cole? Yes. Counselor Haveman?

Yes.

Counselor Herman? Yes. Counselor Reidy?

Yes.

Counselor Neal-Clinton?

Yes.

Counselor Hunt? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, let the record show the motion passes unanimously. Now we're on to item six, which is presentations, proclamations, and recognitions. 6A is 21157. So it's a proclamation declaring June 7th to 13th as LGBTQ plus Pride Week in Los Alamos County. And we'll be having it accepted by the Pride Board. Luke Eichelbach and others will be doing that. And first we'll have Councilor Cohn, please read the proclamation.

Thank you, Chair. Proclamation. Whereas everyone has the right to live without fear, prejudice, discrimination, violence or hatred based on gender identity or expression or sexual orientation. And whereas June is National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus or LGBTQ Plus Pride Month. a time to celebrate, educate, and engage the community on the issues, contributions, culture, and unique voice of LGBTQ plus people and the impact they have on local and global communities. And whereas it is desirable to bring together LGBTQ plus people and their allies to form a tangible community of support and acceptance in Los Alamos County to create and enhance visibility and support of diversity in our community, and support LGBTQ plus youth who are four times likelier to attempt suicide or twice as likely to be bullied at school. And whereas according to Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth, published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, visible LGBTQ plus support from parents, friends, and community during adolescence each uniquely contributed to positive well-being in young adulthood. resulting in reduction in depressive symptoms, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Now, therefore, on behalf of the Council of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, I do hereby proclaim June 7th through 13th, 2026, as LGBTQ Plus Pride Week in Los Alamos County. And we urge our citizens to respect and honor our diversity, celebrate and build a culture of inclusiveness and acceptance, participate in this year's los alamos pride festival taking place on friday june 12th from 3 to 7 pm at central park square dated this ninth day of june 2026 and signed by randall righty chair of the los alamos county council thank you counselor well uh so would michael buck like to come up to the and you can bring some of your organizers up with you if they'd like i think they're going to come up for the photo okay

or we're coming up. Hello. My name is Luke Iglebach. My pronouns are he, him. And I am here this evening representing the Los Alamos Pride Collective, some of whom are also behind me. We are the group of volunteers who's been putting on pride in Los Alamos since the inaugural festival here in 2018. Our group is a self-described ball of love and chaos because we have a lot of heart and maybe not the best organizational skills, but thankfully when you lead with your heart only good things follow and I couldn't be more proud of the magic that we've brought to Los Alamos in the past eight years. Thank you very much to Chair Reidy, to Councillor Call for reading the proclamation, to all of you for your support, and for continuing to declare the second week of June LGBTQ Plus Pride Week in Los Alamos. It means so much to the queer community to know that we are recognized, valued members of Los Alamos, especially now. Especially now, I very much wish that I didn't need to have those last two words in that paragraph. I look forward with all my might to the day when we can talk about fighting for our rights only in the past tense. And that day will come. But for now, I can't talk about pride without first recognizing that we are very much in a fight for our rights. Our rights to exist in public spaces, to have official documents that reflect our true identities, for our ability to travel abroad, and so much more. But tonight, this week, this Pride Month, we remember something that cannot be forgotten in the midst of resistance, that our joy, queer joy, is both sacred and necessary. Sacred because it connects us to all those ancestors and elders who came before us, the beautiful, vivid people who taught us to dance and laugh and love and live despite the hostilities of the world. Queer joy, trans joy, is sacred because it exists without permission, with or without understanding. Queer joy is necessary because resistance without joy is finite, a well that quickly runs dry and leaves us tired and thirsty. Joy reminds us what it is we're fighting for. To paraphrase a line from the musical Hadestown, joy allows us to see what the world could be despite of the way that it is. Joy is our window into a future with all of us in it, living as our full authentic selves. In the time we live in, it is incredibly easy to see the darkness, to get mired in it like it were wet concrete around our ankles. But there is so much light to be found if you only turn your face to it. All over New Mexico and all over America, queer people are not just surviving, not just fighting, but blossoming. We are working in careers that both satisfy and challenge us. We are spending our Friday nights at the local brewery and friends, acquaintances, and strangers stop to say hello. We're having great British baking show style baking contests with our friends and giving each other Hollywood handshakes. We're buying houses and filling them to the brim with things and people and pets that make us happy. We're taking trips to see all the national parks. We're falling in love. And this month, we're gathering our community together to celebrate. Pride celebrates queer folks, trans folks, LGBT folks, but it's also for you, the community that holds us and helps us thrive. So I invite all of you to join us at Central Park Square on Friday, and I thank you for all that you do throughout the year to uplift our community. Thank you and happy Pride.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, so now we're on to item 6B, 21706-26.

as a recognition for Special Olympic Athlete that's participating in the Hema's Mountain Trail Run. And this was courtesy of Councilor Everman asked us to put this together and appreciate getting the people here. So you have the proclamation to read, please.

Thank you, Chair Reidy. A recognition. Whereas the Jemez Mountain Trail Runs has been organized in Los Alamos by the High Altitude Athletics Club and Atomic City Road Runners for 19 years, encouraging all to enjoy our beautiful trails and open spaces, as well as engage in healthy habits and promote wellbeing. And whereas New Mexico athletes with intellectual disabilities have been discovering new strengths and success through the power of sport since Special Olympics New Mexico was incorporated in 1977, forging a better community of acceptance and inclusion. And whereas Adam Trebeau and Art Montoya were instrumental in spearheading the movement to get two inspiring athletes training, guidance, and support in order to participate in the Jemez Mountain Trail runs. And whereas on May 9th, 2026, two inspiring athletes with intellectual disabilities joined the 19th annual Jemez Mountain Trail runs. Bella Cyberg completed the 15-mile run, powering through 2,283 feet of elevation gain. And Ben Blewett completed the 50K run, undertaking 31.6 miles of rugged mountain terrain and 5,869 feet of elevation gain. This is the kind of joy and fulfillment our community can achieve when all individuals are included and celebrated. And whereas Jemez Mountain Trail runs displayed exemplary natural resource protection by partnering with Los Alamos County Environmental Services, the Environmental Sustainability Board, and the Los Alamos Sustainability Alliance, by creating a zero waste sorting station. With the help of participants, hundreds of pounds of waste were diverted to recycling, reuse, and composting, promoting Los Alamos County's strategic goal of environmental stewardship. Now, therefore, on behalf of the Council of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, I do hereby recognize Bella Cyberg and Ben Blewett and express our gratitude for inspiring our community with passion and discipline. Their remarkable achievements are a powerful reminder that the realm of human potential is vast when approached with open hearts and minds. dated this ninth day of June 2026 and will be signed by our chair, Randall Wrighty.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Edelman. So would anybody like to make any comments or just come up and get the... Oh, he doesn't say.

Mr. Chairman, esteemed counsel, Madam Counselor, thank you. My name is Adam Trubo. I'm on the board of Special Olympics New Mexico. Madam Counselor, to correct you, it's a 33-mile run, courtesy of Laura. It's not a 50K. It's heavy. It's 33. So on record, thank you to High Altitude Athletics for putting on a world-class event and allowing this to happen. What Laura and her team does is a treasure for the state, as well as Los Alamos. It's a pleasure to come up and do it. It gives opportunities for all New Mexicans to do hard things and to experience what ultra is really about. Ben and Bella tonight shouldn't be recognized for finishing the run, but for starting a movement. You know, they're trendsetters and they're breaking the ceiling. So thank you for the recognition and having us up here.

Christopher McConkey- Also have this has all the materials to pass out. Thank you so much for the event and the opportunity to recognize these athletes. So now we're on to item 6C, which is 21653-26. It's going to be a presentation on the wildlife assessment project by representatives from Environmental Solutions and Innovations Incorporated. And I believe we're going to have Ms. Buckland give a brief introduction.

Good evening. Thank you, Council Chair Reidy and Councillors. Tonight we are joined by Daniel Levitt, Amanda Rine and Andy Dobson from Environmental Solutions and Innovations Incorporation. They're going to give us a quick introduction and kind of overview, a kickoff overview of the wildlife assessment project that we have started this week. And so I'm going to go ahead and pass it over to Daniel here. Thanks for joining us. And we'll stand for questions at the end of their brief presentation. Thank you.

Thank you and thank you for having me. I wanted to express our gratitude to the county for bringing us into this project to assist you all with a wildlife assessment. These were the slides that we presented at the kickoff meeting that took place a little over two weeks ago. And we can move to the next slide, please. Just a little bit about our company. We've been around for over 25 years now. And for the most part, the company focuses on trying to initiate problem solving projects. in the exact manner that you're looking for. We deliver integrated services to help a variety of clients work through environmental challenges. And oftentimes that requires field expertise, scientific analysis and knowledge or regulatory understanding to help create solutions to complex challenges. And on this slide, you'll see that our core values there in that little circle icon. And I say this to my team, I say it to other clients as well, that if you're not seeing conservation, collaboration, and integrity through our actions and through our work, please let us know, because that is truly the core of what ESI intends to accommodate in our work. We can move to the next slide, please. So our team has a lot of background, and you'll meet other members of the team and hear about them. But I wanted to provide a couple examples of the type of work that we do to give you a sense of what we're capable of, some of the similar projects we've done in and around your region. and then some that are similar to your region or to your problem, but may not be from New Mexico. One, recently we were working with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District on a fire risk assessment model. where we established an assessment of the likelihood of on the ground fire and containment evaluations. And we integrated feedback from local fire districts and management services. It was something that we had contracted in a short period of time. and were able to deliver on establishing this risk assessment model that would help the MRGCD essentially plan around their large landscape in terms of fire risk. It was a collaborative project. We worked very closely with them on a regular cadence, and we've been hearing nothing but good things from them. And they've been able to take that product and start putting it to action in terms of management, things that they could do to fix the problem that they were seeing. Another one that we do is data analysis and research. There's a species of lizard that occurs in southeastern New Mexico that is currently under a conservation agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. And what we provide is essentially comprehensive scientific monitoring and decision support for that agreement and for our clients. So it's everything from data analysis to assessing the data and providing a... assessment of, you know, where they can apply management technique to enhance habitat for the species. We can look at the next slide for a couple more options or another a couple experiences that we have. These are Missouri Department of Conservation Habitat Conservation Plan and the Florida Department of Transportation bat acoustic and exclusion training. In the habitat conservation plan, very similar to the lizard project, but this was with bats, we did a little bit more enhanced data analysis and provided predictive models to understand everything from the total number of animals to where they might occur or when they might occur on the landscape and how to apply that to the Department of Conservation's overall management goals. in Missouri. And then with Florida, the DOT essentially working with them to establish training videos. They have a lot of staff that have a lot of exposure to bats in different ways and into bat habitat in different ways. And so establishing training videos for them and then also establishing the bat acoustic detection for them. And we can go to the next slide, please, where we introduce our team. So, hi, I'm Dan. Yeah, I've already introduced myself, but just to give you a little background of myself. Prior to being with ESI, I worked with the federal government. I used to work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Arizona Ecological Services Office. Prior to that, I'd worked with the Department of Navy. And also Arizona Game and Fish Department prior to that was conducting a lot of research in the state of New Mexico as a graduate student. So I've got about 20 years of wildlife biology experience and most of it has been dedicated towards trying to understand how to fix complicated problems. So As we get into the next few slides, one of our, we can stay on that one for now, thank you. The team slide, please. If you wouldn't mind going back, thanks. Our team is well prepared to help address the challenges in Los Alamos County. And I just want to give an example of my experience that's specific to y'all's problems. I used to work at a public works department for the Department of Navy in the deserts in California at a naval range called China Lake, which is a bombing range. A lot of similarities there in terms of the type of activities that were taking place on the Navy range, the type of people who would arrive in the community. and the challenges that they would face because they were in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by all of this wildlife. And so the services that I provided to them were to assess how they interact with wildlife and to provide trainings, to provide assessments of how they can improve upon management. And we hope to apply a lot of that technique here for you all. With me tonight is Amanda Rine and Andy Dobson. I will allow them to introduce themselves, and then I'll give a brief overview for Dr. Boyles and Caitlin. Go ahead, Amanda.

Good evening, everyone. I am Amanda Rine. I'm a wildlife biologist with ESI. I'm based in Albuquerque. I have over 11 years of experience conducting wildlife surveys and habitat assessments for a wide variety of species. I also complete technical reports and regulatory documents for complex projects. For this project, my focus will be on data collection and review, technical analysis, and I'll also be leading the development of the final wildlife assessment report. I'm really excited to dig in and looking forward to working with you all.

Hello, everyone. My name is Andy Dobson. I'm an urban planner with ESI. And my background and education is in public administration and urban planning. I've worked for local city governments and county governments, as well as consulting firms. And I will be helping out on this project a lot with The the geospatial analysis, putting putting the data and the maps together to help tell the story of what's going on here. Do a lot of outreach and engagement building on what you know what Los Alamos has already already accomplished building on those efforts and You know, a lot of my experience has been in natural hazard mitigation. And, you know, in a way, this situation facing the community is kind of maybe a spillover effect of some of the, you know, some of the extreme weather, some of the wildfires, some of the, you know, habitat changes that have been occurring, changing patterns with wildlife populations. And so it's kind of Kind of integrated into all that. And anyways, yes, like Amanda and David or Daniel, I'm looking forward to working with the community. Any questions?

I'll just do a quick intro for Dr. Boyles and Caitlin. So on our team also, not represented tonight other than by a photograph, is Dr. Justin Boyles, who used to be a faculty member at Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. And he... His background is essentially in human wildlife conflict. So a very key member of our team and one of our lead reviewers and one of the brighter minds that I get to interact with on a day to day. Somebody who is essential to our functioning and our ability to understand complex issues. In addition to Dr. Boyles is Caitlin Hellman, one of our many wildlife biologists, a budding young wildlife biologist, probably out right now collecting data on bats, actually probably getting close to going out for the evening to start setting nets or checking on acoustic detectors. But yeah, that's our team. That's who will be serving for you guys today. And then now we're going to give you a little brief overview of what we are proposing to do for you all. And Amanda is going to handle the next slides.

Thank you, Dan. So we understand that the community of Los Alamos is really challenged by a high deer population, and that's resulting in deer becoming habituated to the human environment. You're seeing more wildlife vehicle collisions since the wildlife is on the roadways. And the community has also expressed concern for the potential spread of parasites and diseases like rabies or hantavirus. Property damage and negative wildlife interactions are also particularly worrying, especially when there's large predators involved. We understand over the last few years, the county has been working with New Mexico Game and Fish, or I guess it's New Mexico Department of Wildlife now, and local police to kind of identify some of these concerns and assess the level of public awareness regarding wildlife feeding and how to interact with wildlife. We know that last year the county passed an ordinance against feeding wildlife on public and private property to protect health, safety, and welfare of the community and the wildlife. But Los Alamos is a really beautiful and unique place, and you're surrounded by national forests and tons of variety of wildlife. So the goal is to reduce those negative interactions while also retaining positive interactions like safe wildlife viewing. Next slide, please. So we've laid out a planned process. It's going to occur in three phases. During phase one, we're going to review the existing information and frame the issues. We're going to emphasize synthesizing that existing information. So you all already have a lot of valuable data. So we can review the prior surveys, agency records, any published research. We'll pull all that together first before we consider any kind of new data collection to kind of save time and money. We don't want to... have unnecessary data collection or technical complexity. We want to give you what you need, but not over-engineer the process. We'll be thorough, but keep it focused and accessible so it's useful to decision makers. And we want to have a clear, defensible understanding of current wildlife related challenges. So our findings will be grounded in established methods and documented evidence. so that the county can stand behind the conclusions if questions arise from the public or regulators or other stakeholders. The second phase is a risk and priority assessment. Not every issue carries the same urgency. So we're gonna help the county identify where to focus first and develop strategies that can realistically move forward given the current constraints. Phase three will be management and policy options. Those will focus on practical action options aligned with the county's authority and resources. These recommendations will be realistic things the county can actually have the jurisdiction and capacity to do. Next slide, please. So during phase one, we're going to take all the existing information regarding the wildlife conditions and concerns, including vehicle collision records. Collision data is a really concrete indicator of where and how severely wildlife is impacting the community. We'll review all the available records and identify patterns in the timing, the location, and the species involved. We'll also review wildlife related complaints. So we'll get complaint logs from the county and other agencies to tell us where residents are really feeling the effects of wildlife activity. That helps us ground the assessment and real documented community experience. Also look at existing reports, policies, and public facing materials. We want to understand what's already been studied, decided, and communicated. That includes prior wildlife assessments, management plans, or the educational resources already in circulation. And we want to also review the documented concerns. Deer and other large wildlife tend to drive the most visible and high priority concerns in communities like this. we'll compile what's already on record. So we're building on existing knowledge. Next slide, please. Phase two is a risk and priority assessment. So this will build on all the information that we synthesized in phase one. It picks up directly where we left off. The value of phase one is really realized here is that information becomes the foundation for analysis. We'll evaluate and prioritize the wildlife related issues. We use structured documented approach so that prioritization decisions are explainable and defensible, not just judgment calls. The county will be able to see exactly how and why issues are ranked the way that they were. Issues that are assessed and ranked based on public safety, feasibility, and public acceptance. These three criteria reflect what actually matters for a workable management strategy. An issue can be ecologically significant, but if it scores low on feasibility or public support, it might not be where the county should focus first. An example of that is... identifying current and future wildlife vehicle collision zones so that would be a concrete illustration of what the framework can produce so by combining collision records with what we know about deer movement and behavior we can map out not just where problems exist today but where they're likely to emerge which gives the county a chance to get ahead of them those are kind of some of the things that that we're looking uh to assess using the phase one data next slide please Phase three is our management and policy options. For phase three, we're going to identify practical management strategies across four categories. Every strategy comes with trade-offs. We'll be upfront about potential costs, how effective each approach is expected to be, and where implementation challenges are likely to arise so the county can make informed decisions. We will consider potential costs. Cost considerations are addressed realistically. Even where exact figures aren't available, we'll provide enough context for the county to evaluate whether an option is financially viable. Also look at expected effectiveness. So we'll draw on documented outcomes from similar programs and jurisdictions when possible so that effectiveness estimates are grounded in real-world experience and not just assumptions. Implementation challenges. So some strategies may be straightforward to adopt. Others may face logistical, political, regulatory hurdles. We'll flag these up front to help the county prioritize what's actually actionable in the near term. And identifying implementation responsibility. This is a really critical piece. Some actions the county can take independently, but others may require coordination with New Mexico Department of Wildlife, Department of Transportation, or other partners. So we want to be clear about who owns what to help avoid confusion and set realistic expectations for timelines and outcomes. Next slide, please. We've kind of created a preliminary timeline. This is definitely subject to adjustment once we get to start digging into the data and some of the existing materials. But this is a preliminary timeline to accomplish the three phases of the plan process to deliver the final report and the final presentation to council. This is just our best estimate at this stage. It will likely be refined so we can get a better sense of the county's priorities and preferences to inform that. submission of the final report. We will provide the county with a draft report for review so that you can make comments or ask questions. And then the final report will incorporate any of those comments. Prior to the council presentation, we'll conduct a formal briefing session of the final wildlife assessment to the county. That briefing will include an overview of the key issues and priorities. a discussion or recommended management options and a Q&A session to support the county's understanding of the assessment. Next slide, please. So we would love to answer any questions that you all may have for our introduction here. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much to Dr. Leavitt, Ms. Ryan, and Mr. Dobson for the information. Do we have any counselor questions or comments?

Thank you, Chair. I have just two quick questions regarding the lizard that's endangered. How do you monitor them?

Well, that's simple council member with buckets. We place buckets in the ground level with the ground five gallon buckets in grids of 30. And we have multiple sites across the range of the species. And they are monitored on a recurring basis over the course of their active season. So we do a mark and recapture on them. And then we...

Is there any type of tracking device used or do you just physically go and check the buckets?

For this method, we do only mark them and release them. We don't use any tracking devices, but we have done tracking research in the past.

Okay. And my other question is, how did you choose which variables to use for the rankings? Because you were saying that when you score that there's a ranking function file that you use, how did you choose the variables that fit into that?

That's based upon standard from kind of traditional wildlife and human conflict text and pretty common throughout that whole field of study.

So what I think I heard you say is that there's a template that you use within your industry and that's what you chose for this.

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Nielsen. Yeah, so I was curious about a couple of things. So I didn't see explicitly community engagement. I guess there was community preferences that came in at some point. So where does community engagement come in with the project?

So I think that the, there will be a few different opportunities. One, community engagement will be through the actual reporting and the briefing. And then any of the potential options that involve engagement would be identified in that assessment.

Okay. So no formal, communication plan on this one? I'm looking at this book one. Since the people in line probably can't tell.

Chair Reidy, councillors, I think that within the scope of work for this assessment, we're starting with kind of assessing the community as it is. And there may be an opportunity throughout the process, especially as we move from phase one to phase two to reach out to the community and do some engagement. that is a data collection element as well and or an encouragement. We know there are some resources and opportunities to be able to share with ESI. And those things are not yet known in this process. We really are starting from first gathering the data that we have and providing that to them so that they can start from that point. So the opportunities for community engagement may grow throughout the process.

Okay, so now on the opposite end. So obviously this is a lot of expert opinion. So do we think, so this is going to take about a year. Do we think that we have information available right now on what other communities are doing in New Mexico that could help lead to not having to take a whole year to do this study?

Chair Reidy, Councillors, I think that's an excellent question. And I think that as we dig into the data again, this is pretty early because it's kind of a kickoff here just so you can introduce ourselves. But as we hand over as much data as we can and get ESI connected with the New Mexico Wildlife Department and start to pass them all that information, we may be able to identify some opportunities there as well.

Okay, that sounds good. Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions or comments from council. So we'll see if anybody wants to make public comment. Okay, I'm not seeing anybody come jump up here. Mr. Rael, can you check online? Chair Reidy, I'm not seeing any hands raised. Okay. Well, thanks again for letting us have this kickoff and a good way to publicize the activity and looking forward to when the results are available. Okay. Thank you so much. So thanks for being here. Thank you. Okay. So we're on to item number seven, which is public comment for items on the consent agenda. So once again, we'll look to see if there's any public comment here in chambers.

Good evening. My name is Paige Ramsey. I'm standing here tonight to urge the council to vote no on the gas rate increase. We are looking at a compound burden on local families if this ordinances passes. Working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and everyday residents are going to see their gas bill jump significantly this July and then again next year. And let's not look at this in a vacuum. This is hitting right as the county's aggressive new electric bill structures are rolling out or time of use. Our community is being squeezed from every single angle and it is by our own local government. To give you a perspective on what this actually looks like, I work three jobs and I still keep my thermostat at 60 in the winter and 60 at night. I'm living in a cold house just so I can make sure that I can afford my utilities. And your response to the residents who are already stretching every penny is to demand even more. When you look at the reasoning behind this increase, it reads entirely like a corporate boardroom presentation. The Department of Public Utility tells us that because we had warmer winters, gas sales dropped, revenues fell short, and now we have to make up the difference for the utilities' cash reserves. Think about how upside down that logic is for every public service. When corporates lose money because the demand drops, they raise prices because they have captive customers and it is their legal duty to protect their shareholders. But you're not a corporate board of directors. You are a county council. You don't have shareholders. You have constituents. When did the metric for success in Los Alamos shift from how well we are serving our people to how can we pad our corporate cash flow? Every single one of you ran for office on a simple foundational promise to help the people of Los Alamos. You campaigned on making this county more livable, supportive, and accessible place for families and workers. But look at the reality of the policies you're enacting. You penalize the residents for using less energies. You ask people like me, who are already cold in our own homes, to pay more for less. You're punishing the conservation and crushing the lower income households who cannot afford to immediately drop thousands of dollars to replace their home's heating systems with electrical pumps. Your current trajectory is actively driving up the cost of living in this town, and it's already very expensive. When the financial ledger drops, a corporation protects its bottom line. But a public government is supposed to absorb the shock for the people or find internal efficiencies rather than treating its citizens like an unlimited line of credit. I ask you to look past the spreadsheet tonight. Remember the promises you made when you asked us to vote for you. Stop acting like a boredom corporation and looking to balance the budget sheets on the backs of a captive market and start acting like public servants we elected you to be. Please vote now on this tax rate hike. Thank you.

Okay. I didn't want to interrupt you, so we're going to be hearing that later. So if you want to stick around for the discussion on that, So that's not a different part of the agenda, but we heard your comment about the gas rate increase. So do we have any, did we check online yet? We did. Okay. Okay. So I think we're ready for the consent agenda motion, unless there's some item that a counselor wants to remove from the agenda. So is there a counselor, a counselor called, did you want to make the motion?

I move that council approve the items on the consent agenda as presented and that the motions and the staff reports be included for the record.

Second.

So we have motion by Councillor Cole, second by Councillor Neal-Clinton. And just for clarification, this is not the gas rate increase yet. So just... for information. So we're voting on something, a different set of items. Okay. So I'm not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councillor Hunt? Yes. Councillor Wrighty?

Yes.

Councillor Cole?

Yes.

Councillor McClinton?

Yes.

Councillor Rieger?

Yes.

Councillor Haberman.

Yes.

Councillor Herman. Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.

Okay. Let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're going to be on to item nine, which is introduction of ordinances. We're going to have four ordinances to introduce tonight. Um, So if counselors would be ready to read them, that would be great. So 9A is CO 0758-26. It's going to be the Incorporated County of Los Alamos Code Ordinance number 02-383, an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinance of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos by repealing Chapter 8, boards and commissions and article X. So article six 14 in its entirety, replacing it with provisions to create inclusivity board. So is there a counselor willing to read this one into the record?

I introduced without prejudice incorporated County of Los Alamos code ordinance number zero two dash three 83 and ask the staff to assure that it is published as provided in the County charter.

Okay, thank you, Council Call. So I believe that the public hearing will be at the end of the month for this one. So 9B is CO0746-26. This is the Incorporated County of Los Alamos Code Ordinance number 02380, an ordinance amending the Department of Public Works Utilities water rate service schedules. So is there a councillor that would be willing to read this one?

Mine just died. Okay.

Be ready for the next one, somebody. That one's going to be a long one.

I introduce without prejudice Incorporated County of Los Alamos Code Ordinance Number 02-380, an ordinance amending the Department of Public Utilities water service rate schedules, Chapter 40, Article 3, Sections 40-171, 40-173, and 40-175, and adding new Sections 40-176, 40-177 and 40-178 to the incorporated County of Los Alamos code.

Okay. Thank you. That's a call. And I believe this one is also scheduled for June 30th. So a nine C O R one, one, three, three dash two six. This is introduction of incorporated County of Los Alamos ordinance number seven, five, six, It's an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, reverse receipts, tax improvement revenue bonds, series 2026A, in the principal amount not to exceed $35 million for the purpose of acquiring, extending, enlarging, bettering, repairing, otherwise improving fire station four, plus a number of other items. Is there a councillor that would like to read this one?

Councillor Neill-Pittman. I introduce that prejudice incorporated county of Los Alamos ordinance number 756 an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the incorporated county of Los Alamos New Mexico gross receipts tax improvement revenue bonds. Series 2026A in the principal amount not to exceed $35 million for the purpose of acquiring, extending, enlarging, bettering, repairing, and otherwise improving a fire station number four, firefighting and safety facilities and equipment, and other public buildings, facilities, and infrastructure. Providing that the bonds will be payable and collectible from certain gross receipts tax revenues distributed to the county. Approving the form of the preliminary official statement included in the agenda packet and asking staff to assure that it is published and as provided in the county charter.

Thank you, Councilman England. So this one is scheduled for July 7th for a public hearing. So now we're on to the last one for tonight. It's 9D-CO-0759-26. It's the introduction of Incorporated County Los Alamos Code Ordinance Number 02-384, amending Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 6-10, Bites and Pounding. So is there a councilwoman willing to read this one? Councilor Huffman?

I introduce without prejudice, Incorporated County of Los Alamos Code Ordinance Number 02-384, amending Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 6-10, Bytes, impounding, and ask staff to assure that it is published as provided in the county charter. Thank you, Councilor Hattman.

So now we're on Item 10, Public Hearings. So we have five public hearings tonight. 10A is O.R. 1127-26C. It's in Corporate County, Los Alamos, ordinance number 754, an ordinance granting a cable franchise to Comcast of Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Washington, LLC, to construct, operate, and maintain a cable system in the public rights way and to provide cable service within the Incorporate County, Los Alamos, establishing terms and conditions of the franchise agreement and establishing certain remedies for violation of the franchise. So I think we have Ms. Wren to start us off.

Thank you, Chair and Council. The county has public right-of-ways, and the way we allow private use of the public right-of-ways is through franchise agreements for a variety of telecommunication purposes. And so I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Jonathan Kramer to talk a little bit about this updated franchise agreement under consideration tonight with Comcast for cable services. Thank you.

Good evening, counselors. I'm Dr. Jonathan Kramer. I'm special counsel for the county. I've worked for the county now for a number of years on cable and wireless matters. The fact that you don't see me very often is a testament to your staff's good work. The ordinance before you tonight is... essentially a cable television franchise to allow comcast to continue to provide services using the county's public rights of way and to provide services to the residents in a way that is very well regulated within the body of the ordinance itself this agreement took several years to negotiate because we had a lot to negotiate we wanted to bring this forward as a modern cable franchise We had back and forth with Comcast who had very good representation, who are here joining us electronically tonight. And this is an ordinance that to the extent that we are able to, and I'll explain that in a moment, regulate cable TV. My comment about that to the extent possible is because this is an area where there is a significant amount of federal preemption both at Congress's level and with the FCC. So we have pushed this franchise to the edge of what we believe is legally possible for the county to adopt and maintains strict controls to regulate the service levels to make sure that we have a good performing cable operator. That's the basic introduction to what we're asking you to approve tonight. And I, along with the rest of staff, will be here to answer your specific questions. And Comcast is with us tonight if you have questions for them, of course.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Kramer. So we'll start and see if we have any technical or clarifying questions from councillors. Councilor Rieger?

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So I was kind of wondering about these franchise fees. I thought they were mostly set by federal law and that almost – What is there to negotiate? Because even 5%, I didn't know that was even legal. How did you come up with that number? And why isn't it, I don't know, any other number?

Counselor, the 5% is the maximum that we are allowed to charge by federal law. So we're charging that number because that is... the appropriate number under federal law. There's a lot that we regulate in terms of public safety standards, service standards, and so forth. So it's not just you have the right to come into the right-of-way, but how you come into the right-of-way, the rules that they have to follow to make sure that they're doing it in a safe way that complies with both local local and state law, as well as federal laws. So there is a lot, and that's why the document is multiple, many, many pages long.

But the fee is 5% of gross, which seems high to me, but I think that's federally regulated. So what did we negotiate? What is the issue? Why has this been, I mean, Comcast has been here for a long time, right? This is a renewal.

I don't understand. The original franchise that the county enacted with Comcast, its predecessor, basically, was a document that was appropriate at the time, but many federal laws and FCC regulations have changed in the interim. So this is to bring it up to date. In terms of those things that we wanted to make sure, picking up the correct safety codes, making sure that they have the proper permits and have them going forward, things like that.

I can't imagine there's anything that wasn't in the last contract. It's just the same thing repeated, isn't it?

It's the same general topics, yes, but updated to reflect the current state of the law, the current state of safety codes.

Seems like it. How long has this been expired?

Well, it's been in holdover for I don't have the exact length of time. but it's been in hold over while we've been in negotiations with Comcast. Because this is a decades-long agreement, we were not trying to get this done quickly. We were trying to get this done right so that this would be a document that would last the test of time for the coming franchise period.

So how long is this new contract then? 20 years. 20 years. And when did the last one end? Does anybody know?

Council, I can speak to that. This is Julianne Ferris with the New Mexico Comcast team. The previous franchise agreement expired in August of 2020.

August of what? 2020. August of 2020? Is that what you said?

Yes, August of 2020.

Thank you. So it's been underway for six years to get this done?

I can't speak to the length of the negotiations. I've been participating for the last couple of years.

So is there any significant difference from anything we did before? It's still the same fee, isn't it? What's changed? Is it the percentage?

The basic fees are the operational rules so that they're required to give us reports. They're required to comply with the current safety codes. We've expanded the safety codes that they're required to comply with. We've made some changes to public access. We have, as I've said before, we've basically taken what was a old document that was not at the time it expired consistent with federal and state law, and we've made it consistent with federal and state law and the most current safety codes now.

Okay. Well, I don't know if that's satisfactory, but that's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Rieger. Do we have any other questions from other councilors? So, We do have franchise agreements with other, I guess, communication providers, call it that. Is that correct?

We have an agreement with a not cable provider, a internet service provider. Yes. It's a different type of agreement. The services provided under that agreement are different from the ones that are provided under the Comcast agreement.

Right. Okay. So there's no way of judging the fees or whatever, because they're not comparable kinds of contracts or services?

This is very different than LA net.

Yeah. Okay. Then I was interested in the, so there, maybe it's in the new agreement. This is the difference. So I think that there is a public educational and government access channel Whereas currently we have one public access, is that, or am I misunderstanding what we have available to us currently? Could that be clarified? Because you said there was one, there was a difference in that category of the agreement.

Yeah, let me get to it. I'm working with one screen because I'm actually not at my desk at the moment. And this is going to be in section...

I just, I can't do that either here because I have to bring a different screen to get the, I could help you with the section.

It's section nine, basically. Let me go to section nine, which is on page 30, starts on page 32 of the proposed agreement. Almost there. So under Section 9, Comcast will continue to provide a public, an educational, and a government access channel. That's at no charge to the county. Well, there is the cost of pay, which is against the franchise fees. but the updated rules for the access channel are in Section 9 of the agreement. We've also ensured that, and this is new from the last time, that the technical quality of the PEG channels be no lower than the quality of over-the-air broadcast stations. That's been a problem, not necessarily in Comcast, but in some cable operators where PEG access quality has been hopeful at best. So this is an area where we've tightened up the specs to make sure that the pig access channel is comparable quality to over-the-air broadcast.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

You're welcome.

Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions. Do you want to make a comment? No. after the motion or you want me to go ahead before the motion?

Um, just that, um, I noted the date on the ordinance is like may 19th instead of today's date. And, uh, and then section 2.3 in, um, the franchise agreement has blanks and it just will need to be updated once it's approved. If it's approved.

Okay. And I think it's for 10 years. Yeah, this one is for 10 years. Thank you. Okay. It's not 20 years. Okay. So it's for 10 years.

Yeah.

Okay. So the blanks would be completed. That's not. And so the date will just be corrected when it's signed. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct, 2.3. We left that blank because that's based on your decision tonight as to whether to accept this and then its effective date.

Okay. So I think it's because we continued the hearing. So I think that that's why that date's there. So it's technically we're still two weeks ago for this item. Yeah, I'd forgotten about that. Legally, I guess. That's okay.

Chair, counselors, yes, we'll make the edit on the ordinance document itself if it does pass, and then the effective date will be 30 days post-adoption publication, and then we will enter that into the franchise agreement prior to signatures.

Yeah, so it'll be six weeks or so, if it passes. Okay, thank you for that comment. Let's see if there's any public comment on this item. Not seeing anyone present. Is there anybody online this round?

If you're online and you'd like to comment on this item, please raise your hand. No hands, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Is there a councillor interested in making a motion on this item? Council call.

Quick question. Do I need to mention the date change in the motion?

No, we will make that effective so that the document is correct.

Okay. I move that council adopt incorporated County of Los Alamos ordinance number 754, an ordinance granting a cable franchise to Comcast of Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Washington, LLC to construct, operate, and maintain a cable system in the public rights of way. and to provide cable service within the incorporated County of Los Alamos, establishing the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement and establishing certain remedies for the violation of the franchise and ask staff to assure that it's published as provided in the County charter.

Do we have a second?

Second.

So we have motion by Councillor Cole, second by Councillor Neal Clinton. Do we have any discussion? Councillor Rickers, you want to make a comment?

Well, I guess, I mean, there's no discussion of arrears. So I guess they've been making all the payments along the way. So why are we even voting on this? Is there any tangible change in the contract that we're even doing anything with it? I mean, just, I don't follow it. Why are we, they're complying with the previous contract. It's the same as the new one. You have me a little bit puzzled why we do this exercise. But we'll see what other counselors think.

Okay. Does anyone else have comments?

I heard several answers indicating a lot of changes with the new franchise agreement. So I think it's past time to update it, obviously, since the current one expired in 2020. So I plan to vote for this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Council Member Clinton. I think it would just honestly be a comment in that it was a contract. Contracts expire. It's a service. Contracts were in place for services. Granted, it expired, what, 2010, but there's also a clause within the contract that states that they can still work within these parameters until you renew it. The fact that we brought it current is smart because now we're not having to deal with all the things that weren't there before. And because of the languaging, we all know the contracts are in place for a reason. So that's my comment.

Okay. I think we heard enough about there are differences and It's been expired for almost six years, so I think it's time to have a contract that reflects an agreement, a franchise agreement, not a contract that reflects the current law. So anyway, let's see. I think we want to call the roll then.

Councillor Havlitt?

Yes.

Councillor Reddy?

Yes.

Counselor Hand? Yes. Counselor Cole?

Yes.

Counselor Rieger?

Yes.

Counselor Herman? Yes. And Counselor Neal-Clinton?

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, let the record show that the motion passes unanimously. So thank you, Dr. Kramer and Ms. Ferris for being here. Good evening and goodbye. Goodbye. Okay, now we're on to... the second of five public hearings. The next one is item 10B, CO0745-26B. It's Incorporated County Los Alamos Code Ordinance number 02379, an ordinance amending Chapter 40, Article 3, Sections 40-151 and 40-152 of the Code of the Incorporated County Los Alamos pertaining to gas service rates. So we have Ms. Gentry here.

Good evening, Counsel. Thank you. Yeah, I have a presentation. Thank you. Good evening. I'm here to bring the gas ordinance 023802. You guys, this was introduced back on May 19th in council. The next page. Okay, so based on a... That's the water. I'm sorry. I didn't catch that. So that's the introduction.

So I think you go down a little bit.

There we go. Thank you. Sorry about that. So I'm actually bringing the gas ordinance 02379. This was brought as an introduction back on May 19th. So the gas rate consists of three components. So we have a monthly service charge. We have a fixed charge per therm. And then we have a variable charge, which is the cost of gas. It's a pass-through rate. And we have an agreement with NMEA. And we get a discount of 0.0586 per therm. On the next page, it shows our gas rate calculation worksheet. I know it's a little small, but this is our monthly calculation for the cost of gas. This is posted monthly on our website. On the third column from your left, you'll see the NMEA adjustment. Back in December of 2024, the discount was 0.153. And in May of 2025, it increased to 0.0586 per therm. So on the next slide, this shows our gas customer base, and this is based on a five-year average. So in the top half, we have the number of gas customers per type, which includes our residential in Los Alamos, the number in Los Alamos and White Rock. our commercial, our county, and our schools. And then the bottom graph shows the number of meters per size. So we have some small meters, which is the larger amount of meters we have out there. We have the large meters. The difference is the 250 CFS or less is on the small meters and then greater on the larger meters. This graph is showing our consumption. The blue is our budgeted amount that we budgeted each of those fiscal years, and the orange is our actual consumption per term. We have a trend line. It's a little harder to see, but it's that orange dotted line, and you'll see that our consumption has been decreasing since fiscal year 2021. The next slide we're getting to our proposed rates so for residential multifamily or commercial. From. 26th till July 1st of 2026, we're showing a 9% increase in our service charge for our small meters. And then in July of 27, also another 9% in that monthly service cost. And the same is for the large meters. It's 9% from right now and after July 1st, 2026, and then another 9% after July 1st, 2027. Then the fixed charge is, the fixed charge covers, we have like our O&M and capital. And so we're showing that right now our fixed charge is set at 34 cents per therm. We're looking at increasing that to 48 cents and then in 27, 58 cents. That increase from June of 26 to July is about 41%. And then in July of 27, 21%. The bottom graph is showing our county and schools. The difference there is the fixed charge from $0.30 to $0.43 to $0.53. And historically, it's about a 5% difference. And that is generally because of the revenue transfer for the gas that we bring every year during budget hearings. And we don't pay the revenue transfer on county and schools. So next slide. So this slide has a little bit of information. So on the right side is showing historical and protected typical monthly bills for our residential customers. We put this in our budget, so this might look a little familiar. When we looked at over the last five years, we have determined that our average customer terms is 70 in prior to this year we were using 75 terms to do our typical calculation. So we've dropped that to 70 terms which you'll see in the blue box on the on the left hand side, there's 2 typical bills for the cost for gas. The top one shows the average 70 therms per customer, and that's assuming that we have a 42 cents per therm for a variable. The bottom one is showing the average customer uses about 126 therms during the winter in December through February. So that's showing the calculation with the 126 therms. and the typical bill. So it's about a 17% increase from now and after July and July 1 of 26. And then after July 1 of 27, it's about 11% increase with the blended costs of the different variable fixed and service charge. The next page shows our 10-year financial forecast. With these current proposed rates, we're expected to restore our gas funds cash flow to a sustainable level. It also will fund our essential repairs, replacements, operations, and fund the long-term cash reserves. In fiscal year 28, well, the 27% that you're seeing in 27 is blended with all the different variables that go into the gas rate. And then in 28, we're looking at a 5% increase. And then moving forward from 29 through 36, it's a 3%. With these projections, we're... looking at in FY29 to hit a positive cash flow. So you'll notice in FY27 and 28, we do have negative cash flow for this fund. And we could start funding our cash reserves in FY30. And we're expecting to fully fund our cash reserves in FY32 based on these projections. So our next slide is showing our 10-year forecast with all the information from the previous slide. You'll see that the blocks for each fiscal year shows our operation maintenance expenses and interdepartmental charges, our capital improvement projects, cash balance. I'm sorry. the revenue transfer, and then our cost of gas. And it doesn't increase much. Most of those are general like 3% adders each year for those expenses. And then if you notice the red line that kind of starts low on the left-hand side, increases and you'll notice it starts pretty low because we're starting FY27 with a negative cash balance. And so we're hoping to build that up with our projections. Our next slide is showing our neighboring communities. So each section is the number of therms sold. So we have 50, 75, 100, and 150 therms. The blue is our current rate. The red is the proposed 27, and the green is the proposed 28 rate. And then the blue line is ZN Natural Gas Company, and the purple line is New Mexico Gas Company. We serve about 8,200 customers here in Los Alamos County. ZN Natural Gas Company services about 38,000 customers, and New Mexico Gas Company services serves about 540,000 customers over 27 counties of the 33 here in New Mexico. So their rates are, they serve several more customers than we do. To kind of go over our different rates, which I think I kind of forgot. Juan, could you go back to the second page, I think? Right after the title. That one, one more up. Thank you. So just to go over how our gas, the different components of our gas rate. The monthly service charge is covering our IDCs and our finance and administration costs within the Department of Public Utilities. Our fixed charge per therm is covering our expenses that include salaries, benefits, operation and maintenance, and our debt. And then obviously the cost of gas is the cost of gas that we pay for the month. So that I just, I forgot to say that earlier. I apologize. So that is the end of my presentation and I will stand for any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Entry. Are there any technical or clarifying questions from council? So the,

I know you showed an average number of customers. Has our customer base remained pretty constant or has it changed quite a bit over time? Do you know?

The number of customers? I think it's staying pretty constant. We've had some, a little growth with some of the apartments that have been built that have had gas service added, but it has not been a significant amount.

Okay. And then like, You know, you show that gas consumption is trending down, but on the 10-year projection, we're assuming pretty much steady consumption. Is that just to be conservative? I mean, why not continue to show the same downward trend?

Well, at the time when we created the budget, we looked at the past five years and we calculated our sales of therms based on the past five years at 6.8 million therms. And so we did keep it consistent over the next 10 years at this time.

Okay. And then our climate action plan wants folks to basically get off of gas. We want to encourage that. And maybe some of the downward trend we're seeing is folks doing what we're hoping for them to do. But I mean, I got to agree with the comment we heard earlier. It's like you're being penalized because what's not changing is the fixed rate. the fixed charge is actually going up. Are we doing anything to try and project how we can adjust that fixed charge over time? Maybe 10 years is not enough time to do that. But at some point, If we want folks to get off of gas, hopefully we can start seeing fewer people actually working in the Department of Public Utilities on gas and we'll see fewer capital projects and our O&M costs going down. I don't know how you figure that out, but at some point those things should start to go down. And I don't know if anybody has a magic ball back there to project that, but it is frustrating, I know, for customers who have cut back and just see the costs continue to grow because fewer people are using gas. Go ahead.

Yes, Chair, Councilor Cull. We had an inspection by the Public Regulatory Commission, and they actually asked for additional reporting, monitoring, O&M type activities. And a year and a half ago, we added a dedicated supervisor to manage that. And that has, when we did our projections years ago, but I When the last rate increase was implemented, we didn't know that information. This now includes that enhanced staffing. And unfortunately, it's not a scale issue. It's you have a system, you have to do this type of activity, and it takes time to do it. I wish I had better news on that, but it's difficult because the regulations only increase. They haven't decreased.

So what would happen if we didn't approve the rate increases?

The fund would continue to be in the negative. Which means... We'd have to at least cancel any capital improvement. And then maybe if that continues much longer, we may end up in violation with the public regulatory commission for not completing required inspections.

I'll ask this question because since we show our two neighboring gas companies, could they provide our gas?

No.

no it's not a different they have designated service areas our service area is the county of los alamos so okay thank you thank you council call uh any other counseling how much of an increase has come about as a result of families struggling to pay for their utilities have you noticed an increase in the requests

No, we have not seen an increase from the previous winter to this last winter. It's been pretty steady. So no, we have not.

Is it possible for you to include within the mailers and the flyers that that help is available?

We do. We send information about UAP prior to the winter in our mailing. And anytime a customer calls, we do offer, you know, utility assistance. They If they choose, they can fill out the application. It's a pretty simple process. We do have three components to our UAP. So we have our winter assistance, which is income-based. We have our year-round assistance, which is our population of 65 and over qualify or those who are in Social Security. And then we have our one-time assistance, which can help up to $350 one time. If they have unforeseen expenses, like their car breaks down or something like that, they can apply for that as well. So we do have several options for people to get help. And then we also do refer out to the different organizations around town, like Self-Help, LA Cares, and then there's the LAWHEAP program that's available right now through the state of New Mexico.

Well, my heart just went out to the previous person who spoke. I know that many people are struggling. And contrary to popular belief, we're not moneybags and we are very cognizant about what we spend. And at the same time, the reality is that everything is costing more. So other than promoting what other people sources or resources are available, is there anything else that you can think of that we could do to publicize what is available for people who are struggling?

No, but I mean, we can definitely work with our public relations and try to get more outreach out. Also, just we are looking at increasing the minimax for our utility assistance program. And when we do calculate this next winter's assistance, we are going to also, because it's based on their previous winter usage, so we're also going to look at increasing that by the rate so that they also get an additional assistance to help cover some of this cost as well through our UAP assistance program. So I took that to the board last week, I believe, and we'll be taking for approval on that in July. Okay. Yes.

All right. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions?

So I'm looking at, it's a little hard to tell from all the numbers here, but I think isn't the cost of natural gas from nationally, I don't know about the San Juan index or whatever, but it's generally been trending down this year. So we're actually paying less for natural gas per unit as a County, right?

Yes, Chair Reidy, Councilor Rieger, the cost of gas has been trending down over this last six-month period. This year compared to previous years. Right, and then we post every month what the commodity costs will be. It's very reasonable right now. Now as winter, and then we do see changes in costs when If we get a hot summer, natural gas electricity, you know, or electricity supplied through natural gas sometimes increases the demand for the commodity, and then the price will elevate. So it's based on what various demands are. Primarily right now, with oil prices elevated, natural gas is waste byproduct, essentially. Some regions in Texas have negative prices. Our San Juan area is very low, but we're not in the Permian Basin that has that negative pricing. But right now, it's due to oil prices elevated as they extract oil.

natural gas is a byproduct there's a surplus kind of a matter of much of it and prices are down and i'm puzzled that our retail rate has to go up at the same time and that is that doesn't make sense to a lot of citizens either right and we went through a period of this before with a recovery rate and this is when the commodities went above the The price we paid spiked, and that's why we had a recovery.

Right. In this case, we didn't sell a typical year. It was 20%, 30% less at times, so it didn't cover our operation costs. That's how we ran into the deficit this year. It had nothing to do with the price of the commodity. We just weren't earning enough revenues.

But if we're running out on kind of a compensation basis, then we should be lowering our rates when all the rates around us are going down.

I think the increase you will see if the commodities of gas remains low will offset what we're collecting on the operation and administration part.

So if you believe your story about, you know, we're sunsetting natural gas, then this is what you expected to happen. Why are we maintaining a surplus fund when we're supposedly phasing it out?

We don't have a surplus fund. We're at a deficit.

You're talking about building up, raising the rates to build up the maintenance.

Well, we do have to maintain the reserves. So should we have another warm winter, we have a way to maintain our operations. So there's a point where we need to have some reserves. And that's what was presented by Joanne to rebuild it. We can't be in negative.

Okay. No, I think you're not quite explaining it in a way that's satisfactory, but I'll go on for right now. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Rieger. Do you have any other?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I am curious, these cash reserve targets, I think I saw that they range from two and a half million to just over 3 million. depending on the year, what are those a percentage of?

So the cash reserves, there's different, there's, I believe it's five components to it. So there's operations reserve, there's a contingency reserve, capital reserve, debt reserve, and rate stabilization reserves. So there's different and so each one has a different kind of calculation based on what it's for. So like operations reserve off the top of my head is supposed to be at 180 days of our operations expense with a floor of like 90 days. I think the capital is like 2.5% of our depreciation that's in our books. The debt is basically any debt that we have for that fund. The next year we have to be sure we have that to cover rate stabilization. Most of our funds don't have a lot of rate stabilization, but that's to try to offset some of these costs. I can't remember what the other one is.

That's okay. That helps me. I couldn't make the math work on the spreadsheet. It doesn't seem like it's a percentage of anything.

Right.

But it's a summation of a number of things. Exactly. Based on having a certain number of a time period where you're covered. Right. When things hit the fan, et cetera.

Exactly.

Okay. And that fund that we want to have, it's similar to our overall general fund budget, I think, when we want to have an unassigned reserve fund. um, balance kind of a, for rainy days or a plunge in revenues and we still have fixed costs. So like with in DPU, you have fixed costs to, to, um, operate a utility system and a service to our 8,000 and something addresses meters. Um, and, And a couple of things are at play here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've got huge volatility in the natural gas pricing market. It's been all over the map just since I've been on council. And we have reduced demand when temperatures are higher in the winter. But we budgeted for a higher demand based on past year's weather and temperature and usage and load. We have reduced demand, hopefully, as Councillor Cole mentioned, because of people making changes in their lifestyle to conserve energy and or electrify or some combination. And we have inflation, which raises operating costs and just prices increase even without high inflation just over time, right? And... We decided as a strategic goal, we wanted to recruit and retain good employees. So that's part, that's a factor. When you look at fixed costs, a lot of it is salaries and benefits of our employees who we receive good accolades for doing good service. And then the other factor is that we can't fall, just by the charter, we can't fall behind in this industry. um, in this fund. We can't like steal from the water fund or the electricity fund if they've got a buffer to offset deficits in the gas fund. Is that all correct?

Yes, that is all correct.

And so the problem we have is that, um, people are feeling the pinch and it's hard to swallow a huge percentage increase, um, And at the risk of sounding dismissive, to me, and others might disagree with my perspective on this, but the percentage increase sounds really high. But when you look at it in terms of dollars, it might feel a lot higher. It could be to some families, we could be talking $1,000 a year. And then to others, it might not feel like more than a few cups of coffee a month. And that's tough when it comes to equity. I appreciate Councillor Neill Clinton's questions about the assistance fund, but from at least maybe it's just because I pay attention a lot, but I feel like it's promoted a ton. I think it's in the county line newsletter every Friday and in the inserts and the utility bill mailing and on the website, et cetera. But people don't always find out about things. So I think just being as aggressive as possible because people could be hurting. The is, is, is there a way to consider only considering a rate increase for this next fiscal year? And holding on the FY 28? increase? It did that get beat up to death at beep at the Board of Public Utilities meetings? Was that given much consideration?

uh, care, uh, counselor having been, uh, the board of public utilities, we looked at three different alternatives. Um, we, we, as staff proposed the two year increase the last time we did this, we did it over four years. So we wanted to tighten the time period. Essentially, we're on a schedule where we do every other year. So inevitably next year we'll have electric and wastewater increases to consider. And then the following year, you know, two years from now, we'll reconsider gas. And, you know, if revenues are up, you know, obviously we can make adjustments at that time. But we did not consider just a one year.

And that is true. Adjustments could be made, right? Because you're also not supposed to hold a big old piggy bank of money.

And that's something we can come back and make adjustments to rates a year from now if needed.

Has that ever happened before?

Not to my knowledge, no. Okay. But it's possible.

Okay. On the calculation worksheet, that big spreadsheet with all the columns, why are the cost labels estimated? when really they're for past prior years. I was just wondering about that when I was trying to figure out some of these things.

I don't do the calculation for this. My business operations manager does. So I don't have an answer.

Like on columns three and four, you know, it says estimated, even though we're talking about 2024 and

versus actual? It's probably because the last number on the sheet is estimated. That's what was inputted into the rate. So when you do the variable cost of gas, we project what's there on the index. And we publish on the seventh of the month. And we look at what we collected in revenues from the prior month. and estimate what we're going to charge for the next month. So we never make a profit or overcollect, but it's always an estimate. And it's plus or minus all the time. If you go down the column, I think we show periods. You say prior month cost adjustment based on rate of therm. And you'll see there's negative times, there's negative numbers, and that's where it's reimbursing into the projected rate. And then we estimate going forward. Now, you'll see the lowest number we charge now is 11 cents. And that's due to the charter. We have to charge a compensatory rate. That happens to be the lowest gas ever was in our period of history. Now... In theory, if gas remains really low for a long time, we could overcollect. But typically that gets made up very quickly once the heating season starts because the price elevates. And we're never in that situation of overcollecting for very long. But you'll see in our last thing for April and May, we're at the minimum of 11 cents. So that's why it's estimated. It gets made back up.

Okay, that makes sense. Can you please refresh our memory what NMEA stands for, that acronym?

Oh, New Mexico. Did we write it all out? Oh, you didn't. Okay.

Or just give us the gist of what that is, who that is. They're giving us basically five cents a third discount.

You know, we went through the renewal agreement about a year ago. And it's an authority. The members are the city of Farmington, Las Cruces, and Los Alamos. And it's a way that they can do some prepay, do some loans, and then we benefit from that discount and get revenues at just under six cents a therm. So that's an offset. Prior... The last agreement was only three cents. So it's, you know, we've improved in that area. And that's primarily because the spread between public financing and private equity financing, that's where that money's made up in that spread.

I remember that now. Thank you. And it's Farmington because they're another municipal run utility. And Las Cruces. As is Las Cruces. Okay. All right. Well, other questions have been answered and you did in your presentation. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Councilwoman Clinton, did you have some questions?

I do. I just have one. We alluded briefly to what could happen if we go into the negative. Worst case scenario, what would that look like? if we don't approve this adjustment? Will there be hellfire, brimstone, earthquakes?

You bet $2 million, mate.

So looking at our 10-year forecast, I mean, we are projected to start FY27 at a negative $1.7 million. So we're looking at starting in a couple of months with about a $2 million deficit in that range. So not increasing. It's either going to stay at that level or get larger.

And then as a result of that happening, what's the cascade?

Well, I think, like Philo explained, we'd have to cut all capital projects and not meet certain requirements that were required to have testing and those kind of things.

And then what would the penalty be if we were not able to conclude or begin or complete that testing? I know that's unfathomable because we've never done it. Just play with me.

Okay. I'll just say typically in the industry, they can have $5,000 a day type penalties if you don't comply with something that's a... $5,000 a day?

Yes.

Okay. And I've seen EPA penalties $25,000 a day, so it varies. But that's not the best way to do business, though.

True, true. I just wanted to be able to put an image to what that looked like. Thank you, both.

Thank you, Councillor Neill-Clinton. Okay, so I had a few questions. I guess I'd like to first ask clarification about the geographic scope. Because I had heard from somebody that Mexico gas used to provide gas to White Rock. Is that not the case?

That's a while ago. I'm not aware of that. I've lived on White Rock my whole life. I don't.

You never heard about, you never got a bill from Mexico Gas Company? Because I had heard that they used to get gas from Mexico Gas Company. So is that spatial scale set by the?

Chair, I think the confusion is New Mexico gas is a high pressure gas distribution. They bring the line into Llano and the county. Yeah. Okay, well... That's our supplier, distribution supplier. They distribute.

Okay, but is it the PRC that determines that we're not eligible to be either Zia or New Mexico Gas Company, or is it... There's nothing in our charter. I know we provide gas, but is there something that prevents us from being... Because it sounds like some of this is an economy of scale, but I don't know that New Mexico Gas wants to purchase... an asset that's got negative $1.7 million. So it's more a hypothetical question because it seems like their costs are lower. And I guess when we show that to people, because I know for other utilities, we don't see that. So I think that shunts something and maybe a communication thing or to figure out what the delta is between like our system and our number of customers as to why. Because when we show that, it just seems like that's a little bit striking given that The one presentation you're going to show on water doesn't show that. And we're not talking about water tonight. So I just wanted to get some clarification on that, if possible. Let's see. So another thing that was in there alludes to something else we might be discussing a little bit later having to do with the, and it was mentioned about compensatory. So the rate, so it's the, is it both the service charge and the per term rate? So we have the variable rate, right? The three components. So the profit, I'll call it profit, not revenue, because that's what it kind of is. The profit that's charged the 5%, is that on all the components or on just the per term price? Because that's what you showed in your table was that, so those are 5% different because it's the, That's the revenue slash profit.

It's based off our revenue. So it's all of the components.

Each component has 5%. Okay. Yes. And so the other thing in your presentation indicated there was maybe a trivial number of, like this building would be one. I'm not sure how many meters are on this building, and there might be a large meter. So do you know anything about the consumption of gas at county and school facilities compared to the whole rest of the county. So the residences and the commercials, you know what, roughly what fraction that is?

Not offhand. Okay. I'm sorry.

So we can't hazard a guess as to what that is, but it's not zero. It's something. And so we don't charge ourself profit.

No.

Yeah. Okay.

No, we don't.

Okay. Um, Let's see. So you talked a lot about the assistance program, but I always question, I mean, if it would be possible to figure out a way just to not charge people as much to begin with. So people that are using less, they start out now, they have to use even less to pay what they were paying. So I'm not sure I mean, I guess it's not fair, but I have a reaction to somebody saying I keep my house at 60. What do I have to keep it at to now compensate for this increase? So I guess maybe that's a comment. I shouldn't be asking you that question. So the other thing that your table did show was, yeah, these last increases, and it was a good question about are they ever decreased? And I think Hypothetically, yes, but in practice, we don't because things cost more. So the bill was around $200 a month when I started on council. And so it's projected to be with less therms, like 70 versus 75. So now we're talking apples and oranges, right? So maybe people are using less, but it's like 380, right? Isn't that the number we're looking at for the fiscal year after next and that's without the other increases you're talking about right so there there's other increases that are coming down the line because you said every two years we're looking at increases so we're going to have other increases so is it the case that we're going to be looking at a utility bill that's double basically i'm sorry between so so it was 2018 right that was the first year you had in the table And it was $200.

Yeah, $198 approximately.

Yeah, about $200. And then it was about $200. And then it was a little bit more. And now we're looking at something that's approaching $400 with five fewer terms.

It's calculating at about $320. But then the next year, what is it? $342. Yeah.

So maybe I'm exaggerating about doubling. But I think for most people, if you're living paycheck to paycheck... that's basically doubling, right? So I understand all the comments about utilities assistance program, but people are going to be reticent to want to have to apply for that. They're going to feel like, well, why, you know, there's a stigma associated with trying to do that. So let's see. Well, I mean, I guess I'll just say now, so these will be the ninth and the 10th utility increases that I've had to vote on since I've been on council. So that's what's collecting that bill, I think. I mean, those are the numbers. Maybe it's what it is, but it's tough. So this is certainly not an easy decision, but that's a comment. So anyway, let's see, nobody else had any questions. Let's see if there's any public comment. Okay, not seeing anybody. Like we have somebody coming up, maybe make comments. Just state your name and we'll get the timer up for you.

Okay. I'm Lisa Shin. I'm at 637 47th Street. So I'm just really troubled by the proposed rate increase. I kind of feel like you talk about affordable housing on one hand, and then on the other hand, You keep making life unaffordable for our middle and working class. And our community, especially our small business owners, we really depend on a strong middle and working class. And I keep hearing from these people that they're telling me they can't afford to live in Los Alamos anymore and they have to move. The rates are going up. They can't afford to own a home. I really feel like it's kind of unworkable and unrealistic and intrusive and really cost prohibitive for many households to be forced to convert from gas to electric. And I really appreciate Chair Reedy's comment that why not keep the costs low to begin with rather than raise them and then offer the county assistance. And I'm also concerned about this assistance because, like many county programs, many people just don't qualify for the assistance. They're in that middle tier where they make too much to qualify for assistance, but they're not, you know, they're stuck in the middle. And there are many families in our town that actually make a pretty good income. They make like $80,000. 90,000, but they have a lot of expenses and maybe a lot of debt, a lot of costs. So a utility bill increase is going to cause a lot of financial strain on the families. So I also question the $1.7 million deficit. I think about, I don't know how we got there. Are things being mismanaged? And as a business owner, I'm just kind of wondering how in the world you keep operating year to year in deficits. And this is after you passed a $350 million annual budget for our county, which is crazy high compared to other communities. So anyway, those are my thoughts, and I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Dr. Hinn. We have anyone else here who wants to make a public comment? Okay. Is there Mr. Brielle or is anybody online?

If you're online and you'd like to make a comment on this item, please raise your hand. Not seeing any chair.

Okay, so is there a councillor that's interested in making a motion? Councillor Neill-Clinton?

This is I'm I support this but I agree that this is just a really hard move and move the council adopt incorporated County of Los Alamos code ordinance number 02 hyphen 3, 7, 9, an ordinance amending chapter 40 article 3 sections for 0 hyphen 1, 5, 1, and 40 hyphen 1, 5, 2, of the Code of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos pertaining to gas service rates and ask staff to assure that it is published in summary form.

Okay, thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

So we have a motion by Councilwoman Clinton, second by Councillor Call. Do we have any discussion? Councillor Rieger?

Yeah, I think we need a more comprehensive long-term plan out of the utilities department for what is going to go with all of this stuff. I know that all our gas costs are going down, and somehow or another, we need a rate increase. When gas was expensive, we had to raise rates, and then when gas is going down, we still have to raise rates. So I'm thinking there's probably a better explanation of all of this, and we certainly should not approve it unless it's been you know explained more completely thank you okay thank you council reader

Just an additional comment. When I think, again, this is an extremely hard decision to make, and our finance department has kept us above water by doing these 10-year projections, winning multiple awards, keeping us solvent. So I just think that we need to recognize that this is not an easy decision, and we It's not taken lightly. And again, our finance department is doing everything within their power to keep us solvent.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I don't see any other comments, but... So I'm not gonna support this tonight. I would like to see, have looked at a one-year option. I mean, like I said, I've been voting on rate increases more than once a year on average. So I don't think it's inappropriate for council to be looking at this more. I understand where we are on the deficit, but the fact that this is for two years, I could understand the one year to try to recover some funds, but I can't support the two-year at this point. So I'm not going to support the motion. So can the clerk please call the roll?

Councillor Cole? Yes. Councillor Rieger?

No.

Councillor Hand? Yes.

No.

Counselor Haveman?

Yes.

Counselor Herman?

No.

Counselor Neal-Clinton?

Yes.

Counselor Reidy?

No.

Motion does not pass three to four.

Okay, so the motion failed. with counselors, Reidy, Rieger, Hand, and Herman in opposition. Is that correct? Okay. So I believe that's it for tonight. Yeah.

Would it make sense to consider a new motion where we have an increase for the first year, FY27? I think we need to get the way it was published. Maybe that wasn't introduced, so maybe that's not really feasible.

It wasn't published with one year, so I don't know.

That's a motion to reconsider, and it has to be made by one of the people who are on the winning side.

No, I think it's a different ordinance because it wouldn't have the second year in it. Ms. Waits, is that correct?

Chair, counselors, it would not be a motion to reconsider. And the way the charter is worded is that the rates have to come from BPU for you to consider it. So even if you wanted to make changes, You can't vote on that unless it's recommended by BPU. If you wanted to take further action at a different meeting once publicly noticed to give BPU some direction and take action on that, then it could go back to BPU. But you cannot change the rates without their recommendation.

Right. Yeah. So there's a process involved. So we're done for now. Okay. I think with that, we're going to take a recess.

Hmm.

So we're on to item 10C, OR1130-26B. It's Incorporated County, Los Alamos, Ordinance Number 755. An ordinance proposing amendment to Article 3, Section 305, Subsection 305.4, the Charter of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos to be submitted to the electorate for adoption or rejection. General election on November 3rd, 2026 pertaining to standing boards and commissions and ad hoc advisory committees. So we have Ms. Madison listed as being the presenter on this one.

Thank you, Chair, Council. This item, as you recall, Council has been discussing possible changes to the charter over the past several months. And this will be the first item that Council has to ask for staff to bring back this ordinance to make this change or to have this change go before the electorate, just to clarify. So this ordinance would make the change that it would go from two terms possible for your boards and commissions and ad hoc committees to three terms in succession. And again, if this ordinance is passed, what it does is it sets in motion for the question to go before the electorate. It would be part of the general election. And so we're working under that time frame. We have some time until about August. But that would kind of set this in motion if this ordinance would be adopted. So with that, I'd stand for questions.

OK. I think it was . So are there any technical or clarifying questions on the ordinance or the process? Not seeing any. Can I see if there's any public comment on this ordinance to put a question before the electorate for this change? Okay, not seeing anybody present in chambers. Mr. Real, can you look online?

If you're online and you'd like to make a public comment on this item, please raise your hand.

Not seeing anything, Chair. Okay, so is there a councilor interested in making a motion? Yeah, you raise your hand first.

I move that council adopt Incorporated County of Los Alamos Ordinance Number 755, an ordinance proposing amendment to Article 3, Section 305, Subsection 305.4 of the Charter of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos to be submitted to the electorate for adoption or rejection at a general election on November 3rd, 2026. pertaining to standing boards and commissions and ad hoc advisory committees and ask the staff to assure that it is published as provided in the county charter.

Second.

Okay. I think I heard Councillor Neill-Clinton first. Yes. Correct. So we have a motion by Councillor Cole, second by Councillor Neill-Clinton. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Herman? Counselor Haveman? Sorry, yes. And also yes. Counselor Cole? Yes. Counselor Rigor?

Yes.

Counselor Neal-Clinton? Yes. Counselor Wrighty?

Yes.

Counselor Hunt? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to the fourth of five public hearings. 10DRE0684-26, Incorporated County, Los Alamos, Resolution No. 2611, Proclamation Imposing... Restrictions and limiting use of fireworks during severe drought conditions. So we have our fire chief.

Chair, councillors, thanks for hearing this tonight. Fire Marshal Cordoba extends his apologies for not being here. I'll speak on his behalf. And of course, if you need expertise, we've got Van Limer, our wildland chief as well. I will break this down. Nine, whereas... into a couple of comments for this proclamation imposing restrictions and limiting the use of fireworks. If you approve this tonight, it will meet the requirements of the New Mexico Fireworks Licensing and Safety Act, both in content and in timeframes. It expects that we will have looked at a National Weather Service map and that we're either in severe or extreme drought conditions, which the county of Los Alamos is, what you all have is an older map. The newer net map, which would have been issued on June 4th, shows the entire county is in severe drought. We also included a map that has the fire predictions, fire severity ratings, which expect If a fire happens, it could be severe that's issued by the Interagency Fire Center. This is recommended by our fire marshal. It works in conjunction with stage two restrictions that he put into place on March 28th. And it also works in conjunction with the executive order that the governor issued, which was included in your packet. I'm happy to answer any questions. And like I said, have Chief Limer here to do the same if you have any.

Okay, thank you, Chief. Do we have any technical or clarifying questions on the resolution? Councillor Edmund?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Chief.

So I think I read that this would be in effect for 30 days, so that would go through, I believe, June 27th. Is that correct?

Chair, Councillor, I actually think it would be effective today, which would mean it would go 30 days from June 9th, which would be July 9th.

Oh, I don't know. I don't know where I started my math then. Okay, so this goes through the July 4th, because that was my follow up question. Okay, that's a big difference. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Any other questions? So then it's clear that, so I think the fireworks are not going to be happening then, right?

Chair, Councillors, if If you approve this, then that is correct. That's the consequence. Okay.

Councilor Cullen. So why is this needed if we're in stage two fire restrictions? I mean, aren't fireworks banned in stage two?

Yeah. Chair, Councilor, that's a good question. It reinforces what we put into place with stage two is that it works in conjunction with what the governor put out as an executive order. And it also works to restrict sale, which is not built into stage two restrictions.

Okay. Thank you.

I can cancel call. Okay. Not seeing any other questions. See if there's any public comment on this item. I'm seeing anyone present. Mr. Al, can you look online for us?

Chair Reidy, I'm not seeing any public, their hands raised.

Okay. Is there a councillor making a motion? Councilor Cole.

I move that council adopt Incorporated County of Los Alamos Resolution Number 26-11, a proclamation imposing restrictions and limiting the use of fireworks during severe drought conditions.

Second. That sounded like Councilor Hand. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So motion by Councilor Cole, second by Councilor Hand. Is there any discussion? I'm not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Councillor Neill-Clayton?

Yes.

Councillor Hand? Yes. Councillor Herman? Yes. Councillor Reidy?

Yes.

Councillor Rieger?

Yes.

Councillor Haveman? Yes. Councillor Cole? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So thank you for being here, waiting around for the item. So the last public hearing is 10E, RE-0688-26. It'll be Incorporated County Resolution No. 26-10, declaring the official intent of Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, to reimburse itself from bond proceeds for amounts advanced to pay costs of construction of certain projects of the county, stating the maximum principal amount of bonds expected to be issued and estimating the expenditures to be reimbursed from the proceeds of bonds and authorizing incidental action. We have Mrs. Dotsie, I think, to give us a little introduction to this.

Good evening, Chair Reiting and Councillors. Resolution 2610 formally declares the county's intent to reimburse itself from future grocery seats tax revenue bond proceeds for eligible expenditures made toward Fire Station 4 construction project prior to the bond issuance. And this is an important compliance step that is required under federal tax regulations for tax-exempt bond financing. Under IRS rules, the county does need an official declaration of intent if we plan to use bond proceeds to pay back construction costs we've already incurred. This ensures transparency and compliance as we progress with fire station for project. As background the county has already initiated site improvements and construction for fire station for and as a result we have incurred eligible capital expenditures that qualify for reimbursement so the resolution establishes the following key financial parameters. The county plans to issue up to 35 million dollars in bonds In late September or early October, the county does expect to reimburse approximately $8 million in project costs, and the reimbursable expenditures will come from capital improvement fund account CP1009, which is where the Fire Station 4 project is currently budgeted. And finally, it is important to note that all reimbursable costs are capital expenditures directly associated with the construction of Fire Station 4 project. And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Dutsey. So do we have any technical or clarifying questions on this resolution? Okay, not seeing any. Make sure I look online too. Okay, so is there any public comment on this item? Not seeing anyone here. Mr. Rell, can you look online?

Not seeing any online either, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Is there a counselor interested in making a motion on this item? Counselor Nicklinton?

I move that council adopt Incorporated County of Los Alamos Resolution Number 26-10, a resolution declaring the official intent of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico to reimburse itself from bond proceeds for amounts advanced to pay cost of construction of certain projects of the county, stating the maximum principal amount of the bonds expected to be issued and estimating the expenditures to be reimbursed from proceeds of the bonds and authorizing incidental action. Second.

Okay. So we have a motion by Councillor Neill, one second by Councillor Call. Is there any discussion on this item? Okay, not seeing anyone. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Neal-Clinton? Yes. Counselor Hand? Yes. Counselor Herman? Yes. Counselor Reidy?

Yes.

Counselor Regor?

Yes.

Counselor Haberman?

Yes.

Counselor Cole?

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to item 11, which is business. 11A is AGR 1206-26. So it's consideration and possible award of bid number 26-22 in the amount of $2,023,166.50 plus applicable brokerage tax to HO Construction Incorporated for the Finch Street Extension Project and establish a project budget in the amount of $2,720,000. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair, members of council. Thank you for having us tonight. We're here tonight to request your approval, as mentioned, of the construction award for the Finch Street Extension Project. A little bit of project background is this effort began in 2019 when former county manager Harry Burgess and John Whiteside, CEO at the time of the Los Alamos Medical Center, initiated discussions about improving traffic safety around the medical center. Those conversations grew into a collaborative effort between county public work staff, Los Alamos Medical Center, NMDOT, and our design engineers to develop a plan that enhanced safety along the Trinity Drive corridor and the LAMC driveway. To give you a little bit of background as to the timeline that occurred during the life of this project is in FY22, Council programmed capital improvement project funding for design and construction for the project. The following year, in August of 2023, Council approved a development and conveyance agreement transferring approximately 17,000 square feet of LAMC property to the county to occur upon award of a construction contract. In exchange, the county agreed to make necessary improvements to the impacted portions of the medical center parking lot. The next month in September of 2023, staff held a public meeting in conjunction with our transportation board to gather community input. August 2025, Council approved an amendment to the original agreement following an updated appraisal for the property that we were acquiring. And then in April 2026 of this year, we advertised the project for bids. We received five responses and we're now recommending award to the low bidder, which was HO Construction Incorporated. A little bit of project details is the project relocates the LAMC driveway farther east at a safer distance from Diamond Drive and consolidates it with Finch Street, which will be extended west from its current terminus near 35th Street in front of the Hills Apartments. This configuration improves safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists and strengthens connectivity to the Hills Apartments, as well as future developments along 35th Street. It also increases redundancy for emergency services to the hospital. If approved tonight, we will issue the notice of award this week. Substantial completion is scheduled for December 4th of this year with final completion at the end of December of this year. Through construction staff will work closely with LAMC, local businesses and nearby residents to minimize disruptions, coordinate traffic control and issue weekly public updates. Funding for the project is fully budgeted, including approximately $2.4 million from capital improvements project fund and $281,000 in state shared revenue funds for a total project budget of $2.72 million. We respectfully request Council's approval to award construction contract to H.O. Construction enabling the transfer of LAMC property and the beginning of construction. I thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Kubler. Are there any technical or clarifying questions? Councillor Cole?

Well, I agree moving the entrance down from Diamond a little bit further east probably does improve safety. I just don't understand how adding another exit from that parking lot and allowing people to try to turn left onto Diamond, I mean onto Trinity, enhances safety. Can you explain that to me?

Sure. Yeah, I can. Thank you, Chair and Councillor Call. During the early stages of this project, we were working closely with DOT during that process. We did safety analysis within that area, crash studies to determine if there had been kind of concentrations of crashes within the driveways, and there were no noticeable trends in that area. In addition, we did a traffic analysis that had to get approved by DOT that would look at the chips coming out of the hospital as well as potential chips being generated from the Hills Apartments. There were no concerns from DOT at that time, and with no traffic, I mean, no crash data that was really pointing to any sort of issues. We didn't anticipate anything increasing safety concerns in that area. If anything, it would be decreasing by moving that driveway further from Diamond Drive where there's a lot more conflict points.

So why not just have people exit from 35th Street where we've already got a road? I think it's 35th, right?

Thank you. Yes, thank you, Councillor Cole. You're right, it is 35th Street. In discussions with the hospital, it was really requested and noted, and I think they even came to either council or T-Board to mention that they did need that extra entrance point for emergency services. And so if anything, I think we're providing a secondary emergency entrance by giving them two routes through here, which is actually something that they desired as part of that collaborative effort that we made with them. And so I think having that secondary ingress and egress for the emergency vehicles was something that they desired and we didn't anticipate that it would cause any additional issues given the traffic analysis.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cole. Do we have any other technical or clarifying questions? Councillor Huffman?

Thank you, Chair. If this is approved tonight and the bid is awarded this week and it's estimated to be completed in December, when do you anticipate construction beginning? And if you said that and I missed it, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, Councillor.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how long the construction period will be. Because that's going to be chaotic, it feels like.

Mayor Mrakas, yeah Thank you counselor have them, and that is a good question, but it. Mayor Mrakas, We I think it's far enough down kind of from other Trinity work and things that we shouldn't see any overspill that was kind of one of our concerns is we're going to have two projects on Trinity. Mayor Mrakas, 95% of the work is going to be off of Trinity drive and it's going to be kind of behind the hospital. And so it won't really be until they make that final construction push to create that right turn decel lane that we would anticipate some impacts to traffic along Trinity Drive. Um, we currently have the construction phasing in such a way that we've minimized in, um, impacts to the traveling public. And we've also worked closely with the hospital to make sure that at all times, there's an ingress in an egress. One of the driveways is open and nothing's fully closed up. So I think we've done a lot of our kind of due diligence to prepare for this project. And, um, you know, like any project we're ready and willing to make changes as needed during construction.

Thank you. And then another question has to do with like pedestrian lanes. If you end up going with, I think maybe a thought that's been out there, I think with T Board maybe and staff for a bike island to come out of the road from the ice rink, over by that stoplight, by the bridge, by the hospital, by the old ugly lab building, right? I'm not talking about that area. If that happens and then bikes then, so they kind of go to the island and then they can emerge either to go straight on to Diamond or they can kind of veer east and stay on Trinity, this'll take into account all the bike pedestrian traffic safety measures, correct? Yes, thank you. And would any of that be messed up on this little island concept I was just mentioning?

Thank you Council have been no I don't anticipate any issues right now it's currently a shared condition around that on that right turn lane for bikes and be a vehicle traffic to share and then once it passes the driveway, it's going to will enter the bike lane. We are in introducing green pavement markings in front of the hospital driveways in order to enhance safety for bicyclists who are have now moved out of that kind of shared lane into their own bike lane. So that should create, I think we've anticipated that that's going to be kind of a transition point for bicyclists. And hopefully with the increased markings and signage, it should be a safe kind of and smooth movement from Diamond over to Trinity.

Great. And I'm kind of hoping that this will help enhance that safety for pedestrians and cyclists potentially. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilor Robin. Any other questions? So is the main entrance for emergency vehicles West Road? Or is it currently the current parking lot entrance?

Chair, well, we've heard from the hospital and this was you know, a year or so ago, they said they are using, I think, the entrance on Trinity Drive. Okay. I think it kind of depends on where they're coming from. If they're coming from the Omega Bridge area, I think they're coming in that back way. But if they're coming in off of Trinity, they're using the driveway that we're now relocating.

Okay. And then, but with the relocation, they may be using West Road more, don't we think? Because they'll be going through a parking lot full of people Because it doesn't look like it's just like a regular aisle between the lanes of parking, right?

Yes, so basically the way it's going to work is, I think there's a map attached, but if they enter in through the newly located driveway, there will be a drive aisle that will take them back where they normally would have come in on the old driveway and then they can continue straight into the into the emergency bay or whatever it is called. So yeah, that's it there. One of the things that you'll note on that, that I'd like to note on that map is you'll see some of the hatching of that striped area within that kind of median. We left it that way at the request of the hospital who they bring in both emergency vehicles as well as delivery vehicles through there and any sort of raised median or any sort of obstacles in that area could potentially what was an issue for them. So that was why we blocked out a lot of the parking right in that area where it's hatched. And that was in response to helping them have that emergency and delivery access.

Okay. And then there's a dashed and dotted line at one end. So this project, when it's complete, Finch Street will go all the way around to 35th. Is that right?

That's correct.

Yeah. So they're You just, it isn't there yet, right?

That's correct. Right now, 35th Street terminates at the Hill Apartments, basically.

Right, okay. Okay, not seeing any other questions. Is there any public comment on this item? Okay, not seeing one. Mr. Riel, can you check on the line for us? Not seeing any hands, Chair. Hal Hallstein, Okay, is there a counselor interested in making a motion on this.

Hal Hallstein, counselor admin. Thank you, Chair. I move that Council award bid number 26-22 in the amount of $2,023,166.50 plus applicable gross disease tax to HO Construction Incorporated for the Finch Street Extension Project and establish a project budget in the amount of $2,720,000. Do you have a second? Second. Okay, thank you.

So we have a motion by Councillor Hammond, seconded by Councillor Neill-Clinton. Do we have any comments on this? Councillor Cole?

I voted against this from the beginning. I hope that you guys can prove me wrong and that I'm not coming back and saying I told you so.

Okay. Well, I think I've been here since you tried starting this. So it would be nice to see this completed before the end of the year. So my perspective. So I, so can I put these call the roll?

Councillor Reddy?

Yes.

Councillor Regor?

Yes.

Councillor Hand? Yes. Councillor Cole?

No.

Councillor Haverman?

Yes.

Councillor Neill-Clinton?

No.

Councillor Herman? Yes. Motion passes 5-2.

Okay, the motion passes 5-2 with Councillors Cole and Danielle Clinton in opposition. Okay, so I thank Mr. O'Leary. So the next item is 11B-21206-26. So it's the approval of the Department of Energy slash Los Alamos County Electric Resource Pool Budget for fiscal years 2027 and 2028. And we have Mr. Shelton.

Yes, and I think Ben Ulbrich will join me soon. So before you, tonight's a... a budget that we vetted based on projections of energy needs. And the laboratory has a consultant that reviewed all this information. Then we did projections on cost of purchase power. And when you collectively put that together, form a 24-month budget. And We also are working on our energy coordination agreement. So when you look at this 24 month budget, we only have the, till the end of July right now under contract, but we're assuming everything proceeds forward as planned. So this budget assumes there's no lapse in the agreement and things continue on over the next couple of years. We do this annually and So obviously it can be adjusted from year to year, but this is based on the best information we have. So it's a budget, you know, and so it's, you know, not the actuals. So I think based on the review in the past, We've had LANL overestimate their needs for power. We feel that this has been tightened up pretty good to be more realistic on what we think they need over the next two years in this budget. So I think I'd stand for questions from that.

Okay. Mr. Shelton, do we have any technical or clarifying questions? about this full budget.

Councilor Cole? So this is kind of a stopgap while we're still trying to do the ECA?

No. The problem we have with our budget process is we do our budgeting, we start basically January 1st. The federal budget is October 1st, and ours is July 1st. So we have this gap in time of when everything aligns. And so it doesn't affect what we put in the budget for our two-year budget projection, but this follows what load and resources we need to bring to the table as well as the cost to acquire those through the power pool.

Thank you. Thank you, Council. Do we have any other questions? Councilor Rieger?

I'm just a little confused by the number, like the LAC forecast is the same as LANL. They're both about 50,000 megawatt hours. Why are they, ours should be a lot smaller.

Right. It's, we, when we budget in here, it's combined as a Los Alamos power pool, that's LANL and LAC together.

And I'm not sure what you're looking at with the tables, but see just the first page of the presentation. Loads and research sources FY 27. And it says LAPP load is 49. And then the lab is 49. And then the LAC is 45. And I can't see how that's adding up. It's those are it's not adding up or something. What are you showing us in this?

Those are things. I have to get, I don't have it in front of me. Sorry. Oh, okay.

It's just the first page in the table. Yeah.

I don't have it loaded on my, can we put that up for everybody?

And you can do the same thing in the 28, that page two is the same. Um, you're showing some sum and then a sub budget or something. I can't figure it out.

Yeah.

So why are the, the load of the LAPP is equal to LANL and there's, but then the LAC load number is way too big, but they don't add up anyway. So I'm a little puzzled. Let me, And ours can't be that close to LANL. No, we're not close. We're a small fraction of theirs. And then the same is on the next page, all the other 28. I haven't gone any further. You can't explain it, Tom.

Not at this second here. Unfortunately, I left my glasses at my desk, so I can't even see that up there.

I can read the computer, but I'm sorry. I wonder where the numbers are. You see like the total load LAPP and then LANL are equal. All the numbers just reproduce. I can't figure. There has to be a county load, but it is smaller, but And then the county load numbers are too big. I can't follow any of it. Unless you changed units somewhere.

Yes, okay.

I got it up where I can read it now. So, yeah, so you see LANL load forecast for the power pool and then Los Alamos forecast. That's what we did, independent, brought them together, and we went with the lower of the two. That's what lap load is. It's collectively together on that first forecast.

Oh, these are forecasts from their staff compared to county staff.

And our staff, yes. And then you took the bigger of the two numbers? No, the smaller of the two. As I was mentioning, we tried to tighten it because they usually increased the projections in the past. So we tried to tighten it up.

You're taking the larger of the two?

No, the smaller of the two. You'll see in orange the number that we carried. That's below. The 47501.

Well, you can look at... Well, then in 28, you're not doing the same thing. Go back, go one page down.

Right.

59... You're, that's a bigger number than all of them.

You did the numbers, so you better. He's asking about why is it 59 on orange?

Is orange like a sum or that's an upper limit you're guessing at? It's a guessed upper limit. Projected upper limit?

So there, Chair, Councilor Rieger, There are a number of calculations that went in here. So a lot of this information in this top section is comparative. We look at what the Los Alamos Power Pool through LANL. They do their own load forecast. We do our own independent load forecast. that you'll see here the LANL load forecast for the pool. That's the first line there. That's what LANL estimated. We did our own independent estimate of and we got those numbers highlighted and we said yeah they're close enough and we'll use the the LANL's estimates. The bottom one is a reference from the high-end case if we didn't if we made certain assumptions based upon the past. So that was there for reference. Don't pay too much attention to it. It's really for our internal tracking purposes. It gives us a basis for establishing if the values above are reasonable or not, if that makes sense. It's like a high-end case to see if we're in context.

Oh, a high-end case. I can understand that, sure.

Yeah, so it really doesn't go into any other calculations. It's just there as a reference point.

In some cases, you just take the big LANL number. In other cases, you kind of... Sort of. Average them together and add something in. We could. Take the biggest and add something to it.

Yes. So historically, the laboratory has been, in many cases, hopeful about what sorts of projects they'll have. And they anticipate certain loads for whatever projects they have, which may or may not get funded. we have recognized that happens historically, and so we're aware of that, and we try to take our best estimate to make sure that while they have these estimates, they need to be reasonable for the county, because we're the one taking the risk and going out and procuring energy. We don't want to be oversupplied and put ourselves at the risk of having to resell excess power. So that's why we're doing these calculations at the top, just as a

To establish what you actually want to buy.

Yes, exactly. And what's reasonable. All right. Thank you. I apologize for the long explanation, but there's a lot that goes into these.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions after that additional information? So basically we're approving the forecast and you're just showing us how you're going to cover it, right?

Right. That's part of our defined process for establishing what our needs are, what the generation is going to be to meet those loads, and what the estimated cost of those resources will be.

Okay. So we see the Buxtail Flats coming in. next year, at the end of the year, right, the last quarter.

The very tail end of FY27.

Yeah, the last quarter of next year.

And then full capacity in FY28.

Right, with the battery storage starts then the following year. OK, so looks like it makes sense now. So thank you for all that. Let's see if we have any public comment. Not seeing anyone here. Is there anyone online that would like to make a comment? Chair, I'm not seeing anyone online. Okay, is there a councilor interested in making a motion on this one? Councilor Neal-Clinton?

I move that council approve the two 2027 hybrid 2028 electric resource pool budget as presented.

Do I have a second? Second. Okay, so we have a motion by Councilor Neal-Clinton, second by Councilor Call. Is there any discussion? Okay, not seeing any discussion. Can the clerk please call the roll?

Counselor Rigor?

Yes.

Counselor Cole?

Yes.

Counselor Haviman?

Yes.

Counselor Herman? Yes. Counselor Wrighty?

Yes.

Counselor Neal-Clinton?

Yes.

Counselor Hand? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Okay, let the record show the motion passes unanimously. So now we're on to 11C, which is item, I was trying to pay attention to the time. So actually we're at 9.05. I'm not sure, I think we'll try to keep going. Let's see how efficient we can be with the next items. 11C, 21584-26. discussion and possible action of the council charter review of electric profit, review of utilities profit transfer, council procedures for filling partial terms of elected officials, and party affiliation requirements for board and commissions. So I think it's the presenter would be the members of the working group.

So, Councilor Culler, do you want to? Yeah, so the working group that was to review potential charter changes went back and did another look at the charter and came up with three areas for discussion tonight. The first one has to do with Section 305.3, the composition of standing boards and commissions. It currently reads no more than a simple majority of the voting members of any standing board or commission shall be members of the same political party. Some of the comments that go along with that is that Board and commission members might feel that they need to appoint someone who is potentially less qualified just because of party affiliation, or they might need to leave a position vacant because they can't find a qualified candidate of the correct party. Most boards and commissions are strictly advisory, except for planning and zoning board of public utilities and the personnel board. and then final decisions are made by council anyway. So chapter eight, the county code could also be modified to encourage party balance when achievable. We didn't go back and look at chapter eight, but that's something that could be a secondary action if we agree to kind of this recommended change. The recommended change to Section 305, the previous statement, would be something like, no more than a simple majority of the voting members of Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Public Utilities, or Personnel Board shall be members of the same political party. Basically, meaning that any other board or commission could have, the political party won't matter on the membership. That's the first item. I think we should have some discussion on that.

On each one. Yep. Makes sense. Okay. So we have council other, I guess, people that weren't on counselors that weren't on the working group. I have any feedback on the recommended change.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, counselor Cole. Thanks to the working group for getting things started with this. Um, Is this question part only or is this comment part? It can be either.

I think we're just having, we're doing it, we're trying to be more efficient with this one. Yeah, okay, thank you. It's after nine o'clock, so we can try to get to the point here.

Yep. I'm... I'm inclined to agree with making no change regarding filling of vacancies, like for the clerk, assessor, and sheriff. And I'm inclined to... We're not up to that one yet. Or do you want to just stick with the first one? Yeah. Okay, let's stick to that because I was going to build up to that. I'm inclined to say we... don't need to consider party affiliation for any of our boards or commissions. I think the goal should always be to get the most qualified and we want to get the most applicants as possible. And we have an interview panel comprised of a knowledgeable expert staff person, a counselor, who's the liaison to that board and a board member who's usually the board chair. And I think that planning and zoning has really struggled with having a full commission and party affiliation is one of the reasons for that. I'm hard pressed to think how much it really matters for personnel board Although I could imagine some of the arguments for that. Utilities board, five people. Man, that's such an important job and it's a five-year term. with no compensation. I, I just think that we limit ourselves when we, when we try to say it has to be so many of certain party. And I think what we force people to do then is change party affiliation, do a DTS, you know, decline to state or declares independent so they can kind of get in. So I'm, I'm inclined to say we should, not make any exceptions for neither boards and just do away with party affiliation requirements. Thank you.

Okay.

Any other thoughts?

In the state of our current administration, I think it's imperative that we keep that we know who is voting which way. I happen to have been one of those people who was independent for pretty much all of my life and chose to be a Democrat in order to run. So I think, especially when it comes to local offices, it's imperative that we know kind of where everybody stands.

Okay. So, Council Member, you were on the, you want to make a comment too?

Yeah, I'll just, the discussion we had with the committee was that I think that if you remove the party rule, it'll run away with itself because the chair will invite their friends to come and apply for the board spot. And eventually it'll just turn into a homogeneous block of people that are all thinking kind of the same way. And I think, although people won't agree with me, like there was an example with some of the task forces, we had the carbon action plan task force. And I think people here love the carbon action plan, except for me. But, you know, in the end, I think there are a lot of impractical things in it. that are gonna be a real burden down the road. And questions should have been asked during the process, critical questions. And there was no one there who was asking tough questions as that was put together. And now it's County policy and was almost unmodified by the council. And so I think boards and commissions that are not balanced can, and even, still a majority of one party, but if they're not balanced, there's no one there even asking hard questions of, uh, of the remainder. You can make it, you know, very difficult to come up with good decisions. So I think, and now people here love the carbon action plan, but in general, I think could have asked a lot of tough questions about natural gas and things like that. And that those turn into decisions and can be very difficult for, uh, um, for various people in the county, highly inflationary, for example. So I think that this could really spread and cause problems throughout the government. It's just the majority can be one party, but not past that. So you have to have people around offering other opinions so you can function. So that was the argument I made with everybody, but I think it was... why it wasn't part of the motion we put through to put it on the vote. We really were concerned about term limits. Everybody agreed that was a problem, I think. But no, these other items, I think they kind of stalled for reasons. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member. So let me say that, again, the boards and commissions are both strictly advisory with the exception of planning and zoning board of public utilities and the personnel board, everything that they create or propose or whatever comes to council for final decision. So that's where discussions on climate action plan and other things like that can occur. Typically you're not going to see a whole lot of political intrusion into what the boards and commissions do. And in fact, you don't see a whole lot of it even at the council level, but you do see some. And you might see it on some of the advisory committees as well, depending on the topic. But again, if they're advisory, those decisions come to council typically for any kind of approval. So although we weren't in agreement necessarily on the working group, generally speaking. I think there's three options here. One is keep it the way it is. The next is get rid of the statement altogether. And the third would be what is shown as a recommended change.

Okay, thank you. And basically, so we're just saying this is something the voters might consider. So the voters could consider, you know, making it less, I mean, so Only for those exceptions, basically, where political party is part of the required balance, right? Right. So I don't know. I haven't made up my mind on this one yet, but I think that there's merit to eliminating it. I know that we've had comments from... some words where, you know, they just don't feel like it's, it's relevant. So when other people think it's a good circuit for some other perspective, but I think what you want to have is people with different perspectives and does having no more than a majority of a party help with that. So that is recruiting people that, represent lots of different perspectives for different boards. So I'm very much in favor of that, but that's no way to enforce that in the charter or anywhere else. So, okay, so that makes sense with the discussion. And then we can look at this. So we'll just take them individually when we come. We'll discuss them all, and then we'll have public comment, see if there's any public comment in any of them. So let's discuss all three of them, and then we'll come back to see about motion on each one individually.

So we were asked to look at Section 504, rates and charges. The fourth sentence currently reads, the Department of Utilities shall be operated on a compensatory basis. And again, the working group wasn't really sure what change was being looked for in this statement. First of all, we asked, I mean, is this even a true statement? Section 509, the priority of budgeted expenditures, outlines how funds will be expended in the Department of Public Utilities. Number six, though, states that all remaining operating profits shall be transferred to the county general fund. And I don't know if it's the term profits that is a concern here and if that's what the proposed change might be. I know we've had some discussion about do we call it a profit or not. I mean, one way to fix that would be to change item six to say any remaining funds rather than profit shall be transferred to the county general fund.

Okay. Well, I can clarify this one. Yep. I would like to strike item six and just leave it a compensatory.

Oh, to not have any transfer, any remaining.

Yeah, just remove that because everything else is covered. So that's what I was thinking we could look at. And then that's the question for the voters. That was what I was thinking.

If you went that route, then what do we do when, you know, a lot of this is just estimation and when you end up with a little bit of excess revenue, then what do you do with it?

Well, it's just as it was explained today with the spreadsheet. I mean, it goes up and down, but there is no intention to be more than compensatory. You don't generate, whether you call it profit or revenue, you don't generate it intentionally because The rate then, maybe it wouldn't make a big difference, but I think in terms of the comments we got tonight about how can you look someone in the eye and tell them, well, we don't pay that 5% as a county. We don't charge ourselves or we don't charge the schools, which is nice to the schools, but shouldn't every customer that is paying for the infants, the whole point is that it's equitable then. Yeah, it's the intentional 5% part. It's an intentional 5% that isn't, it's not like, so the exception is county and the schools. So when there is excess though, what happens to it? So it would be going to something and then the rates would be adjusted. It'd be like the question, well, maybe the rate would be decreased if you're over collecting, right? That would be So it would be the same, except that in practical purposes, it is the same. Because right now, we have it in the right, but then we give it back. We don't take it. So it's a question, though, for, I think, the voters to decide. It's my mind.

It's a hard one to explain, though, I think.

It might be complicated. But I think it makes a difference to people at some level. There's going to be some difference. at least perception-wise, that were compensatory. And that's, I think, in general, I think in other states, heard from somebody, that you're not allowed to do, you're not allowed to charge profit because basically it's like a tax, right? You should just be taxing somebody if you want to generate revenue. Because, you know, we don't, a lot of other stuff, you know, we have like community services, the golf course, one of the bigger points. So we subsidize the golf course. We're allowed to subsidize that. We can't subsidize the county gas bill, but at least we can make it just compensatory. And then ultimately, they're only paying for what that one through five list is the list of things. It includes a franchise fee. So we do have customers pay a franchise fee, which includes us. We collect it and pay it. The schools in the county pay that. That's in that list. The other, I mean, I can give the other argument for is like, well, we're more like, you know, the shareholders, which we heard a comment almost exactly like that tonight. You're not the shareholders. You represent the people. But if you think of yourself as like a shareholder, then, yeah, you should be generating some revenue. You should generate dividends on the activity because we're taking a risk. But the risk is all inherent in the operations, right? So we need to cover all the expenses. We need to cover the maintenance, all long-term costs. That's in the one through five. So yeah, it might be complicated. I think the other one's complicated too to explain to somebody. Why are these three exceptions to these boards? So the first two are going to be complicated for someone to try to explain. But it doesn't mean that they're not worth considering. But right now, we just have to decide, is it worth proceeding to... the ordinance to potentially put it on the ballot. And then the ballot language has to be created. So, and we're, we're at kind of the, the reason why we had to do this tonight was to get it on the, to get it on the ballot. We don't have much time if we want to consider them or not.

Okay. Well, your explanation helped. I appreciate that. Thank you on the, on the revenue transfer.

That's my perspective. Yeah, sure. That's just one perspective. I mean, there's other, rationales for doing it. Sure. It's been the way we've been doing it, too. So it's been this way in the charter. You could argue that this compensatory only is in conflict with the item six. Right. So, but.

Okay, thank you. Other comments on that section? Okay, so the last one that we looked at was section 911, filling of vacancies. It states that When a vacancy occurs in the elective offices of clerk, assessor, or sheriff, the county council shall appoint a qualified person to fill such office for the remainder of the expired term. We were unclear about why we would want to change that. That statement is consistent with Section 200.4 on vacancies for county councilors, except that 204 says 200.4 says that if a vacancy occurs within 90 calendar days prior to the expiration of the term, no such appointment shall be made. That's for county counselors. There's no such stipulation when it comes to the clerk assessor or sheriff. And the assumption is, well, there's only one clerk assessor or sheriff. So you don't want to leave necessarily any of those positions vacant for anybody extended period of time. 90 days might be considered too long. If you lost one counselor, doing without one counselor for 90 days may not be a big deal. The other option potentially that might be considered here, if you had someone vacate a position for whatever reason early in their term, counsel could request a special election for the vacant position, but that takes... a lot of time and it can be costly. And again, based on those comments, the working group had no changes recommended.

Can I make a comment on this one? Yep. Since this one was mine too. And since I wasn't part of the working group, so that's my fault. So I was looking at how the school board replaces members. So what they, they don't have a special election and they have different schedule, but I can imagine that if it was, and I meant to apply to both vacancies for any elect officials. So the, the sheriff and clerk or probate, those positions and counsel that if that happens within the first calendar year, then you make an appointment for somebody just to serve until the next election. Because the way that there, there will always be an election, a regular election. You don't have to call an election, a special election. You just have, you just go to the next regular election, right? So that you make an appointment and then they serve until the next regular election. That's with you for school board. So when there's a vacancy, there's other rules that they have relating to like the first 30 days or something. But for simplicity, it could just say that there's a vacancy in a position, which there's been within the first year, the person is appointed to fill the remainder or fill until the next regular election. So it isn't a special election. And that's what the, there's language in the state constitution about the school board, that we could borrow for if we wanted to go that direction. Because like I said, it has happened before. And I just feel like, well, then the advantage is the voters, the person fills the position, it's not empty. And then the voters get to decide on the remainder of the term. So somebody has to run to fill. So you can't serve for three years and 11 months. You'd serve for one year and 11 months, but you could run for the position. And then you'd fill the rest of the term. And I think it works fine. So it's a partial term. There could be things in the charter because you can't serve for more than two consecutive terms. But it would be a partial term. And it's being elected to. So you would be elected to a partial term of two years. So I just think it's something that's worth considering that the voters might say, yeah, I would like to be able to pick as opposed to the council filling a position for almost four years, which is what we allow now, because it's like at the other end, like you said, if it's 90 days or less, then we don't bother filling it, which we know practically you can't, there's not much time left. It doesn't make any sense. So I think on the end where there's a lot of time in the term, then, you know, because that would look different with the schedule for Bill A to file, right? If it was the first year, somebody could then know I want to file for this. They can work with the clerk. So we would have to talk to the clerk probably, I don't know, logistically it might be difficult to get the language right, but it just makes sense that I think voters would like the idea of being able to vote for people when they can. And since they do that with school board, there's like a precedent in law where we could find some language. So anyway, that was the rationale I had for considering it.

So, yeah, I can see some complication with that. I mean, if we're talking about clerk, assessor, or sheriff, are you adding county counselors into that as well?

Yeah.

So you potentially could have someone, let's just say someone was to resign from We would appoint someone, but it'd be too late for them to run this fall. So then we're talking two years from now, from this fall.

Maybe I shouldn't even think about this fall. Well, if it was the assessor, they're up for election. So that's not within the first year.

I just worry about the staggering of the terms and how complicated that might get. I mean, if you have someone that, you're now going to elect for the rest of a four-year term, which might only be two years for a counselor. I mean, how do you, I don't know. I mean, I haven't looked at what the school board requirements show, but it seems like it would get complicated.

It could be more complicated, but that was the rationale I had was that we've had this actually happen since I've been on council more than once. So it's something that does happen. So, and I think that, anyway, when I've mentioned this, people say, oh, well, why don't people just, because we have the precedent for the school board. It seems like there would be a way of figuring it out given the timeline we have like today. Probably not. Maybe not, but it's something that could be looked at. Councilor Rieger.

Well, I think going along with Councillor Cull's point is that you could end up with five or six people in the election then, right? Some people running for two-year terms and four-year terms, are they all on the same ballot?

Actually, the schools figure that out.

They're at large? No, they're not at large. They're districting. We're at large, so you would have...

Or three positions up that would be... Yeah, well, there was one partial term and three full terms. So how do you do the at-large election?

Do you have two different ballot spots? How are you doing it?

No, there would be more positions, I think.

I think you could do it. But who gets the two-year position? Who gets the four-year position?

I think he would be filing for the position. He would be filing for the two-year position.

So you have two separate ballot lines. I think, yeah. Running for two-year terms, people running for four-year terms, all on the same ballot. Like side-by-side, council, council. Yeah, I mean...

Anyway, it's... That was the concept, yeah. For other offices, then there's just one person running. But I understand the questions people might have right now. As I said, maybe that was the idea, right? So it would be, I think we're fine with the non-council positions, a matter of figuring out if the council positions you could, because we actually, I think technically with the state, we do, we are assigned a number, even if we're at large. So anyway, we could, I would check with the clerk, you know, and follow up with the clerk later to see, but that was the concept. Councillor Pan, do you want to make a comment?

Yes, I just wanted to say that I think that I agree that if we can get somebody who would normally be appointed to a position on council that they either go into a special election or they're within that election with the other counselors just so people can vote for them at some point in time. You know, just being aware of some of the people that left before their term. You know, I was appointed as a result of somebody leaving early. And then Keith Lepch was also appointed as another counselor leaving. That was in a three-month period where two counselors left. And Some of the feedback that was received is that, you know, the, the public really wants to be able to vote on who fills those seats and not just leave it up to council to vote in somebody through their own interview process. So, um, you know, if we can develop some kind of language, you know, and maybe model it after what the schools are doing, I would support that.

Okay. Thank you, Councilman. I'm not sure we have enough councillors supportive of looking into this.

Oh, I support that. I do. I support what you suggested and what Councillor Han suggested. given the comments and the consideration. I'm curious how it is today. If two, like how Councillor Hammond just said it, when there was that situation where two councillors resigned, well, they didn't probably resign on the exact same day, but is it only the remaining councillors then who get to appoint the new person? The resigning councillor doesn't get to vote in that. Is that right?

Yeah, they've already resigned.

Okay. Okay. So you might have a situation where you only have like six councillors deciding and who's going to represent a town of 19,000 people.

Well, I think it's, there is, there are, the charter includes a scenario where there's not many counselors.

Yeah.

So there's a way to, there's a way to build a council back up from some small number.

Okay.

So the quorum is waived.

I'm interested in pursuing this and I'm, you know, the school board has figured it out. You said it was in the state statute. for all school districts across the state. I'm sure we're not the only community or municipality that's had to face this. There's got to be examples to replicate.

Yeah. Well, the other thing that's unique for the governor actually makes the appointment for commissions. So we're unique in that we get to vote. Other commissions make a recommendation. People apply and they say, oh, here's who we like. And then they make a recommendation to the governor. they get input from the different that's like the legislature we've had that to happen too since i've been i guess i've been on council for a long time so all these different things have happened um but yeah okay so we can so we've had i think some discussion on all of them um so let's see if there's any public comment on any of these items

David Hampton. Chair, righty, councillors, I want to say that I strongly support eliminating the party affiliation for advisory boards and exclude the non-advisory boards, BPU, P&Z, and personnel from this just because, I mean, this is a big change. I don't want to go too far. But two things I want to address are that on one of my boards – Transportation. So just to kind of prove that things don't go crazy out there, that we don't only look at party, we have a four to three, four Republicans and three Democrats. And so a party affiliation hasn't really been used as a test there. And also a Democrat is currently chair of that board. that was elected when we had a four to two Republican majority. So party affiliation is irrelevant on T Board. Another board, ESB, in reference to what another counselor said, we have four Democrats and three declined to state. No Republicans. No Republicans apply to that board. So once again, party affiliation is irrelevant. And I believe that we do have some DTSs that are DTSs mainly so they can... meet party affiliation for that board. So yeah, so for advisory boards, party affiliation doesn't seem to be relevant anymore. So thank you.

Thank you. I think we forgot to get the timer going, just to be fair to people. But that was under three minutes. I know that for certain.

Robert Gibson, speaking as an individual. Mr. Chairman, I'd really like to address the first item and encourage you to leave it as it is. I have to disagree with the previous speaker on that for two reasons. One, a charter sets up a structure of government. And part of a consideration when you're structuring a government is to make it as reasonably robust as one can against abuses. It is certainly possible that a future council, wouldn't say this council would, might try to stack boards along its same political philosophy or party affiliation. We have had individual cases in the past where partisan considerations have certainly come into council consideration of who to appoint. It's been unfortunate because I think we've lost some good people when that's happened, but it does happen. And if it were to happen on a broader scale, we could wind up with a situation that we don't want where boards are stacked with one party or the other. And that's not what you want for advice. The second reason actually may be more practical, a more practical concern. And that is that boards and commissions do serve an informal role, if you will, as a training ground for folks who want to get further involved or decide after serving for a while that they want to get further involved in the leadership of the community. If you have a preponderance of one party versus the other in those training grounds, if you will, you wind up with a pool of candidates eventually that is tilted towards one party or another. We'd like to keep it, I would think, as balanced as possible. I recognize that at times it may be difficult to get a a full house in a given board because of party affiliation. That's one factor. There are others that prevent getting a full house. But I think we ought to keep it as balanced as we can, and this is one mechanism to do that with. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Gibson.

Not seeing anybody else in chambers. Mr. Rao, can you check online?

Ms. Reeder, you are now unmuted.

Good evening, council. I wasn't going to weigh in on this one, but I think I will. I am one who over the years has been a decline to state after watching certain boards not be able to be filled because there were not enough of one party or another to make it balanced. So while I appreciate both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Hampton's points, I'm sort of leaning towards Mr. Hampton, but I'm trying to figure out, is there any possible way where you could have a certain amount of time that would be where a board where board positions would be open. And if they could not be filled, then you had a mechanism for for bypassing the requirement of a balanced party. Anyway, that's my comment on that one. And thank you very much. I think it was reader.

Anyone else? It's real.

Miss Hampton, you're now unmuted. This Hampton, I believe you have to unmute on your end.

I apologize. Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, we have no internet down in White Rock, which is not part of this comment. But anyway, so I'm on my phone. This is Lisa Hampton. I'm currently chair of the Health Council. This is my second year as chair and my third year on the Health Council. We consistently have such difficulty filling our board of 15 members, partly because of this requirement. And I really feel like the I would second Mr. Hampton and Ms. Reeder's comments that party affiliation, especially for this board, is completely irrelevant. We seek to get the most qualified people that can help us in the areas of community health and well-being and basically qualifications in all different areas related to health. And so we right now have three Democrats three Republicans and five people of other parties, but we still have four vacancies. So I would just second what those people were saying in support of eliminating this requirement. Thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Hampton. Do we have anyone else? That's it, Chair. Okay. Thank you. So we have three different John Potter, items up for consideration, so we could. John Potter, I guess guess we could start with the one we just got a comment on so. John Potter, Is there a counselor that wants to make a motion regarding party affiliation of county boards.

John Potter, And so called. I move that council direct the county manager to draft an ordinance to formally propose the following change to the charter. Revise section 305.3 to read no more than a simple majority of the voting members of planning and zoning commission or to public utilities or personnel board shall be members of the same political party.

Second. So I think it was counselor and? No, yes, okay. Okay, so is there any discussion on the, so this is basically what the recommendation was. Should we just call for a vote? That's okay. Can the clerk please call the roll on this? So we're looking at that, those three boards that have more authority to have party affiliation considered.